# SenderID Ref.# Comment Tool Date Comment
WC-1001 WID-1380 None Interactive Map 1/7/2008 12:00:00 AM tb_1_other: live here|cb_photo|cb_hiking|cb_fishing|cb_camping|cb_birdwatching|cb_fulltime|tb_4_other: water shed|cb_daily|tb_gen_ans:
WC-1002 WID-1396 None Interactive Map 1/7/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_photo|cb_hiking|cb_fishing|cb_camping|cb_birdwatching|tb_gen_ans: Alsea Falls, Alsea River, Marys Peak...it's the trees that make these attractions attractive%21 Please don't allow them to be harvested.
WC-1003 WID-904 None Interactive Map 1/7/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_tourism|cb_dirtbiking|cb_mtnbiking|cb_ohv|cb_scenicbeauty|cb_relax|cb_onceaweek|tb_gen_ans: John's Peak make a great OHV area because our family can go there and ride atv's and motorcycles together. It has nice views and it's nice to see the wild life around.
WC-1004 WID-1417 None Interactive Map 1/7/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_photo|cb_hunting|tb_2_other: Praying, Healing, Meditating|cb_mtnbiking|cb_hiking|cb_camping|cb_birdwatching|cb_fulltime|cb_spiritual|cb_importantspecies|cb_scenicbeauty|cb_relax
WC-1005 WID-1417 None Interactive Map 1/7/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Forests: Save older & more complex forests. Thin younger even aged stands.
WC-1006 WID-1417 None Interactive Map 1/7/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from VIDEO Calapooya Potential Scenic Byway: The EPA is concerned that your plan will negatively effect water quality gains made under NWFP. The willamette river is already listed for temperature, mercury & turbidity. upland logging will negatively affect this. Already 600 miles of streams & rivers are polluted, increased clearcutting can only make it worse.
WC-1007 WID-1423 None Interactive Map 1/7/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Forests: We have so little foorest left%3B given the probability of climatic change, with wetter winters and drier summers forecast, I think it would be foolhardy to increase harvest rates, and thus increase soil erosion, runoff and habitat destruction for ecosystems about to be stressed due to temperature and rainfall pattern changes.
WC-1008 WID-1423 None Interactive Map 1/7/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Off-Highway Vehicles: Leave open what is open, leave closed what is closed%3B I ride dirt bikes%3B we can make do with what we have.
WC-1009 WID-1436 None Interactive Map 1/7/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Areas of Critical Environmental Concern: I recommend that all BLM lands within the viewshed of the of the North Umpqua River (within about 1 mile from teh river bank) should be (or remain) designated as ACEC for fish, water quality, recreation and aesthetics, with no timber harvest or other extractive uses allowed.
WC-1010 WID-1436 None Interactive Map 1/7/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from VIDEO South Umpqua River Corridor: The forest map reveals the magnitude of past harvest on BLM lands, and highlights the lack of mature and old-growth %2F structurally diverse forests. I suggest that no harvest be allowed in mature and old-growth forests -- they are much more valuable to me as intact forests than as timber.
WC-1011 WID-1334 W-f3c6d9f0-a92a-47bc-8460-a6f415d0b20c Draft EIS 1/7/2008 7:20:00 AM Hello, I am a lifetime Oregon resident. I am voicing my extremely strong vote AGAINST the latest BLM plan to reopen Oregon's forests to logging. This plan is completely irresponsible. There is absolutely no justification for the continued pillage of Oregon's precious forests. We have annihilated enormous swaths of forest land already, and taken from Oregon a non-renewable old growth forest culture that was not ours to take. And now we plan to take the rest. Have we learned nothing about the importance of the ecosystem? About the danger of landslides? About the need for more trees to absorb our killing pollution? About the respect we owe the animal creatures who call the forest home? It is reprehensible to arrogantly decide that the money gained from this irreplaceable timber is all that matters. Let's use our common sense and stop this horrific plan. Thank you very much, Diane Rios Portland, Oregon
WC-1012 WID-1336 5c07cb2a-189b-4899-8a8d-47966df75d69 Draft EIS 1/7/2008 7:37:00 AM I am totally opposed to the proposed changes to logging practices on BLM land. Proposed reductions to stream buffers will definitely result in habitat harm to trout and salmon and the BLM finding of minimal damage has no credibility. At a time when salmon survival is precarious, the reduction is totally unacceptable. Increased harvest (from 268 mbf to 727 mbf) will harm habitat for all species, especially since half the harvest will be trees over 80 yrs. old. Do not proceed with this proposal, revert to existing plan.
WC-1013 WID-1338 W-bf42702e-9f50-470e-9b48-208c22bd9cb9 Draft EIS 1/7/2008 8:00:00 AM I am writing to strongly urge the "no action" alternative. The WOPR is disastrous for local economies as it would eliminate jobs in the recreation, tourism, and fishing industries, the real economic drivers of the Northwest. The WOPR also appears to violate the Endangered Species Act in respect to endangered salmon and the spotted owl recovery plan.
WC-1014 WID-1341 W-0cff5f39-9a42-4bd8-81f0-9a7dc92f5e34 Draft EIS 1/7/2008 9:06:00 AM dear blm i am very concerned with the direction our current administration is headed. public consensus for old-growth protection and second-growth thinning is very strong. please protect remaining old-growth forests and focus on already logged-over areas, and create job opportunities in restoration thinning projects that benefit watersheds and generate wood products. thank-you ann gunter williams,or
WC-1015 WID-1345 W-51bc16e5-f220-4c3b-aee7-023ddfcaebff Draft EIS 1/7/2008 10:10:00 AM To whom it may concern, As a long time Oregon Resident and avid fisherman and hunter I strongly object to this management plan. This plan is a step backward in protecting the wilderness and wildlife of this great state. This plan is the other shoe dropping after the roadless act was repeeled. Ben Hedberg
WC-1016 WID-1344 W-679358c0-c474-49ad-bfff-4c721080337c Draft EIS 1/7/2008 10:11:00 AM The O&C ground was designated to provide a sustainable source of income through managed forrests. A clear cut does NOT offer the best solution for that souce of funding. Thinning the trees so that there is a five foot space between the upper reaches of the canopy (allowing the remaining tree to grow) followed by another thinning in five year cycles offers a better solution. If it is a clear cut you want... Then why not start by clear cutting Camp David followed by clear cutting George Bush's ranch!
