Web-comments-2001-2100

# SenderID Ref.# Comment Tool Date Comment
WC-2001 WID-2220 470ebffb-6cce-4eb4-907c-15cf89d66256 File Upload 1/11/2008 4:59:00 PM Attachments on separate submissions, named as Attachment 1, Attachment 2, and Attachment 3.

Uploaded File:  Comments on BLM DEIS.doc
WC-2002 WID-2230 W-e5b6a943-e2ff-45c1-89d8-5e2af04afef0 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 5:00:00 PM Please do not cut the old growth forests. They cannot be replaced in our lifetime. It would be a terrible loss for us, and generations to follow, if we lost the old growth trees.
WC-2003 WID-2223 W-0ab86888-4afa-4f59-912b-7570a8bc6b81 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 5:01:00 PM The process involved in the DEIS troubles me greatly. It seems way too political and produces conflicting solutions to management of the federal properties. My greatest concerns involve logging rates, especially old growth. Issues around new roads confuse me. I ride many BLM roads and camp in BLM campgrounds. I believe the existing roads should be maintained prior to building new ones. The DEIS as is stands deserves to be carefully and openly challenged. It does not serve my interests or the long term best management of the properties.
WC-2004 WID-2220 791b1c03-af8f-46ad-8971-bbd17e7cb1c1 File Upload 1/11/2008 5:01:00 PM BPA Comments Attachment 1

Uploaded File:  Attachment 1.doc
WC-2005 WID-2220 787a660e-27b3-4460-be27-15389783eff7 File Upload 1/11/2008 5:02:00 PM BPA Comments Attachment 3

Uploaded File:  Attachment 3.doc
WC-2006 WID-1849 076e4a24-c750-44cd-83c0-2c87198ef217 File Upload 1/11/2008 5:02:00 PM This is a research paper about the importance of stream buffers for aquatic amphibians. There is significant research about the importance of stream buffers have in preserving habitat. Reducing the stream buffer widths would be counter to research. Do not decrease the buffer widths, if anything, they should be increased.

Uploaded File:  The Influence of Timber Harvest on Stream Associated Aquatic Amphibians.pdf
WC-2007 WID-2222 W-240a7e05-66c8-427d-a50a-e4a3bb223bf9 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 5:03:00 PM We need to let BLM open up the forrest for the county economies. Kurt Holm 968-8549
WC-2008 WID-2236 W-1d7f191b-926a-4114-b04c-5f00a16f79f0 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 5:05:00 PM I grew up in Selma, Oregon and I still visit there often. My family has long been involved in the lumber industry, since my Grandfather, Lew Krauss, Sr., began Rough and Ready Lumber Company in Cave Junctions. I watched as more and more regulations were put in place, more and more lawsuits occurred, mills shut down and unemployment went up. Recreational use of these lands has not resulted in enough replacement revenue for these counties as was frequently promised by the environmental community. I believe that as long as good, sustainable harvesting practices are used, it's perfectly possible for multiple use to work in Southern Oregon. The citizens of these counties deserve to be able to work on the land as their parents and grandparents did before them, as long as they use good science and sensible precautions regarding erosion, water quality, etc.
WC-2009 WID-2240 8bf74427-21f7-4217-b214-1cb5bd73895b File Upload 1/11/2008 5:08:00 PM Hello, I brought a hard copy to the BLM office today in Medford (Friday 1/11). They had decided to go home early (I thought government offices were open until 5), and I left it in the door. Please ensure that, via this webform or via the BLM office, my comment is counted. Thank you - Jim Steitz

Uploaded File:  BLM Letter.doc
WC-2010 WID-2239 8bf74427-21f7-4217-b214-1cb5bd73895b File Upload 1/11/2008 5:08:00 PM

Uploaded File:  BLM WOPR comment.doc
WC-2011 WID-2243 8bf74427-21f7-4217-b214-1cb5bd73895b File Upload 1/11/2008 5:08:00 PM

Uploaded File:  BLM WOPR comments Jan 11 08.doc
WC-2012 WID-2240 e06467b3-aad9-4b27-9b66-f433e8a00b90 File Upload 1/11/2008 5:09:00 PM

Uploaded File:  BLM Letter.doc
WC-2013 WID-1849 W-d7e45a77-b3b7-4a16-910e-f9c6c4593049 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 5:10:00 PM The BLM WOPR should not alter the emphasis of habitat preservation that the NW Forest Plan designed. County funding is important to communities, but should not rely on harvesting critical and unique ecosystems. Counties can work through their funding struggles by implementing gas taxes or local sales taxes. The WOPR alternatives that change the NW Forest Plan's directive on habitat and ecosystem preservation should not be altered. The BLM, as STEWARDS of the NW forests should be acting as stewards and preserve the habitat and ecosystem function the forests provide.
WC-2014 WID-2248 dde664c7-afca-4d17-a2cd-758455458169 File Upload 1/11/2008 5:11:00 PM

Uploaded File:  comments on DEIS.pdf
WC-2015 WID-2203 dde664c7-afca-4d17-a2cd-758455458169 File Upload 1/11/2008 5:12:00 PM Please reconsider WOPR!

Uploaded File:  blm.doc
WC-2016 WID-441 dde664c7-afca-4d17-a2cd-758455458169 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 5:12:00 PM As a long time resident of rural Oregon, I support the active management of our forests provided under Alternative 2. Over the last two decades, I have witnessed, particularly in fire prone areas like SW Oregon, federal forests becoming overcrowded and at increasing risk of catastrophic fire. The experts predicting further Global Warming tell us that we will experience even more fire in the coming years. Alternative 2 will protect federal lands and will be a good neighbor, very important given the checkerboard ownership pattern, minimizing wildfire spread onto private lans. Javier Goirigolzarri, CF P. O. Box 237 Roseburg, OR 97470
WC-2017 WID-2220 dde664c7-afca-4d17-a2cd-758455458169 File Upload 1/11/2008 5:13:00 PM BPA Comments Attachment 2

Uploaded File:  Attachment 2.doc
WC-2018 WID-2246 dde664c7-afca-4d17-a2cd-758455458169 File Upload 1/11/2008 5:14:00 PM

Uploaded File:  BLM.txt
WC-2019 WID-2245 W-9f3b45f8-647c-41aa-a8a1-89124bced672 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 5:19:00 PM My family 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 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.
WC-2020 WID-2217 dde664c7-afca-4d17-a2cd-758455458169 File Upload 1/11/2008 5:20:00 PM