WC-1017 WID-1346 W-31cbd564-c01c-48dd-847c-cbc9eaac1945 Draft EIS 1/7/2008 10:20:00 AM My family and I enjoy the Oregon forests year round. Last fall while hunting mushrooms for recreation and eating, we observed our favorite hillside being logged by a private logging company. We saw the boundary markers and noticed they were only logging about 20 yards in from the road. I should mention it was a saturday so there were no loggers on site. About two weeks later we all went out again to the same site. The company had posted a security guard in a trailer at the start of the road. He almost didn't let us go back to our hunting grounds, but we convinced him we were harmless. He wasn't concerned for our safety, just the equipment. We get to our spot and first thing we see is they have logged far past the original boundary. And the paper boundary markers had been moved even FARTHER into the forest. Who is out there policing these land barons?! It is disgusting, just one example of what is going on in our forests! If you give the logging companies another inch, they'll just take another mile!
WC-1018 WID-1347 W-b7124cc3-d156-49e7-84a1-fbf0fb7a998d Draft EIS 1/7/2008 10:21:00 AM I'm writing to urge the NO Action Alternative. Though by no means the only culprit, irresponsible logging has done considerable damage to native fish runs. That's beyond dispute. The other options seem motivated by nothing more than short-term greed.
WC-1019 WID-1349 05d5841d-3c00-4fab-a3c6-cb5d17e5555f File Upload 1/7/2008 10:32:00 AM Attached are comments on the Western Oregon Plan Revison DEIS from Steamboaters, a fly-fishing and conservation organization on the North Umpqua River.

Uploaded File:  WOPR Comments Jan 08.doc
WC-1020 WID-1350 W-c2a4c956-9ba2-4ce0-a6b8-796f9786f912 Draft EIS 1/7/2008 10:46:00 AM The O&C Act requires the BLM to harvest timber for economic return especially to counties. A U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2007 states that old specific law (O&C Act) trumps new general laws - environmental laws. Please follow the law and implement the O&C Act as it was intended for the necessary benefit of our counties. Josephine, for instance, is 78% government owned. The government pays no taxes on its property, so that is the important reason to follow the law and harvest timber resources for the benefits of the O&C counties. In order to follow the law you must begin to ramp up your timber management staff. If there is no money to do that, cut back on other operations. There is substantial catch up time to properly manage the forest according to the law. This will take effort and dedication on your part to properly administer timber and salvage sales for the benefit of the counties. Thank you for the easy opportunity to comment.
WC-1021 WID-1354 W-543fb933-304e-4a48-a2a9-00fd67da51eb Draft EIS 1/7/2008 11:01:00 AM I have lived in Oregon for 56 years and want to insure that future generations can inherit an ecologically rich and diverse forest habitat. So, I support the No action alternative. I believe No action maximizes the preservation of Oregon's forests. Our forests have a higher economic value in their natural state than in a harvested condition. Trees left standing are more valuable because they protect our fish & wildlife and reduce carbon dioxide & also promote tourism and recreation. Logging destroys water quality, and generates lower economic benefits than tourism and recreation.
WC-1022 WID-1355 W-749cd5de-111f-483c-abff-c0039e344a91 Draft EIS 1/7/2008 11:01:00 AM My concern for whatever plan adopted, is that it provide adequate protection for streams and habitat for native fish. I would like for the adopted plan, regarding any proposed land use, 1) First repair damage done to streams and habitat as a result of previous land uses; 2) Identify possible adverse consequences to streams and habitat as a result of proposed future land uses; 3) Provide for monitoring for those adverse consequences during implementation of the land uses proposed in the plan; 4) Provide for restoration of streams damaged as a result of land uses implemented under the plan, and 5) Cease or modify any land uses that cause stream damage that can not be mitigated under the plan. The reason is simply the importance played by our native fish and streams in the culture and economy of our region. For a large segment of our population, it is a quality of life issue (refer to the number of fishing licenses for example). For a larger segment, our native fish are a cornerstone of their livelihood, affecting those not only those employed directly such as in guide services, but also indirectly such as in things like bait & tackle production and sales, boat building and sales, RV industry, campgrounds, food services, lodging, and all the rest associated with recreational fishing and tourism.
WC-1023 WID-1358 W-7bc7968a-9e74-4059-829c-d137ed4c55e3 Draft EIS 1/7/2008 11:12:00 AM I was spurred to comment by the ORegonian newspaper that had an article stating that sportsmen oppose the proposed logging on BLM land. As a hunter, I am firmly in favor of the proposed logging on federal lands. My opinion is that our big game herds have suffered due to the lack of logging on federal lands. I believe that our big game species do best when their range includes areas of recent logging activity, areas of regrowth, and areas of older timber. A hopscotch pattern of these areas is probably best for deer and elk, giving them cover and browsing/grazing areas. I also support the logging of these lands to give some revenue to the counties these lands are in. I would like to see an adequate buffer zone along the streams to protect fish and their spawning grounds. In some areas the buffer may need to be larger than in other areas due to steepness of the terrain or other reasons. ATV use should be restriced to strictly regulated areas and open roads.
WC-1024 WID-1351 W-c6bd3677-a2c1-4fb6-ae73-deff52e27cc8 Draft EIS 1/7/2008 11:14:00 AM This is a very complex document that has taken a lot of time to digest. In summary, I am absolutely appalled at the massive increase in logging of old growth forests. I use these lands frequently for hiking, bird-watching and photography. The future economy of our state is dependent upon the existence of these forests to draw tourists. Cutting them will be a short-sighted financial windfall, but a long-term disaster for the state. I am also upset at the OHV use proposed in Southern Oregon. This will make these areas unsuitable for any other recreational users.
WC-1025 WID-1362 W-d8393c34-3b7f-485c-bc6a-1a549ce91c2b Draft EIS 1/7/2008 11:20:00 AM As a resident of the North Umpqua River, I wholeheartedly support the comments from the Steamboaters on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Revision of Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon BLM Districts. I would direct you to the requests made in these comments and urge their implementation. Lawrence Peter Levine 22,777 N. Umpqua Hwy. Glide, OR 97443
WC-1026 WID-1366 W-6668659c-b081-4ffe-a947-0cb5e42419ab Draft EIS 1/7/2008 11:39:00 AM I strongly oppose the BLM's initiative to increase logging in Western Oregon. Logging should take a backseat to the conservation of these lands for the purpose of land conservation, habitat preservation, as well as the conservation of our atmosphere, as these ecosystems are an incredibly effective method of carbon sequestration. If we are so concerned about carbon in the environment, then why log these old growth forests? please act responsibly. jeff cheek
WC-1027 WID-1365 W-920d3e84-0d48-455b-b7b5-96fbcaf57361 Draft EIS 1/7/2008 11:50:00 AM As a registered voter and resident of Douglas County I belive there should be no conversation about this. This should be passed and approved immediatley! Oregon should be able to harvest it's natural resource and provide jobs to get our economy back on track! We already have good forest practices in place. Oregon economy is at an all time low and without the "saftey Net" (which I will call welfare) we have no way to provide for our Counties. We don't need welfare or ie "the saftey net" we need to be able to use our natural resource. We have a proven record of being able to harvest and re-plant. Let's get this signed and get the Oregon loggers back in the woods and get our economy thriving!
WC-1028 WID-1363 W-cbf04485-958d-4999-8bbc-23ce1e2334bb Draft EIS 1/7/2008 11:54:00 AM I recommend that the BLM adopt Alternative #2 of the Draft EIS. We need the forests to supply more timber harvest and economic benefits to the state. I believe Alternative #2 will do this and still provide adequate protection of other important aspects of our forests. Samuel Williams
WC-1029 WID-1372 076e84f6-6600-4a41-b562-323bd1716677 File Upload 1/7/2008 12:54:00 PM This is a PDF attachments of my comments on the BLM´s WOPR DEIS. I need to send two files that go together, so will send the second after this one (as your WEB page disallows two files at the same time. You should receive files (both PDF)carbonflux copy.pdf and Torrence-WOPR_DEIS.pdf P. Torrence 16282 Water Gap rd Williams, OR 97544 5418466016

Uploaded File:  Torrence-WOPR_DEIS.pdf
WC-1030 WID-1372 b2c1cf14-4f24-4b53-97c6-d423266140ae File Upload 1/7/2008 12:59:00 PM Here is the second PDF that goes with my comment PDF of a few minutes ago. This one goes with Torrence-WOPR_DEIS.pdf P. Torrence 16282 Water Gap rd Williams, OR 97544 5418466016

Uploaded File:  carbonflux copy.pdf
WC-1031 WID-1377 W-119c05c9-47a4-403a-b439-39ba8f0f345e Draft EIS 1/7/2008 12:59:00 PM As an Outdoor Recreator and a citizen concerned with the watersheds, and wildlife habitat in Oregon, I do not like the current proposal of the drastic expansion of logging on BLM lands. I believe in sustainable thinning of forests for the overall good health of the forest, its inhabitants, and for continued supplies of wood, not to mention outdoor recreation. I'm especially concerned that the plan doesn't allow for a wide enough streamside buffer, and that it will take out to many older trees, both which are extremely important to forest health. I would like the BLM to come up with an alternative for logging that addresses these important concerns. Thank you, Jim Jordan
WC-1032 WID-1371 W-52af79ab-3d33-4e0e-a7d7-29b94b9e76cd Draft EIS 1/7/2008 1:00:00 PM After reviewing the website, I strongly feel that the "No Action Alternative" is the best one for Oregon and all of its inhabitant. Natural resources cannot be created or benignly managed. We need ways to fund our schools that do not require reduction of our resources. We watch our funds and resources being shipped overseas and look to robbing ourselves to pay for necessities. Let's save what we have. Postponing the inevitable by destroying what we have is no solution. The original Northwest Forest Plan provided appropriate protections. Please do not destroy what cannot be replaced for a short-trem gain.
WC-1033 WID-1379 3652450d-7b0b-49b8-bdb9-6a90db45e622 Draft EIS 1/7/2008 1:02:00 PM I oppose an increase in logging. I am certain that a more sustainable plan can be developed. We must not undervalue the opportunites that these lands provide to hunters and fisherman. Increased logging and changes to existing logging rules will damage habitat and destroy the fell of "wilderness that many of these places still hold. I don't not support these changes. Jon
WC-1034 WID-1370 3652450d-7b0b-49b8-bdb9-6a90db45e622 File Upload 1/7/2008 1:02:00 PM

Uploaded File:  Thoughts on WOPR project.doc
WC-1035 WID-1381 10573913-2e86-4c51-b610-8520cc38c687 Draft EIS 1/7/2008 1:08:00 PM As one who has observed 50 years of logging on public lands, I strongly oppose increased cutting of our public forests -- especially the remaining stands of old growth trees.
WC-1036 WID-1382 W-610d8c03-5769-460a-8d33-0e29a59ecf8a Draft EIS 1/7/2008 1:29:00 PM I am opposed to the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. It does not make sense to expand logging operations and areas. I believe that the impacts of logging cost our state(and planet) more than we get from jobs and the sale of wood. Logging is tied to river and stream degradation, landslides, flooding and wildlife reductions. I also believe that the forests(and wilderness in general) will generate an indefinite supply of income for the state through tourism, hunting, fishing, hiking, bird-watching, mushroom hunting and sight-seeing. Additionally, the existence of the forests will have an long-lasting beneficial impact on the environment. Thank you, Dane Eastlake
WC-1037 WID-1384 8be266f4-709d-490d-bb8a-549a00e45537 File Upload 1/7/2008 1:37:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPR letter, public input.odt
WC-1038 WID-1385 25b0b8a8-f472-40ef-8fcb-03e33a04f53a File Upload 1/7/2008 2:01:00 PM I am vehemently against the BLM's proposition to triple logging and liquidate our natural resources. We need a long-term solution to failing rural economies in Oregon and this is not it!