Uploaded File:  The Western Oregon Plan Revision.doc
WC-2021 WID-2254 17f520f5-bf9c-449b-91c1-b30c082974e2 File Upload 1/11/2008 5:23:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPR comment.doc
WC-2022 WID-2232 W-8f2ee4fe-4dc1-452c-a9df-8236f6e4cf3d Draft EIS 1/11/2008 5:23:00 PM Dear BLM, I know this is a deeply detailed issue. I thank you all hard work. I also realize that you have years of accumulated knowledge on the BLM and land and resource management. I have awareness from years of paying attention and study of related topics. I do not have a hard copy of this document and the O and C land deal details which I know are relevant to understanding this issue. So, my preferred alternative is to not just cut for short term revanue of our counties. We are clever enough people to figure out complex situations without extracting our native old growth forests. My preferred alternative is to keep stream buffers intact and as far as possible away from any logging operations. My preferred alternative is to value the animals and life that exists within these forests. My preferred alternative thinks ahead seven generations and truly makes decisions with the Creator in mind and the meaning of stewardship. My preferred alternative is to preserve our land and our forests to balance the private lands short term profit decisions. I just figured it out! The drive on the way to the coast has embarassing and shocking clearcut units all of the way. That must be the "privately owned" sectors of the O and C land. Please honor the words, thoughts and desires of the people... ZERO CUT ON NATIVE FORESTS ON PUBLIC LAND! Thank You, Tracy Forest
WC-2023 WID-2252 W-d37994e4-f59d-418f-abe3-5273f5276796 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 5:23:00 PM Dear BLM: We are very concerned that the proposed alternatives in the BLM plans for western oregon will reduce protections to water supplies and fisheries habitats. We favor continuing protections provided by the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, which was an integral component of the Northwest Forest Plan. In approximately 10 years, implementation of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy has resulted in improved conditions on more than half of the watershed affected by the plan. In a review of the effects of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy in western Oregon scientists from the U.S. Forest Service and Trout Unlimited doucmented improved conditions in 64% of watersheds, relative static conditions in 7%, and declines in 28%. These improvements are significant and dramatic because a 10-year period is a rather short time to see watershed-scale improvements and because there were a number of severe wildfires in the region. Maintaining protections to stream and riparian habitats is critical for salmon, steelhead, lamprey, and coastal cutthroat populations. The research is summarized in the following article. Reeves, G.H., J.E. Williams, K.M. Burnett, and K. Gall. 2006. The Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan. Conservation Biology 20:319-329. We 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. Sincerely, Jack and Cindy Williams 4393 Pioneer Road Medford, Oregon 97501
WC-2024 WID-2244 W-1a2a6b57-d80c-46d4-9c42-a1084c8d7457 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 5:25:00 PM After reviewing this draft, my choice is the No Action Alternative. I feel future logging on Bureau of Land Management lands should only include thinning and sanitation selective cuts. The remaining old growth should be left alone- there is very little left! This is a legacy for our future generations. Also at this time, fire, disease, wildlife and plant habitat should be prioritized over timber harvesting- i.e. maximizing profits with old growth logging. Thinning the overstocked monoculture stands of trees should be your number 1 priority, creating jobs and improving forest health.I expect you to carefully consider my comments as I am a civil servant-tax payer and want the forest managed for forest health.
WC-2025 WID-2199 W-6fde7cc5-ef97-48f9-a9b8-fc2c6b09eed0 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 5:26:00 PM Why wouldn't logging the last remnant of an old growth forest be a detrimental environmental consequence.
WC-2026 WID-2199 W-2dbe3f6d-b0da-4e18-a1a8-5f6110fc17b2 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 5:32:00 PM In your anaylsis of timber, there is no mention of the good or bad effects of your plan by alternatives to the trees, only to the bank. Shouldn't you also consider how the plan impacts the health of and preserves the genetic diversity of the trees.
WC-2027 WID-2221 W-e5e99791-271f-45df-9077-c21524f99277 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 5:35:00 PM Of the four alternatives, the "No Action" one is the least damaging to our environment and resources. However it is obvious that there is a bias in the choice of alternatives because the ones other than "No Action" all result in an increase in logging and a decrease in preservation and protection. Why aren't there any alternatives that decrease logging and increase preservation and protection? Is this situation a result of pressure from the logging industry and the Bush administration and caving in by BLM officials?
WC-2028 WID-2213 ba760c4a-9941-4c96-bdd8-b9b11ff1728e File Upload 1/11/2008 5:35:00 PM I find the whole process of public comment to be a sham, in that the BLM website makes it as complicated as possible to submit comments! I think also that many people may be uncomfortable with the personal information that is required in order to make a comment.

Uploaded File:  forests.doc
WC-2029 WID-2204 W-2f3e79f3-e90a-4c73-84da-6b1b399524b0 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 5:36:00 PM I know that there are a lot of people writing about all sorts of environmental issues and hazards to public health and safety concerning wildfires. But we, as the people of this country, would like our voice to be listened to. I wonder if these comments are seriously read and considered because it seems that those in power don't care about the people they're serving unless they have money. What good is power and authority unless it creates some good? If you care, you won't cut down this ancient national treasure and destroy all it's life sustaining beauty for money. Money can't buy back those ancient trees or help the wildlife that lives in those forests and streams. Please just do what's right. There's still time, the trees are still standing. Clearly this has been a move by the administration to pay back the timber lobbyists with a sweatheart settlement. Be patriotic and stand up for us and stop selling out to big money. I hope you heard what I've said, feel the truth of it in you heart and see that this is clearly the wrong path to be taking. Thank you for your time. Oregon is my home and I grew up on coast and got my engineering degree at OSU. Our Old growth forests are very valuable to us and that is why the Northwest Forest Plan was set up to protect these forests. Please care about our forests and wildlife. We do. Thank you for your time.
WC-2030 WID-2256 78ab1347-aa81-4198-b3a2-5d4d694b238b File Upload 1/11/2008 5:40:00 PM