Uploaded File:  BLM comment on WOPR.doc
WC-1039 WID-1380 None Web Forum Exit 1/7/2008 2:10:00 PM just hope that my comments about no more clear cutting and maintaining at least a 300 foot clearance from strams, will be heard by the powers to be
WC-1040 WID-922 W-fa834cb3-0ff2-4f4e-9ce9-98c6224d5967 Draft EIS 1/7/2008 2:15:00 PM I think the "nonmarket values" not included in this analysis need to be included. Wildlife, recreation, and water quality have high value.
WC-1041 WID-922 W-d3121312-1fc2-4012-b7f1-9465bce672cc Draft EIS 1/7/2008 2:20:00 PM I believe Western Oregon can continue to be a wood products region without logging old growth forests. The focus can shift to thinning already-logged forests to maintain the wood products industry.
WC-1042 WID-1386 bd07e029-2a12-437b-9df0-f061aa9de3e8 File Upload 1/7/2008 2:25:00 PM

Uploaded File:  Regarding BLM Public Lands.doc
WC-1043 WID-1390 W-4b6a0254-30b9-4cbd-aab1-4f456e12db1c Draft EIS 1/7/2008 2:28:00 PM I am absolutely appalled at the thought that our government would allow increased logging, especially in a time where global warming and environmental protection are at the forefront of its citizen's minds. Knowing that deforestation (including regeneration) has a particularly drastic and negative impact on our world, those responsible for the development of this plan have an obligation to represent the views the people of the United States. If we cut down the trees that have provided our world with so much life, where will our children and our children's children be?
WC-1044 WID-1394 W-07fde6a2-615f-4cfc-a061-1ce47178c4b3 Draft EIS 1/7/2008 2:47:00 PM I am against the cutting of old growth in OR as well as opening up addtional land for cutting. I believe we should consider this land as important enviormentally to perserve. Oregon is already looking like one big tree farm. Global warming is a serious issue that this plan ignores. We are more creative than this. There are alternatives. -R.Kirincic
WC-1045 WID-1392 W-ec0591fa-ed5a-49c4-bd6e-996659b6b6e9 Draft EIS 1/7/2008 2:49:00 PM I recently read a small article on how President Bush has consented to increasing logging 700% in Oregon's Old-Growth Forest. This is appalling! This adminstration has done nothing to help the environment. All it has done is take, take, take (Greed is a sin!!) and leave nothing for future generations. I am completely against these actions! This forest helps cleans the air we breath and is a habitat for many animals. Once again I reiterate that I totally against the increased logging in Oregon.
WC-1046 WID-1397 6b1ffe29-280d-434f-a89c-91b899a57c6c File Upload 1/7/2008 3:23:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPR comment to BLM.doc
WC-1047 WID-922 d5a3b44e-8a11-40f1-a021-7299b3b9a315 File Upload 1/7/2008 3:42:00 PM I am very concerned. Please immediately read my comments, found here in text format.

Uploaded File:  Don't log old growth forest!!! Get rid of the WOPR!!!.txt
WC-1048 WID-1400 707113ec-fc53-43b2-bb0c-b261e2a16286 File Upload 1/7/2008 3:48:00 PM

Uploaded File:  BLM-1.doc
WC-1049 WID-1403 W-5fd6eaf5-e5fe-4666-8195-02bc7999831c Draft EIS 1/7/2008 3:57:00 PM It is far more important to leave our children a healthy forest than to make money. Dollars cannot replace trees, wildlife and streams. Quit being greedy.
WC-1050 WID-1398 W-1d14992d-3ae4-4e03-a7ab-11e716764673 Draft EIS 1/7/2008 4:03:00 PM I am writing to day because I am horrified that the "blm" will consider diminishing stream buffers that protect our waterways and increasing the logging of our old growth forrests by 3x. This Wopr-- to me is unethical, immorral , and a crime against humanity if this deal is allowed to go forward. The earth is warming, and the trees are the lungs of the planet. All life on earth is connected, and if we destroy our old growth we will lose something that can not be replaced by the hands of man--plus destroy our ecosystem beyond repair. Federal money is available for bombs to kill children-- these federal dollars should not come at the cost of our health and our planet. The salmon runs are almost gone. All the work over the last decade of restoring rivers and streams will be lost. You can't shoot seallions and cut down all trees and think you are mitigating the salmon problem. The rich elite who will profit short term from this wopr no deal-- while all living things on this planet will suffer and die. I think the WOPR plan sucks, and if you guys think you can cut down all the trees and that there will be little effect on wildlife--you need some fresh air! Wake up-- this wopr- will devistate the planet our state and the economy-We need to protect our water sheds and strengthen our stream buffers not diminsh them. Please stand firm and say no to WOPR--say NO to the increase in logging of our old growth forrest. Protect our wildlife and incourage all others to be good stewards of the earth. Please a rape and pillage of our remaining forrest will not do anybody any good-- in the long term the wopr will have us all--sucking on stones--This planet needs your help NOW, not federal funds from a corrupt administration who will not give a damn about us once they get what they desire. Say no to the WOPR. Say no! to Bush's plans to rape and pillage this country worse than they allready have. The planet needs healing not dessimation of our planets lungs for christ sakes --the health of EVERY living creature on this planet is depending on you to do the right thing, and say NO --to the wopr- because an unscrupulous plan like this will do nothing but line the pockets of a few and leave us all wondering why we fell for their insane antics over and over again. Please say no, and protect our water, our forrest, and our planet from those who show little regard for anything but money. Money will not save you, but trees, fresh water, clean air will. thank you for your time Ninette Jones
WC-1051 WID-1401 W-4291b33f-5071-4e21-bc12-2923d4536391 Draft EIS 1/7/2008 4:14:00 PM I spent years involved in environmental education and community involvement in Wa and Oregon. I was not satisfied with the current forest use plans. I implore you to use the no action alternative here. Please do not increase cutting in old growth forest. You have taken too much already. Do not use excuses that you are not meeting board feet needs. We have more than enough managaged forest now. Leave it alone. This is obviously a resource grab before administrations change.
WC-1052 WID-1403 W-7c289b59-b16e-42a9-8144-421e10cf207a Draft EIS 1/7/2008 4:28:00 PM Given the proof we now have that the global warming crisis is real, this is the most asinine idea possible. Where to start? Trees...without them we lose oxygen and ozone promoting further global warming. Streams, creeks and rivers: I currently live on a creek that is officially noted as 'fishless'. The Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife had determined that there are indeed fish in it and that it has been illegally damed in an environmentally unsafe way. Yet, years after this determination, nothing has been done to reclassify it officially and it remains illegally damed in two places. My point is that waterways are clearly already underprotected. One has only to paddle around the Columbia to see lots of pollution. Don't make it worse! Wildlife: considering I live in the forest, I see very little of it. Don't make it worse. Invasive plant species: I do see lots of this, most of which has been brought in by logging trucks and ATV's. We need to put more limits on these activities, not allow them to expand. I used to reside in Josephine County which strongly relied on timber revenue from public and O&C land. I believed then as I do now, that timber reliant counties need to find alternative sources of revenue and take responsibility for themselves. Thank you for your consideration.
WC-1053 WID-1409 d6b50357-aefb-4a53-9a03-2c5aec01ff62 File Upload 1/7/2008 4:28:00 PM because it appears i can't attach two files at the same time, i will submit by economic rebuttal separately, but it is referred to in my comments attached here.

Uploaded File:  cln wopr comments.doc
WC-1054 WID-1409 X-d6b50357-aefb-4a53-9a03-2c5aec01ff62 File Upload 1/7/2008 4:28:00 PM PJM Peg Reagan was unable to attach a second comment, Alan asked me to add the second doc - [pegs O&C rebuttal 1-21-07.doc]

Uploaded File:  pegs O&C rebuttal 1-21-07.doc
WC-1055 WID-1408 W-ae402cad-a1d7-475e-b75c-57d5c982efa4 Draft EIS 1/7/2008 4:34:00 PM I agree with the hunting and angler groups -- this plan is too aggressive and will degrade the hunting and fishing habitat. As an example, shrinking the buffer zone and allowing logging to 25 ft. of a stream bank does not adequately protect the fish! I've worked in the woods as a choker setter, I've seen what logging does to streams. Thanks for allowing this comment.
WC-1056 WID-1411 56876390-80dc-420a-a57f-7c9fc92855bf File Upload 1/7/2008 4:44:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPR Comments.doc
WC-1057 WID-1410 W-0a21a6cf-2508-43da-a93c-03a5fc5b047b Draft EIS 1/7/2008 4:45:00 PM I prefer the No Action alternative. I think more emphasis should be placed on protecting fish and wildlife habitat, scientifically significant natural areas, water quality, old growth reserves and non-vehicular recreation. It makes no sense to temporarily drive up timber harvests by cutting more old growth trees, at the expense of all the other values of BLM managed land that should be protected.
WC-1058 WID-1413 W-df5d7b6c-ceee-44b7-9487-3966a0f5aa88 Draft EIS 1/7/2008 4:56:00 PM PLEASE do not implement the old-growth logging plan. Funding programs should not be at the expense of our forests. It is time for the BLM to recognize and respect the will of the people to preserve our forests, especially the old growth ones. Thank you.
WC-1059 WID-1412 W-60a8323c-580e-4043-bd02-2e5835b74c0c Draft EIS 1/7/2008 4:56:00 PM To whom it may concern I am a forty-two year old sixth generation native oregonian born and raised in timber country. I'm not insensitive to the needs of my community or my neighbor in terms of resources but I strongly feel the need to ask that you implement the "no action alternative." Logging has impacts on the environment and community which are incompatible with other user groups. Most of the old-growth or mature forest is gone. Forever and not coming back. These forests clean the air we breath. Clean the water we drink-very much so here in Corvallis. Anchor unstable slopes so they don't slide down onto freeways and peoples homes. They serve as water sponges to absorbe and release rainfall slowly as to lessen the impact of heavy rain events and create flooding. The idea of logging ninety percent of a resource then taking the remaining ten percent and saying, "hey, let's be fair, and divide this up among the user groups" is horse****. I hope that was clear. Logging is yesterdays technology and we need to move forward. I appreciate your time. Thank you.
WC-1060 WID-1405 W-4dbd7179-5203-4750-aaa0-a10b336ddcab Draft EIS 1/7/2008 5:00:00 PM I implore officials to reject this BLM plan. The plan puts forth timber harvest at too high a priority and environmental protections at too low a priority. Significant risks to wildlife and fish will result, including increased land slides, as well as reduced recreation and livability to the entire region. At a time where fish counts are at all time lows, extinction being a very real threat, stream buffers should not be reduced, but increased dramatically. The science on this relationship is very clear and has been for some time, as is the science regarding the relationship between clearcuts and landslides. Landslides have been shown to pose a significant risk to the public and our fisheries. Large scale logging on federal (public) lands should cease, putting the land management priority on conservation with increased, not decreased protections for wildlife and ecosystems. Clearcuts should not be allowed on public lands, only thinning and sustainable practices should be used. This plan calls for an unsustainable harvest and threatens our regional heritage and economy, giving the highest bidder quick profits, but leaving the region with little to show. Benefits for the many regional residents should not be forsaken for the profits of the few. I beleive the public does not support this plan, and again, I implore our public officials to listen to the public and reject this plan.