Uploaded File:  NotoWesternOregonPlanRevisions.doc
WC-2031 WID-2231 W-f01854dc-799a-46f1-a62c-5cf806904efd Draft EIS 1/11/2008 5:48:00 PM To whom it may concern @ BLM; I am very concerned about the WOPR. It appears to be a kneejerk reaction to the financial troubles many counties are facing due to timber revenue decline. Where is the scientific evidence for discarding the environmental protection of our Northwest Forest Plan? As an avid bowhunter, I don't totally buy the argument that elk and deer prefer or thrive better in clearcut units. I've hunted elk for 22 seasons, and old growth and big timber units are the place where they seem to consistently reside and go for safety. Ultimately, a mixed forest, instead of a cultured forest is what is appears to work best for thriving elk, deer and bear populations. As an avid salmon fisherman, I also object to the irresponsible clearcutting in prime salmon spawning areas. Please, I'm not speaking out of total heartfelt emotion, I believe I'm speaking logically. As an Oregon resident and former commercial fisherman, I've seen what economic hard times can do. Don't let nearsightedness now, turn into hindsightedness for our children and grandchildren. There are other alternatives. Use them. Revise this plan, using sound scientific thought and evidence. Thank you for your time, Sincerely Bill Koss
WC-2032 WID-2221 W-6eb4762d-e505-4acd-b56c-5d3250c81593 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 5:49:00 PM Socioeconomics The analysis appears to be flawed because only logging is considered. Income from recreation (fishing, hunting, hiking, boating, camping, picnicking) should be included as well. Environmental Justice The statement that there are no adverse human health or environmental consequences is at odds with scientific studies. The aerial spraying of herbicide and pesticide affects people downwind and downstream of the affected areas. Landslides from clear cutting are known hazards.
WC-2033 WID-2254 W-1e84e8a4-a1e5-414a-ac6b-d467429f1a01 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 5:55:00 PM Bureau of Land Management Western Oregon Plan Revisions Office 333 SW 1st Avenue Portland, OR 97208 Dear BLM, I´m very concerned with the Bureau´s proposed approaches to managing federal forest lands under the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. Any of the Alternatives offered by the WOPR Draft EIS would severely undermine the protections of Northwest Forest Plan, result in intrusion into currently roadless areas, dramatically increase logging of heritage forests, further endanger listed species, and rekindle the debates over federal logging practices. Each Alternative, to varying degrees, decreases riparian protection, further threatening water quality and critical habitat for endangered and threatened salmon and steelhead. Each increases logging of stands older than 120 years, thereby eliminating trees that not only serve unique, irreplaceable ecological functions, but also represent our nation´s natural heritage. Each increases the number and magnitude of clearcuts, which will eliminate stand-scale species diversity and genetic diversity, resulting in increased threats from fire, insects, and disease. Each Alternative increases the miles of new logging roads to be built, severely undercutting any economic gain from logging, diminishing water quality, and further limiting areas available for non-motorized recreation. The range of alternatives is not adequate. A new alternative should be created to better protect our natural resources and supply a sustainable level of harvest. This alternative should protect current roadless areas, make stands with trees greater than 100 years old off limits to logging and enroll the remaining acreage within the Forest Stewardship Council Certification Program. This approach would dramatically decrease the public acrimony over BLM forest policies, limit time-consuming and costly lawsuits, and allow the BLM to pursue its federal functions in a more efficient manner. In addition to the specific remarks I have provided, my comments also further incorporate by reference the comments on the WOPR Draft EIS submitted by the Coast Range Association and twenty-three other groups. Sincerely, Jean Jancaitis 933 Almaden St. Eugene, OR 97402 CC: Oregon Congressional Delegation Senator Ron Wyden Senator Gordon Smith Representative Peter DeFazio Representative Greg Walden Representative Earl Blumenhauer Representative Darlene Hooley Representative David Wu
WC-2034 WID-2199 W-946503ab-77ac-4685-8ffa-a76e4634730f Draft EIS 1/11/2008 5:55:00 PM I think it is worth mentioning here too that the trees themselves are worth considering. I had the privilage to install and measure CVS plots on BLM land on these O&C lands, working as a private contractor. One of these plots in the Coquille drainage has the tallest remaining DF trees on earth, as far as I can tell. They will be clearcut in your alternatives, without mention of the consequence. They should be preserved for the future, your plan should do that.
WC-2035 WID-2221 W-9c8cf014-5527-4e08-8d27-c6466dd8cc1d Draft EIS 1/11/2008 5:59:00 PM Wildlife The wildlife in the streams would be adversely affected by the alternatives which reduce the forest buffer along streams. Because creatures that exist in the streams need to be in balance with creatures that exist in the forest along the streams, stress in the forest environment from reduced habitat and chemical spraying will affect the wildlife in the streams, e.g. fish, arthropods, reptiles, etc. With the huge increase in logging that is proposed some species could become seriously threatened. It would be best not to increase logging and reduce the stream buffers, but rather decrease logging and increase the stream buffers.
WC-2036 WID-2199 W-63acde9c-35b2-4dea-910e-17f8a0f4e6e6 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 6:03:00 PM How do you figure that alternative 1, which cuts the stream side buffer in half compared to the no action alternative, would preserve the spotted owl habitat. Wouldn't the reduced stream buffers cause fragmentation and the loss of riparian areas that the spotted owl uses for cover to fly around in, making the spotted owl more at risk to predatory owls and hawks.
WC-2037 WID-2199 W-58e96f16-6f94-4a6e-851f-78ebd01dbd7b Draft EIS 1/11/2008 6:08:00 PM With the loss of stream side buffers, temperature would rise, and fish productivity would decline more than 3%. Where do get 3%?
WC-2038 WID-2267 W-931b0f71-450b-4d74-8875-f36b6699f2ab Draft EIS 1/11/2008 6:14:00 PM Greetings. I am writing to express my FERVENT OPPOSITION to your proposed Western Oregon Plan Revision (WOPR). Given the fact that only 5% of the old-growth forests remain of what once existed in our region, it makes no sense whatsoever to be doing ANY more logging in ANY of our old-growth forests in our country. Indeed, given the fact that, according to Prof. E.O.Wilson of Harvard University, recreation generates approximately 80% of the revenues from our National Forests, all resource extraction from our National Forests should (as he has recommended) be immediately halted. This makes sense both from a biological AND an economic perspective. Given the fact that there are so many species that depend upon old-growth ecosystems for their survival--and the official recognition by the federal government (through the ESA) that several of these species are worth protecting--it simply makes no sense for us to destroy ANY more of their habitat. Arguments in favor of continuing to log old-growth forests on economic grounds also do not make sense. If it is argued that such logging should continue in order to protect jobs for loggers, we should simply retrain loggers in the affected areas to work on restoration projects--replanting trees, decommissioning roads, installing fish-friendly culverts and the like. Besides, how economically sustainable can logging of old-growth forests be if only 5% of such forests are left? If it is argued that income from timber sales is needed to support rural communities then the federal government should simply continue to provide direct payments to those communities, along with focused efforts to redirect their economies in more environmentally sustainable directions (starting with promoting recreation). This makes particular sense given the fact that, as has been well established, the federal government actually LOSES money on timber sales on our public lands--especially now that timber prices are so depressed these days. I therefore urge you to SCRAP your proposed WOPR plan, and replace it with a plan that places a PERMANENT BAN on ALL logging in old-growth forests, redirects logging activities toward sustainable forestry in second- and third-growth forests (starting with FSC certification, although that too needs more work to become truly sustainable), and provides funding to all affected communities to retrain loggers to work full time on forest restoration projects. Thank you for reading this. Dr. Jack Barbash Vashon, WA 98070
WC-2039 WID-2199 W-e822cfd9-c212-4311-9579-e4b9b746eaaa Draft EIS 1/11/2008 6:16:00 PM In my experience, it is cooler along a stream in an old growth forest than in a clearcut. If you have more clearcuts, I would expect the stream temperature to rise. What do you mean by range of natural variability... isn't that glossing over things.
WC-2040 WID-2268 6d4bb056-fad1-4540-a1a4-4dd92b483bcc Draft EIS 1/11/2008 6:17:00 PM To Whom it May Concern: Since one of the main goals of the WOPR appears to be to increase profits from timber sales, there needs to be more consideration regarding long term effects on Oregon's economy as a result of the logging that will take place under the WOPR. The current alternatives go directly against the Northwest Forest Plan's fifth principle, which emphasizes the need to focus on the human and economic dimensions of forest management. The following are specific drawbacks of the WOPR as it is currently written. 1. There is not a sufficient economic assessment to address interests beyond the short-term gains of the timber industry. If the timber stands are not managed carefully (and there is nothing to suggest they would be given past logging exploits and the type of proposed management plan) they will not be available for future harvests which will bring in more revenue. 2. The alternatives will have a detrimental effect on industry and agriculture other than the forest product sector. 3. There could also be significant costs related to mitigation for erosion, water quality, etc. 4. Forests are generally crucial carbon storage. Once the trees are cut, their role shifts from sink to source. 5. The current alternatives proposed in the WOPR would significantly decrease riparian buffer zones. These areas are important habitat for many species and prevent erosion in order to better maintain water quality. 6. The final issue that needs to be addressed in the WOPR is the need for adaptive management. Each of the proposed alternatives planned to use less of an adaptive management strategy than the current plan. Not using an adaptive management plan in a complex forest ecosystem is the beginning of certain failure. A more effective management plan needs to be developed before the WOPR is implemented. The WOPR needs to be redeveloped more carefully with the concerns of others besides the timber industry in mind.
WC-2041 WID-2260 W-4354ec12-e05b-44f5-81a0-adb9fab2d3dd Draft EIS 1/11/2008 6:21:00 PM To whom it may concern, In reading the draft EIS for the WOPR, it seems that the management objectives with regards to timber production (in fulfilling the O & C act) as stated for alternatives 1 through 3, are inconsistent in fulfilling compliance under the ESA, CWA and other legislation. At the very least, alternatives 1 through 3 degrade habitat for endangered species such as the NSO and the marbled murrelet and seem to retard advancements made in buffering of streams from sediment and unnecessarily placing our forests at risk from non-native species of plant (such as Brachipodium sylvaticum). On a personnel note, I've seen the effect that the NWFP has had on coastal communities in OR, and know that the loss in revenue to small salvage operations has financially destroyed some of these communities. However, it is my belief that poor management historically is to blame for much of the dearth in harvestable resources on BLM lands. Having spent much time on these lands, both recreating and performing field experiments on vegetation community structure, I feel that the possible loss of the remaining old growth/ structurally complex stands (such as Wassen Creek area in the Eugene district) is a gamble that cannot be taken. If Southern and Coastal Oregon were not already so heavily logged (albeit on private-FS lands for the most part), perhaps alternatives 1 through 3 would not appear so egregious and detrimental to to the ecology of this fragmented habitat. Thank you for this opportunity to post my opinion and comments and all the best in your decision making. Sincerely, D. M. Maze
WC-2042 WID-2273 a78af679-f9e5-4216-a8fa-6a4f1eced0ff File Upload 1/11/2008 6:25:00 PM