WC-1061 WID-1414 baa76894-908c-436d-a84a-28a2519ccb35 File Upload 1/7/2008 5:05:00 PM

Uploaded File:  forest plan.doc
WC-1062 WID-1417 1138635a-0e39-48cb-ae2a-2b683a885091 File Upload 1/7/2008 5:08:00 PM Please read my letter attached. Thank you. Susan Gabriel

Uploaded File:  Letter to blm.doc
WC-1063 WID-1418 W-9b0f5ea7-2b13-4ebe-8f12-ab6f8f11d9ae Draft EIS 1/7/2008 5:21:00 PM After reviewing the EIS, a book could be written about the damage Alternatives 1,2, and 3 would do to wildlife and fisheries habitat and populations within this very large area. Research is difinitive on the substantial damage that excessive roads and motorized vehicle traffic due to big game population densities and distribution. The same is true of fisheries, particularly in regards to increases in stream temperatures, siltation, etc. Additionally, without a substantial increase in enforcement, which is not indicated in any of the three alternatives, it would be logical to expect a substantial increase in off road damage by trucks and ATV's, poaching, littering, etc. For those reasons, and others, I strongly urge the adoption of the "NO Action Alternative" Mike Morris
WC-1065 WID-1420 None Web Forum Exit 1/7/2008 6:01:00 PM This website is unusually difficult to use and will make my comments by letter
WC-1066 WID-1424 W-686b56bc-ada0-40b9-97cf-e1235d06499c Draft EIS 1/7/2008 6:08:00 PM I can only echo the words I have read in the many comments submitted that urge the BLM to refrain from implemnting their WORP plan You have failed to properly prioritize preservation of resources and stewardship of the environment in favor of commercial interests. There should be no increase in logging, less land not more for off road vehicles; adhere to all regulations in the Northwest Forest Plan. Your plan is fatally flawed. Come up with another, please, that addresses these concerns. Thank you.
WC-1067 WID-1425 W-33cd3e12-4216-497e-b82c-52967fd3e9da Draft EIS 1/7/2008 6:21:00 PM I am opposed to any plan that results in more logging - especially that of old growth. Only 5% of our native forests remain. At what point do we say enough is enough? 4%? 3%? 2%? When nothing´s left? Since all three alternatives proposed result in more logging, I can only support the No Action Alternative.
WC-1068 WID-1427 W-8de8f52e-3129-4a26-84af-1e559f022fae Draft EIS 1/7/2008 6:49:00 PM There should be no decrease in the size of buffer strips for streams or lakes. This program will make the BLM lands nothing but a row crop for growing trees. The basic ecologial integrity will be lost in these expanded areas. There is a continued loss of habitat in the US and the BLM should not contribute to this and possibly add new endanged species with the proposed action. Let the timber is provided by the private land owner. The O&C Act did not provide for any wildlife protection. Change the Act. Don't use this archaic Act to justify destroying more wildlife habitat. NO TO THIS ACTION.
WC-1069 WID-1426 W-04605914-e651-46ab-865b-b567dfa4dab1 Draft EIS 1/7/2008 7:07:00 PM It is absolutely unacceptable for us to be clearing ANY more forest. Our world's and our nation's forests are being depleted in an absolutely unsustainable manner. We will only harm ourselves with these kind of choices. We need to wake up out of our denial, and demand higher integrity action of ourselves. Our efforts need to be put toward the growth of alternative energy sources, and toward a serious plan that will help us all learn that we are consuming WAY, WAY too much. We, and our future generations have a chance of surviving on this planet only if we drastically reduce our consumption of paper products and all other natural resources. We must rethink all old habits; we must observe every scrap of paper we use, print onto paper only when absolutely necessary, recycle every backside of every sheet of paper, etc. This is not a discussion of a forest "way over there" that has only local ramifications. This is a discussion of Gaia, the singe organism made up of Planet Earth, and all life on it. Please think bigger picture, immediately. We have no time left to be making underinformed choices. Please be the hero you know you can be, rather than its opposite. Man did not weave the web of life - he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself. ~ Chief Seattle thank you, erika
WC-1070 WID-1431 W-45c87ed1-1b19-405a-a666-0daff60bdb56 Draft EIS 1/7/2008 7:30:00 PM I find your decision to open up and clearcut 2.5 million acres in western Oregon to be unsound. As an outdoorsman who enjoys hunting, fishing, hiking and most all other outdoor sports, this decision will adversley effect my activities, those of my family and friends. Thining the forest is an option you should consider. Clearcutting has never benefited anyone except the land owner. The legacy you are leaving your children and mine will be written when you finally authorize the final tree in Oregon on Federal lands to be cut down. This is a sad state of affairs and I hope you reconsider this action you are planning. Reducing the streamside buffer zone from 360 feet to 100 feet with logging allowed as close as 25 feet from fish-bearing streams is NOT being a good steward of nature. We have seen through the years what clearcutting around streams will do to them. Does the last salmon have to die before we all wake up? Please reconsider this entire plan. The adverse effect this plan will have on nature, fish and wildlife in this great state of Oregon is NOT worth the money it will generate for local, county, state and federal government.
WC-1071 WID-1430 W-fcc88c91-c747-41b7-b786-08d64caca3f3 Draft EIS 1/7/2008 8:22:00 PM I'm commenting in regard to the Southern Oregon plan to open nearly 900,000 acres of BLM land to OHV access. As a hunter, I urge you to reconsider this plan. The blacktail deer winter and use these areas as cover. World class blacktail deer live in Southern Oregon. I don't live there but I come there every year to hunt for a week or more. I will cease spending my money in Southern Oregon, as will a number of people that I know, if this happens. I enjoy walking close gated roads, undisturbed ground, quiet and clean. And from past experience, a free for all, access by OHV will hinder that experience. I will seek solitude elsewhere. Regards,
WC-1072 WID-642 W-36bc3a00-044a-4ac0-b5cf-43f26da67588 Draft EIS 1/7/2008 8:33:00 PM It is unallowable that none of the proposed Alternatives include land allocation for the Adaptive Management Areas currently in place. The Adaptive Management Areas were established to "encourage the development and testing of technical and social approaches to achieve desired ecological, economic, and other social objectives…[and to] promote learning about how to manage…". It is inconceivable that all of our questions have been answered in the short time since the National Forest Plan formally recognized the gross paucity of information on which to base sound management decisions. Given our nascent understanding of even basic ecological tenets, our poor accommodation of even minor variability in natural systems, and the effects of looming unknowns like climate change, we can´t afford to continue to guess. Our crude application (and misapplication) of lessons we think we´ve learned only underscores our desperate need for more information on which to act. We need Adaptive Management Areas to avoid squandering taxpayer dollars and support on inept and damaging management that yields little but surprises.