Uploaded File:  The WHOPR plan proposed by the BLM is irrational and irresponsible.doc
WC-2043 WID-2199 W-7abdc22d-ec90-4489-9a66-4b5af8d5184b Draft EIS 1/11/2008 6:28:00 PM When you refer to all four alternatives, the no action alternative doesn't get a number. It's not the fourth. It's not the zeroth. Why? It makes it hard to consider as a valid alternative when it is not given a number like the other alternatives. If the old growth trees are clearcut, wouldn't that change the recreational value adversely.
WC-2044 WID-2271 W-880d3d6c-6321-4f35-9618-6256c70a5952 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 6:29:00 PM I echo the words I have read and the many comments submitted that urge the BLM to refrain from implementing the WORP plan. I strongly support conservation. In light of scientific evidence around global warming--WE NEED OUr BIG TREES. It is not enough to replant--it is not enough to simply "log" anymore--we need to be stewards--responsible stewards and we need to come up with viable solutions--this is not it. I also feel for the wildlife--well someone has to---there seems to be a derth of information on impacts to wildlife--other than the obvious. We continue to encroach on their territory and then have to pay a bounty hunter to go "destroy" them because they are a "problem animal"... In terms of the offroad component--well, I imagine I dont need to say more---other than --For what small number of gas guzzling folks are you working????? Again, I stress the facts about our choking planet (and people and animals and plants and rivers and streams.....) Your plan is flawed. Lets work together, lets come up with a viable, fair, and just plan. Please, hear us and reconsider. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
WC-2045 WID-2275 W-c7bffc6f-9dce-4f0b-adb8-7a5fc7a29476 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 6:30:00 PM Wildlife The wildlife in the streams would be adversely affected by the alternatives which reduce the forest buffer along streams. Because creatures that exist in the streams need to be in balance with creatures that exist in the forest along the streams, stress in the forest environment from reduced habitat and chemical spraying will affect the wildlife in the streams, e.g. fish, arthropods, reptiles, etc. With the huge increase in logging that is proposed some species could become seriously threatened. It would be best not to increase logging and reduce the stream buffers, but rather decrease logging and increase the stream buffers. Comparing the Alternatives Of the four alternatives, the "No Action" one is the least damaging to our environment and resources. However it is obvious that there is a bias in the choice of alternatives because the ones other than "No Action" all result in an increase in logging and a decrease in preservation and protection. Why aren't there any alternatives that decrease logging and increase preservation and protection? Is this situation a result of pressure from the logging industry and the Bush administration and caving in by BLM officials? Socioeconomics The analysis appears to be flawed because only logging is considered. Income from recreation (fishing, hunting, hiking, boating, camping, picnicking) should be included as well. Environmental Justice The statement that there are no adverse human health or environmental consequences is at odds with scientific studies. The aerial spraying of herbicide and pesticide affects people downwind and downstream of the affected areas. Landslides from clear cutting are known hazards.
WC-2046 WID-2264 156e5f7d-3e75-4a17-85c9-1f883e4471ae File Upload 1/11/2008 6:30:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPR comment Peter Reppe.pdf
WC-2047 WID-2276 346bdc50-7558-4fbe-ae43-91e75947f2a3 File Upload 1/11/2008 6:34:00 PM

Uploaded File:  CWP DEIS comments final.pdf
WC-2048 WID-1457 W-1104bcde-bcaf-4b01-8d23-8e964be8fc50 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 6:34:00 PM introducing the SWOPR : Solution Western Oregon Plan ReVisions;;; I recently relocated to Oregon, and am currently seeking employment that meets the purpose and need of a human being. If I could have and fulfill but one one wish, it would be to define a substantive new alternative based on the Real purpose and need. I cry for a Vision to to define a real alternative based on the true Purpose and Need of our perennial forest lands and their management , based on the one true purpose and need that we all share- to live on this planet peaceable together.. An alternative that creates jobs that are good. Timber is old hat. Please recognize the seriousness of this. We need real jobs. Not the kind of jobs that send us half way around the globe to speed the rate of our own death. At best the Western Oregon Plan Revisions would enable me to work in a self-destructive industry, where the bulk of my wages may profit a corporation that is part of the problem, support an inequitable economy that is destroying itself, and ruin myself and the environment all in one wopr-ing blow.. I and would very much like to see a revision plan addressing the true purpose and needs of our forest ecosystems as well as all of its related inhabitants and the possibilities of employment opportunities in helping the Forests rather than helping the timber industry. I call for a SWOPR to swapper with the WOPR and Solve Wage Oppression Publicly Responsibly. Peace Be With You Aho!
WC-2049 WID-2277 2769287d-85a0-4bd0-a592-fb7710e938c3 File Upload 1/11/2008 6:37:00 PM

Uploaded File:  EA BLM WPOR Comments 11Jan08.doc
WC-2050 WID-2278 97a41825-9139-45ea-a021-8f470fcb22ae File Upload 1/11/2008 6:54:00 PM thank you for taking my comments. Kerstin

Uploaded File:  Kerstin.txt
WC-2051 WID-2270 None Web Forum Exit 1/11/2008 6:55:00 PM Not as much detail as I would have hoped. I couldn't tell exactly were I was, even though I know the land well.
WC-2052 WID-2269 W-997209d6-1a04-49bf-8610-28549533816e Draft EIS 1/11/2008 7:00:00 PM I would like to add my voice to those opposing the proposed increased logging in our Western Oregon Forest. As I type this, a spar pole rig sits just above my property line, waiting to set up and finish off what's left of the timber that protects the small creek that runs on to our 11 acre parcel. It's private land owned by Roseboro Lumber Co. so I don't have much say in how they manage their assets (we did ask them not to log down to the creek but they didn't listen). I can only hope that they sell the clearcut to a more responsible owner after they've cashed out the timber. The majority of the timber around here is publically owned and managed by the BLM. They have been logging it like it was a fire sale, in fact I'm surprised there's anything left for them to sell! The gravel & log trucks have been driving past my house like a parade for years. When we go up to Horton pond for a swim in the summer the costal mountains look like Dresden must have in 1945. They are taking everything wether it's on a steep slope or protecting a natural watershed. The road is washing out and the pump chances and beaver ponds have disappeared. Take a spin up Grimes road and see for yourself. The prospect of taking the little that's left, including any remaining old growth, for a short term increase in revenues seems stupid and shortsided. Besides timber prices are at a new low. Has anyone heard of the housing slowdown? Down 50% from last year according to the news this morning! I'll suffer the scar that will be above my home because of the choice I made when I built here. I have no real recourse because I don't own that property. I DO have a say in this decision because we all own the timber in our national forest. Let's think of the future for a change! Please, do not increase the timber harvests in our coast range! Thank you! W.L. Allison
WC-2053 WID-2116 abf7ce80-1768-453c-9e76-ce1cfd4639c3 File Upload 1/11/2008 7:09:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPR - BLM Letter 011108.doc
WC-2054 WID-2285 W-c322f9ac-417f-43b2-9027-6c335452bf6f Draft EIS 1/11/2008 7:10:00 PM I am very concerned about the Preferred BLM Western Oregon Plan Revision and very opposed to its implementation. Public opinion and response has already been counted and explicit years ago regarding the use of science to guide the way for forest planning and land use. Yet this plan as I read it, flies in the face of even the most recent scientific studies regarding riparian areas, the protection of Ancient Forests and habitat protection, and all the while increasing logging and disruption in the most sensitive areas, not even protecting rivers and streams, fish populations or other forest life. With the planet warming in unprecendented ways, BLM needs to retool itself and its mission to protect resources that remain. Nowadays we´re very aware of the fragile connection between forests and CO2, forests and watersheds, forests and wildlife and ultimately, forests for a peaceful place to restore our frantic natures. We all benefit from the use of wood products but our lands are not as rich as they once were in this way. More than sustainable, the future of "resource extraction" must be responsible. Using millions of gallons of fossil fuel and building another 1000 roads to extract the trees that replenish the air is a most irresponsible use of enregy resources and most especially in these times. In addition, The Applegate, Rogue, Coquille, Siuslaw and other NW river systems would be seriously impacted by the WOPR´s directive of allowing cutting within 25 feet of the waterway. These rivers are a great treasure entrusted to our generation to protect for future generations of not only Oregonians but all the people of the Earth. Most sincerely brian cutean
WC-2055 WID-2285 W-5f075077-dfdc-4715-b24d-b9fc9a58ca15 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 7:13:00 PM I am very concerned about the Preferred BLM Western Oregon Plan Revision and very opposed to its implementation. Public opinion and response has already been counted and explicit years ago regarding the use of science to guide the way for forest planning and land use. Yet this plan as I read it, flies in the face of even the most recent scientific studies regarding riparian areas, the protection of Ancient Forests and habitat protection, and all the while increasing logging and disruption in the most sensitive areas, not even protecting rivers and streams, fish populations or other forest life. With the planet warming in unprecendented ways, BLM needs to retool itself and its mission to protect resources that remain. Nowadays we´re very aware of the fragile connection between forests and CO2, forests and watersheds, forests and wildlife and ultimately, forests for a peaceful place to restore our frantic natures. We all benefit from the use of wood products but our lands are not as rich as they once were in this way. More than sustainable, the future of "resource extraction" must be responsible. Using millions of gallons of fossil fuel and building another 1000 roads to extract the trees that replenish the air is a most irresponsible use of enregy resources and most especially in these times. In addition, The Applegate, Rogue, Coquille, Siuslaw and other NW river systems would be seriously impacted by the WOPR´s directive of allowing cutting within 25 feet of the waterway. These rivers are a great treasure entrusted to our generation to protect for future generations of not only Oregonians but all the people of the Earth. Most sincerely brian cutean
WC-2056 WID-2281 W-5e5f76b9-69ef-41e0-bad9-c19df9295c6d Draft EIS 1/11/2008 7:13:00 PM I live in Alsea. The WOPR plan for BLM forests in this area will be devasting. We, specifically, are already surrounded by a voracious Weyerhaeuser and other smaller logging concerns on a frenzy of cutting. If the BLM land were to be also cut, it would look as if our small community were in a war zone. There is an attempt, since the Forest Service left our town, to revitalize with agritourism. A plan is in place for an Alsea Valley Trail that highlights some of our special scenery, especially that of Alsea Falls and its stands of old growth. Additionally, many of us live on salmon bearing streams that the county has put a great deal of money into to protect. We believe this is an additional benefit for agritourism. Many rural areas in Oregon have been trying to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and taking another hit with a gross change in logging policy that is short-term is not only unfair and ill conceived, but short sighted. I would ask you to consider No Change instead of any of the other recommendations. There isn't a lot of old growth left in the Northwest and the nation would be sorely served if you cut it down. One suggestion: what would it take to create a reserve similar to the Valley of the Giants north of here? That is a 50 acre site protected from any government interference. An area around Alsea Falls would certainly qualify as similar, with easier access to the public for education, tourism, and protection. Thanks, Greg and Scottie Jones, 20368 Honey Grove Rd., Alsea OR
WC-2057 WID-1944 0a05bb63-814a-4efa-9c08-6cc9474d2436 File Upload 1/11/2008 7:15:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WORPinput.doc
WC-2058 WID-2284 0a05bb63-814a-4efa-9c08-6cc9474d2436 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 7:18:00 PM I fully support the BLM's WOPR and I support the preferred alternative. I have every confidence that the agency, if left to manage the lands with their professional staff, will maintain and enhance the natural resources under their jurisdiction. Although much of the state has ignored the socioeconomic conditions created by the decline of timber, I can personally attest to the fact that eastern Oregon is currently in a very dire predicament and it is unclear how much longer the small counties on this side of the Cascades can endure without some relief. Western Oregon has some of the finest timber growing lands in the world. There is no reason why timber, wildlife, fisheries, recreation and the mryiad of other uses on the BLM forests cannot coexist and fluorish. We continue to learn about the diversity and the complexity of our ecosystems. However, the "natural world" is no longer left to natural events because of the huge human element. Consequently, we must do the best we can to meet objectives and move on. Absence of management has created more havoc in eastern Oregon than the most aggressive management ever did historically. I also fully support "adaptive management". In the eloquent words of Marvin Brown, Oregon State Forester, " . . . forests as a whole must offer a full set of economic, environmental and social values. These values are not in competition. We must sustain all of them to sustain any of them."
WC-2059 WID-2286 db9ce264-7568-426e-bca5-7b80e420519a File Upload 1/11/2008 7:28:00 PM Please read the Uploded comment regarding the WOPR.

Uploaded File:  BLM comment 1.9.8.doc
WC-2060 WID-2280 46669be3-8486-4c21-bb6b-f6c8fae6f764 File Upload 1/11/2008 7:36:00 PM comment on the WOPR John's Peak OHV area.