WC-1073 WID-642 W-9cf5a471-d331-4b57-a862-d8370fb84232 Draft EIS 1/7/2008 8:50:00 PM "Secure Rural Schools" funding is obviously a misnomer, as evidenced by the closing of libraries, the underfunding of schools, and the slashing of public services in numerous Southwest Oregon communities this year when the timber payments ran out. It has become painfully evident that linking local government funding to such an undependable, self-serving, and unaccountable entity as the timber economy can be devastating for our communities and is woefully inappropriate. We deserve more than this.
WC-1074 WID-1437 W-805188c7-01e9-44ef-b53c-c7348523d11e Draft EIS 1/7/2008 8:52:00 PM I would like to select the NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE in the BLM Land Management Western Oregon Plan Revision. The protection of our streams are of concern. If old growth forests are cut further we may well expect more erosion and danger to communities and roadways in the vicinity of the cuts. Also, we can not afford to continue the draw down of fisheries in the region and expect to pull them back from extinction through expensive and frustrating means. The economy of the region is dependent on our forests on a larger scale than the dollars that will flow into communities through cutting these trees. Thank you for your time, Richard Fulwiler
WC-1075 WID-642 W-303e6ffa-91e1-4ea0-a953-01c4050ffa9e Draft EIS 1/7/2008 9:04:00 PM The increased risk of local extirpation and extinction of bureau sensitive species and bureau assessment species under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 is unacceptable. High biodiversity is an important and attainable management goal, and should not be compromised. High native plant biodiversity provides for high ecosystem resiliency in the face of disturbance; efficient use of resources such as energy, water, and nutrients; and supports a greater number of species of other taxa. For maximum ecosystem health, I urge that the No Action Alternative be maintained to protect not just taxonomic diversity (number of species), but also genetic (the variety of genes) and functional diversity (the role species play in ecosystem processes). When all kinds of diversity are enhanced, there exists a greater variety of genes and functional roles available to respond to ecosystem change, and to maintain the reliability of ecosystem functioning even in the face of environmental fluctuation. Additionally, management diversity targets should focus on both inventory (number of species), and differentiation (equitability or relative abundance) diversity. When there is high differentiation diversity, there are sufficient species types and numbers needed for continued ecosystem development, structure, function, and stability. When there is high inventory diversity, rare species are present to perform specialized roles that may only become essential during ecosystem change.
WC-1076 WID-1440 f94ae06d-7ac6-431c-a04b-bbd548480a6a Draft EIS 1/7/2008 9:07:00 PM Good day, I would like to see the Coos Bay region return to 1970 through 1980's era logging practices. Regards, James M. Schaer
WC-1077 WID-1439 W-2b5459ea-5698-4ba2-a03d-cf11a8e3eb06 Draft EIS 1/7/2008 9:08:00 PM I have reviewed all the options and would like to recommend that No Action be taken to amend the current management plan. It is extremely important to maintain our current level of protection for our riparian areas and our current forest practices are the only options that offer adiquate protection for our fish and streams. Oregons population is growing extremely fast and we must continue to make fresh drinking water and habitat protection a priority in our timber and enviromental choices.
WC-1078 WID-642 W-36ab41ff-c803-4376-9ea3-ebc95086f6ee Draft EIS 1/7/2008 9:17:00 PM Invasive species significantly alter ecological processes including energy, nutrient, and water cycling, and impact the ecological processes of all other organisms in the system. Invasive species impact the growth and establishment of other plants, including conifers; impact wildlife cover and forage quality; impact soil formation and erosion; and impact hydrology and fish-bearing streams. Once thresholds of degradation by invasive species are crossed, ecological systems can be changed irreversibly. Substantial money and effort has already been invested at all levels to slow the spread of invasive plants - the No Action Alternative should be selected so these investments do not go to waste.
WC-1079 WID-1442 W-f70bddcc-8aef-4154-9625-19d52c3e8b98 Draft EIS 1/7/2008 9:19:00 PM Alternative 3 is the best of the options under consideration. Personally, I don't want ANY of the old growth trees cut down for any reason - especially given that there is no need to cut them down. I am also dead set against clearcutting. It is obviously the main reason we are seeing such serious flooding and erosion in the Coast Range. The siltation issue is another reason to absolutely reject clearcutting. Also, why now when the housing market is down? The only thing I can think of is political grandstanding. I could actually see it coming with the obviously carefully planned attack on the spotted owl issue via the headlines re: the barred owl. The only thing more pathetic than the environmentalists hitching their movement to the spotted owl rather than to the trees and forests themselves is the constant effort on the part of the corporatists to kill all the trees. It appears obvious to me that the BLM is more supportive to exploitation than protection. Prove me wrong, please.
WC-1080 WID-1443 W-5016ace6-5187-46d8-9e16-7fbdd4bba53d Draft EIS 1/7/2008 9:30:00 PM There is a great deal to hate about the document, but most despicable are: 1. Clearcuts BLM must have no ecologists left in the ranks. Either they left in disgust or were purged. The scientific community (which does not include the harvest specialists) has disapproved of clearcuts for at least a decade--yes, even in western Oregon. Even the thought of reducing riparian buffers reduces this document to nothing more than political ownership by the lobbying community working closely with the current administration. The critical protection provided to streams for clean water and fish habitat are such no brainers that this plan will be in court indefinitely. Clearcuts carry the added baggage of stand replacement plantings that have a required success rate. This guarantees that mosaics, which are a critical facet of stand composition for diverse plant and animal communities, will never be achieved; first, because the old-growth component will have been harvested, second because most non-timber species will be crowded out by dense seedling stands. These dense stands will be thinned, then precommercially thinned at least once, at enormous expense. Rational management practice would create multi-level canopies utilizing existing age classes of old-growth. Clearcuts are simply cost/benefit expediency with no regard to other forest values, therefore patently illegal. 2. Roads BLM has done a dismal job of thinning the lands already entered through road construction. BLM has no business building new roads and entering new stands until those stands are appropriately treated.