Uploaded File:  BLM.doc
WC-2061 WID-2289 7e8f6a07-c672-4254-979c-52837a47d42d File Upload 1/11/2008 7:38:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPR comments.doc
WC-2062 WID-2294 775943ab-3dba-4e24-b75a-1cbeba418941 File Upload 1/11/2008 7:51:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPRresponse.doc
WC-2063 WID-2292 84be63b5-b632-4e10-86fa-11fd1550d9ad File Upload 1/11/2008 7:52:00 PM

Uploaded File:  forest.doc
WC-2064 WID-2293 W-536962e1-8753-4bf8-bbad-47b4b7fe3f03 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 7:53:00 PM I and my wife are opposed to all cutting of old growth timber. We are in favor of select cutting/thinning only. Clear-cutting should be a rare and very carefully managed expedient. Do not blackmail us into sacrificing our forests and watersheds for the tax money the federal govt. should be paying us. Lmc & Dmc
WC-2065 WID-1723 9b53329e-ab26-44c9-8479-f8c8f802003a File Upload 1/11/2008 7:54:00 PM

Uploaded File:  Comments to BLM regarding WOPR.doc
WC-2066 WID-2295 9b53329e-ab26-44c9-8479-f8c8f802003a File Upload 1/11/2008 7:54:00 PM thanks very much, looking forward to a reply Michael

Uploaded File:  mike.txt
WC-2067 WID-2297 4e5d0d4d-a6a2-45dd-a536-8c8e4f61ef57 File Upload 1/11/2008 7:56:00 PM

Uploaded File:  forest.doc
WC-2068 WID-2283 f4373053-2c1c-4609-b5d7-285cad748c10 File Upload 1/11/2008 7:59:00 PM Dear BLM, I am frustrated that our government doesn´t work for the average citizen, it works for multi-national corporations, and this WOPR is a good example of that. I suggest you start again using scientific input without undue and unfair input from the forest industry (such as Boise). I believe that WOPR is the antidote of a larger issue, and that is the monetary policies of the administration. This administration´s flawed decision has been to support foreign wars, a consumptive American life-style, and tax-cuts for the elite. Therefore, money is needed; and to get it WOPR was designed. But cutting our Northwest Forests is a short-sighted monetary policy. Instead of this destructive direction, we need an administration that helps us transition into a more sustainable one, where we stop being the police for the world, stop involvement in oil wars like Iraq and Afganistan, and begin a new direction that supports renewable energy, cuts carbon emissions, and is generally sensitive to the needs of a post oil world. I believe that the Bush administration is wrong in it´s decision to clear-cut and cut old-growth trees. The Northwest Forest Plan should not be replaced by WOPR´s short-sighted policies. The Forest Plan was a scientifically crafted compromise that should not be replaced by a non-scientific plan. It will exacerbate global warming, threaten endangered species, and will impoverish our Northwest forest ecosystem. Therefore, I would like to request the following regarding this WOPR Plan · Please use scientific evidence as to why the environmental protections of the NW Forest Plan were discarded. · Address the WOPR´s effect on forest fires, global warming, and the survival of old-growth ecosystems · Consider the cumulative effects of WOPR policies on upper Willamette spring Chinook salmon

Uploaded File:  WOPR Comment.doc
WC-2069 WID-2299 W-0a412a9d-8d45-41bd-8c12-cfb088d9d694 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 8:03:00 PM I have long enjoyed the lush forests and spend nearly every weekend and most vacations tromping around the woods, camping, hiking, backpacking, and taking photos. It is a tragedy to think of losing our old growth forests and believe they should be left to prosper for generations. Please do not desimate the forests that make Oregon so special to me and to the unique birds and wildlife. Thank you!
WC-2070 WID-1723 None Web Forum Exit 1/11/2008 8:08:00 PM I appreciate this tool to facilitate public participation, even though I feel that WOPR itself is onerous.
WC-2071 WID-1692 W-6995249f-1252-44e8-a33c-c7709dba377e Draft EIS 1/11/2008 8:11:00 PM My concerns about the plan are based in the Medford zone. Currently during the months May through November I can either drive my pickup or ride my ATV on nearly all of the roads in the Medford region. I don´t want this to change. Regarding ATV´s, based on the areas I have been, I have never seen any damage from ATV riding on existing roads. In my opinion, on existing roads, ATV´s leave very little mark as compared to heavier vehicle traffic. I do think that there should be some areas that are specifically designated for OHV´s. These are the areas that attract the extreme type rider/driver that is not satisfied with just riding existing road systems. They need more of a challenge. I´m not interested in that type of riding. I like putting around and enjoying the surroundings, not seeing how fast I can go. I would be interested in having some long trails that would allow people to ride ATV´s on some fairly long trails with camping sites available. I don´t like the idea of being restricted to only OHV areas for the type of riding I do. "If the road is not paved and I can drive my vehicle down it, I should be able to ride an ATV down it." It is public land……..let´s not take it away from public use! Don´t punish the masses for the few bad apples. I´m concerned that restricting all OHV use to specific areas will cause far more congestion, erosion, and potentially more injuries since there will be too many riders in a much smaller area and will force the slower riders to ride the same areas as the speed demons. I am also concerned that if a large majority of the roads are closed to motorized traffic the older less mobile hunters and fisherman will not be able to go to areas they have gone for many years. Many hunters that have camped in the Medford region may not be able to go to areas they have been going for generations. In the Medford region there are already areas that are restricted to no motor vehicles during the hunting season and if they are to create more areas they should be decided with public input. In summary this plan is way too large for individuals to have time to look at or understand. I realize that this has been in process for a while but many of us have just heard about it just weeks before the deadline. In fact I´ll bet 90% plus haven´t even heard about it at all. Regardless, I don´t want areas taken away from us during the summer and fall months. I can understand limiting areas during certain times of the year, but not during fishing and hunting season.
WC-2072 WID-2301 W-a48ec7a0-5f6c-47a0-88d3-f4f5d6047a81 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 8:18:00 PM The No Action Alternative is the only one that will comply with the Northwest Forest Plan and the Endangered Species Act, therefore I urge BLM to adopt it. Riparian reserves must continue to be protected for forest health, water quality and salmon populations. Our tourist economy will suffer if we lose the forests and waters that make Oregon such a desirable destination. Susan A. Hunt
WC-2073 WID-2300 W-3dad51df-1cde-4e7c-aa42-dbcb732852aa Draft EIS 1/11/2008 8:21:00 PM I own and manage a small wood lot (75 acres) near to BLM holding on Yellow Mountain. I was hoping to harvest my trees for my retirement. I believe that the market cannot support the amount of harvesting BLM is proposing. Evening with the down turn in the price of lumber, Washington State will be dumping 700 million board feet of lumber onto the market from the recent wind storms. I also do not support the cutting of old growth trees. Our mills are no longer set up to mill these trees. However, the most important point is, Where will our children go to see an ancient forest? I believe the BLM is acting irresponsible with these proposals and is not acting in the interest of the people of Oregon. Sincerely Michael Cook Oakland, Oregon
WC-2074 WID-1075 W-9981f8b4-105d-48c8-b2c6-44b43fcb7b18 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 8:34:00 PM After reading this draft EIS, I am extremely disappointed in the BLM personnel responsible for it. Time after time the majority of the people of the US, those same people who have been paying your salaries for years, tell you that we want our forests protected. This document makes me believe that you completely ignore those imperatives. You ignore any alternatives that do not produce the timber production levels that you want, yes, the levels YOU or the administration wants, not those mandated by any existing laws, including the O & C Act. The BLM appears to be ignoring other other recent rulings, since the 1990 ruling to which you refer and which serves as the basis of these "alternatives" that you have suggested. Anyone with any common sense should know that you do not make extreme changes with natural systems. We all saw what happened at Yellowstone with the fires after procedures were abruptly changed. The land and wildlife need time to adapt if any drastic changes are to be made. The "no change" plan IS a drastic change, doubling the amount of trees cut, amount of land severely modified. Have there been any studies to see how much income would be lost to the rural counties affected by the discontinuation of payments due to damage to the recreation and tourism industries with these "alternatives"?!? With that loss, combined with the cost of the despicable subsidization of logging roads, how much is actually gained by all of this massive logging??? Are we actually paying to have these forests cut down?!? Forests that we do not want cut like this in the first place!!! You should be ashamed to make such a proposal. None of these "alternatives" protect OUR streams, OUR wildlife, OUR land!!! This is NOT government land, this is land belonging to the people of the United States. 25 foot buffers for streams - what are you thinking? I have been working in remote sensing for over 25 years. I have seen the changes in the landscape. It makes me sick to see what agencies that are supposed to be protecting our land have been doing to it, or letting happen to it. I get very frequent visual reminders of how the land is being fragmented and forests destroyed, making it more and more difficult for any of our ecosysytems to survive. All of the studies in the world don't matter much if you are going interpret them to suit your agenda. I ask you to really listen to the responses to this survey. I do appreciate getting the chance to voice my views on the matter. I hope that the responses of people who truly love this land can make a difference. I love this land and I want to see it maintained and improved for all of us. This country is extraordinarily blessed and I don't want to see it squandered.
WC-2075 WID-2287 7d918ef1-4cc8-46a1-81c5-8976edca7a9d File Upload 1/11/2008 8:34:00 PM Dear BLM, Please accept the attached comments from Lomakatsi Restoration Project. Thank you for this opportunity to provide input. Please feel free to contact us for clarification, further information, with feedback or questions. respectfully submitted, jude wait

Uploaded File:  WOPR Comments LRP 11jan08 final.pdf
WC-2076 WID-2305 478202d5-eb66-4ba1-99c2-b21aec5b7992 File Upload 1/11/2008 8:36:00 PM Thank you for taking the time to read my feelings about what is happening here in my home land, Sincerely,Brenda King

Uploaded File:  brenda.txt
WC-2077 WID-2307 8fd4a5c7-1a95-491f-9179-b34e13e03b12 File Upload 1/11/2008 8:37:00 PM

Uploaded File:  ida's wopr.doc
WC-2078 WID-2288 W-5c0d0cd4-cbc8-4f69-931f-ac33b2a4abb3 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 8:37:00 PM I am strongly opposed to the WOPR Draft EIS. I feel it does not sufficiently consder the invaluable and irreplaceable old growth treasure on the public lands. The effect of cutting these old growth forests would be felt for generations. We must find other creative solutions to the counties' financial crisis. I am also very concerned about this plans effect on the areas rivers and streams and the impact on fish and wildlife. I request to be shown conclusive scientific evidence why the enviornmental protections of the NW Forest Plan were discarded. I also request that you address the WOPR's effect on forest fires, global warming and the survival of old-growth ecosystems. Thank you for this consideration.
WC-2079 WID-2274 bcd0c915-1794-47a7-8d01-0038f9610312 File Upload 1/11/2008 8:59:00 PM I am a 5th generation decendent of an Oregon pioneer family, living on my family's 150 year old homestead on the Umpqua River. I am a fundimentalist ultra-conservative Republican, with my won buisness.

Uploaded File:  BLM.DOC
WC-2080 WID-1457 ca020d2c-25f0-480e-99ad-9bb7ab4600c8 File Upload 1/11/2008 9:06:00 PM Dear Brothers and Sisters,Surely there are many among you who perceive the many inadequacies of the WOPR, and we call upon you to join in opposition to the WOPR and to voice a willingness to call attention to addressing the need for a SWOPR to replace the Wasting Of Public Resources with an alternative Solution Western Oregon Plan ReVision. I am optimistic that together we create a peaceful future for our grandchildren to inherit a perennial forested Earth. LOVE Daniel

Uploaded File:  1-08 SWOPR final.doc
WC-2081 WID-2311 W-3aa14a91-b15e-4aa8-9d0f-eec1aa17bb69 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 9:13:00 PM I am against the WOPR. I do not wish to see increased logging. I do not want old growth forests logged at all. I am against the provisions that may lead to increased fire danger and environmental damage. I am against setting aside areas for off road vehicles. At this time in our history, we must protect our forests and discourage recreational vehicle usage in order to stop Global Warming. I say again, I am against WOPR.
WC-2082 WID-2312 f679149c-53d0-4566-9c40-018971a93b96 File Upload 1/11/2008 9:15:00 PM This plan to redirect the priorities of how the public forests are "used" is disappointing and frustrating. Please consider my comments along with all the people who care about preservation of the forests and do the right thing! Laura K. Adams

Uploaded File:  BLM-WOPR.doc
WC-2083 WID-1832 f679149c-53d0-4566-9c40-018971a93b96 File Upload 1/11/2008 9:16:00 PM Recommend NO ACTION OPTION based on my experience as a fisheries biologist who surveyed salmonid population and habitat for USFS on Western Oregon Coast Range

Uploaded File:  Comments WOPR.doc
WC-2084 WID-2304 f679149c-53d0-4566-9c40-018971a93b96 File Upload 1/11/2008 9:16:00 PM I oppose any increase in the cutting of our nationally held BLM land. Increasing the over logging of our forest land is economic suicide for the North West.

Uploaded File:  Opposing the WOPR.doc
WC-2085 WID-1832 None Web Forum Exit 1/11/2008 9:18:00 PM Interactive map did not work well.
WC-2086 WID-2310 W-2b1af1b3-fb78-4952-bf1e-01cd64b65f45 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 9:18:00 PM I live on the McKenzie River close to the Mohawk Valley but I "care" about the Calapooya River, the Umpqua River, all of the muddy little creeks that run into them, the ocean that they drain into, and the entire state of Oregon which includes the environment, the culture and the economy. I also care about the entire planet and the health of its habitats, wildlife and and human societies all of which are intimately connected and in the long run you cannot have healthy people and economies if you do not have healthy, diverse habitats and wildlife. You also cannot reverse global warming and associated climate change if you continue to mow down carbon sinks (our forests). We should be planting more trees not mowing them down but since this alternative does not exist I therefore support the "No Action Alternative" which is the next best.
WC-2087 WID-2314 W-a579c5f4-b2a9-4321-9631-2339e656bab7 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 9:18:00 PM Your plan sounds like part of Bush´s plan for his historical legacy---No Tree Left Behind. I sympathize with the people in the timber industry who were laid off when the over-harvesting came to an end, but raping the land by strip-mining it to put them back to work in the job of their choice is stupid and evil. The streams, watersheds and wildlife need more protection, not less. We need to preserve what little wild old-growth forest that is left. We do not need to turn every last acre of forest into a tree farm. The "No Action" plan is the best of what is being offered.
WC-2088 WID-2306 W-ca0ba489-3f69-498d-844f-e2533abc2e0c Draft EIS 1/11/2008 9:23:00 PM Things that might work: 1.Thinning, not clearcutting, all BLM lands for the next 80 years would give a net result of renewable value to the resource, since under all alternatives, the logging would be on a rotational basis when the trees are 80 to 100 years old. 80 years from now BLM will be cutting the trees they planted today. It is also a long time to rethink and refigure this issue as needed. 2.The SW part of the state stands to lose the most socioeconomically, therefore, can there be a way that the areas which are least affected can do some type of long term loan of money? 3.How old is the O&C mandate? Why wasn't it considered before the plan of 1994 went into effect? Are we legally held to it? Could the state negotiate new terms? 4.The options which would increase the invasive plant population, lose botanical species, reduce fish and owl habitat should not even be considered.Sometime in the future that will be a bad mess! The state must work in concert with BLM. We must look at our resources from a holistic standpoint. 5.The checkerboard effect of BLM lands in the Eugene area has been helpfulfor wildlife preservation, liveability and recreation.Please keep the integrity of the 9 identified sites containing wilderness character. Once that is gone, it is gone forever.Thank you for being such good stewards so far. Please do not chose Alternative 2 or 3. Please think OUTSIDE the BOX. We are a state rich with resources. Let us use them sustainably and retain our heritage old growth for generations to come. Let us not be short sighted. Thank you, Respectfully submitted, Sally Myers
WC-2089 WID-2147 W-1b6b1b98-557f-4656-9e0b-35a222f38deb Draft EIS 1/11/2008 9:27:00 PM I strongly support land use management that best conserves/promotes habitat and species diversity and best conserves non-renewable or short-supply resources (such as water). This approach is of particular concern now because the climate change already underway will severely stress wildlife (threatened salmonids in particular) and reduce water resources that are already nearing limits in some areas. Further, I believe that revenues from timber sales have long been given too much weight in comparisons with other forest benefits (such as water, wildlife, recreation/tourism) when managing forest lands—in part because timber sale revenues are much more easily measured. For example, although "habitat degradation" was listed as a major risk factor for all the "evolutionary significant units" of fish identified, I did not see in the DEIS a prediction of the economic impact of the loss of such species that might be caused or hastened by proposed actions, such as lowered stream shade in the Coquille watershed—even though detailed estimations of milling jobs were included. (Just because non-timber-revenue numbers are more difficult to assess doesn´t mean they should be left out.) It appears to me that the "no action" option is the choice that best follows those ideals and considerations. After all, the ultimate role of public land stewardship is to manage for long-term public benefit, not benefit for the present situation or political administration.
WC-2090 WID-2313 W-d323d2fc-f303-46b2-b0d4-ea1f5f260880 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 9:32:00 PM I support the No Action Alternative. The Bureau of Land Management should be focusing on managing existing plantations, thinning to provide fiber while improving the stands and decreasing fire danger and enhancing forest health. The liquidation of our remaining old growth forests for short term gain is over! We need to be managing our shared lands for the long term benefit of future generations, protecting the fish, wildlife and biological diversity. Our best lands for sustained yield of forest products have already been cut. Now those lands need to be managed to assure their ability to remain productive. NO MORE HARVESTING OF OLD GROWTH TREES!!
WC-2091 WID-2316 W-b687ed68-9a5c-4dd3-89fa-b484379f6700 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 9:33:00 PM How to make forests more fire resilient: thin out the YOUNG trees that are growing too close together. Let the big old trees continue to grow. This will also help prevent the beetle infestations!
WC-2092 WID-2318 fc381415-3ced-44ce-8807-abb3697dcf9c File Upload 1/11/2008 9:33:00 PM

Uploaded File:  daniel-dalegowski-WOPR-comment.pdf
WC-2093 WID-2316 W-0c8418cf-7ec7-4cc3-b0a4-42d31e895152 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 9:39:00 PM Am I reading this correctly -- You want to harvest to within 25 feet of a stream! That is insane! From 25 - 50 feet away from the stream people can cut 50% of the canopy? That is so ridiculously terrible for wildlife. From economic and scientific points of view, that is a stupid thing to do. That will certainly increase sedimentation and negatively impact water quality.
WC-2094 WID-2319 W-85f943aa-9591-4aba-bd6e-2c47632da38c Draft EIS 1/11/2008 9:40:00 PM I am writing to state that I am strongly against the new plan for western and southern Oregon forest by the BLM. This plan would almost triple the cutting down of trees at a time when there is already a glut of wood products due to the housing slowdown. Also, this plan would cut down much of the 1% remaining old growth forest for no reason other than a quick profit for the lumber industry. The harm to the environment and the beauty of Oregon would be felt for decades or more. Please consider keeping the old plan, which already allowed for enough timber harvest, without destroying what is left of the natural beauty of our state. Lynn Anderson-Veneta, Oregon
WC-2095 WID-2316 W-b1fed706-c154-47ab-965f-f47f417fd30a Draft EIS 1/11/2008 9:45:00 PM I think that emulating the timber industry is the wrong thing to do. I was talking with a Weyerhaeuser employee yesterday, and my grandpa spent more than 30 years working for Weyerhaeuser. Timber companies (except for a few small ones and Willamette) don't care about water quality, wildlife, or having nice places to hike or hunt. They care about making as much money as possible. The BLM should be run with an eye towards the public's future well-being -- and should stop looking at short-term economic gain. Logging should not be increased.
WC-2096 WID-2316 W-dad35879-2428-4b87-bd7d-5943ccf12463 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 9:48:00 PM The more I read on this website, the more I am convinced that the best course of action is "no action." If that is not a choice, then Alternative #1 seems okay.... all the other choices are bad. Shouldn't we learn from the mistakes of others? Who wants to live in a state with poor water quality and no wildlife left to hunt?
WC-2097 WID-2316 W-4377467e-0b3c-474d-a8e2-3974322e30d5 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 9:51:00 PM We shouldn't be funding essential government services (such as schools) by sacrificing the welfare of our forests and water quality. There are other, better methods. For example, how about a state sales tax? Or raising the income tax? Or a tax on paper products? Or a gas tax? Or a luxury tax?
WC-2098 WID-2316 W-55dce1fb-1142-49bb-aba9-047c005b89c9 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 9:55:00 PM 1) There should be no logging at all within 200 feet of any stream. 2) The graduate student at OSU demonstrated convincingly that salvage logging increases the liklihood of future fires and is detrimental to wildlife. Therefore, there should be no salvage logging after a fire. 3) Wildlife habitat for the northern spotted owl and the marbled murrelet should not be reduced.
WC-2099 WID-2316 W-9d880fa1-5592-4e01-9c78-aa2ec74fc9d0 Draft EIS 1/11/2008 9:56:00 PM The best course of action would be the "no action alternative." All the other options are bad ideas.
WC-2100 WID-2325 ae133c2f-1324-4b3d-a0f4-3b628333f2ce File Upload 1/11/2008 9:57:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WORP Comment.doc
USA.GOV  |  No Fear Act  |  DOI  |  Disclaimer  |  About BLM  |  Notices  |  Get Adobe Reader