WC-1081 WID-642 W-d7173fdb-2c6f-4b22-80eb-91a319c7fedb Draft EIS 1/7/2008 9:31:00 PM "Across all ownerships, the abundance of the structural stages would not return to the average historic conditions within 100 years, even if there was no timber harvesting on the BLM-administered lands." This metric is a strong argument for the No Action Alternative. Lands across all ownerships are so altered from their average historic conditions that it becomes even more imperative that BLM-administered lands be managed toward attaining historic conditions and the high level of ecological function that they represent.
WC-1082 WID-642 W-027f72ec-1210-4a59-96c6-235d7da46312 Draft EIS 1/7/2008 9:35:00 PM "The differences in the alternatives would result in only a 1% shift in the structural stage abundances across all ownerships within 100 years." This metric is an inappropriate measure of the ecological impact of the Alternatives, as it averages impacts across lands on which the Alternatives would not be applied. Please avoid misleading statements.
WC-1083 WID-642 W-b50b2082-9b14-4a8f-ac75-46c6fc982b11 Draft EIS 1/7/2008 9:40:00 PM Management should aim to return forests to historical conditions, increase structural complexity, and reduce fragmentation. Of the four Alternatives considered, the No Action Alternative should be selected to best support these important goals.
WC-1084 WID-1447 a5729c58-2b44-4e5e-99e1-d7523246b4bd File Upload 1/7/2008 9:47:00 PM Letter in opposition to WOPR. Kindly consider.

Uploaded File:  J middleton blm comments.pdf
WC-1085 WID-1446 43a4eded-7ee9-4060-92ff-e606c39086c4 File Upload 1/7/2008 9:54:00 PM Concerns regarding logging in western oregon.

Uploaded File:  BLM Comments.doc
WC-1086 WID-1449 W-275a5eb2-c31c-4e8c-92fa-b2d15e5bd8cb Draft EIS 1/7/2008 9:58:00 PM From my current understanding of this draft, I am outraged that you would allow protections for wilderness areas, our stream and river systems and wetlands to be eroded. Don't play politics with a priceless resource. Intact forest ecosystems need to be protected and I expect you to do this.
WC-1087 WID-1450 W-1c3a1202-3867-4549-907e-7ef29581c65e Draft EIS 1/7/2008 9:59:00 PM Many people who have done more research might present a better argument, but I would like to add my name to their campaign against BLM's WOPR. Our forests have already been reduced to a shadow of their former selves, and the natural preserves of the northwest are shrinking. We are increasingly becoming a brown, clear-cut state rather than our proper green self. Salmon are suffering, and the animals that depend on our forests for their habitat, and people as well, who may well live to see the end of some of the greatest forests of the Pacific Northwest. Please resist this dramatic increase in logging.
WC-1088 WID-1449 W-cdba6d2b-7d96-47a1-9784-5fb121fd852e Draft EIS 1/7/2008 10:03:00 PM Hello, I'm not sure if my first comment was submitted correctly. So, to refrain: It is my understanding that this draft will erode protections for our wild forestland, and the rivers and stream systems therein. It is your job to protect this resource, not play politics with it. Not everything has to be measured in terms of economics - hands off this treasure!
WC-1089 WID-1451 f39504dd-8fff-4a46-a67c-3c85254f2b3b Draft EIS 1/7/2008 10:18:00 PM WOPR
WC-1090 WID-1453 W-e367df11-2328-4bcc-b856-c5f142a86e95 Draft EIS 1/7/2008 10:33:00 PM Please do not allow our beautiful state to be ruined further by short term gains in an already weak timber industry. Cutting so close to streams will damage fish habitat. More clear cuts on the level you are talking about will destroy tourism by creating an ugly landscape that will take decades to repair. If this passes, you need to replace all of the pictures on your website with logging trucks and clearcut stumps, not the bucolic scenes that are currently there.
WC-1091 WID-1454 W-760ee89b-514d-4fab-bacc-9c3bed70ec54 Draft EIS 1/7/2008 10:46:00 PM I was born in Colorado 54 years ago, and moved to Oregon 35 years ago. All my life I've had a deep appreciation for public lands and am now horrified at the BLM's WOPR proposal. I abhor the direction the Bush Administration is headed in (mis)managing 2.6 million acres of federal forests under the WOPR. The changes the BLM are contemplating will unravel the protections of the well-researched Northwest Forest Plan, and will lead to water pollution, degraded habitat, and increased conflict and controversy. Your current proposal is unacceptable. You propose increased old-growth logging on public lands in western Oregon by 700%, building 1,000 miles of new logging road in the next decade and clearcutting at a 9-1 ratio to thinning. This is a myopic and backwards proposal that depletes our natural resource base for future generations by weakening protections for forests, creeks and salmon. Shockingly, your proposal ignores the role that these forests play in regulating the climate. Most Americans want federal land managers to embrace thinning second growth forests, safeguard communities from wildfire and protect what remains of our nation's ancient forests. By focusing on previously logged public forestlands - many of which are now overgrown and in need of thinning - we can provide wood to local mills while actually improving conditions for fish and wildlife and keeping saws out of precious old-growth forests. In contrast, the WOPR proposes to inflame the controversy by increasing old-growth clearcutting for a short-term economic fix. The WOPR puts water quality at risk and would destroy some of the public's little remaining old-growth forests. We should protect our remaining mature and old-growth forests on public land, not clearcut these natural treasures. It is disappointing that at a time when public consensus for old-growth protection and second-growth thinning has never been stronger, the BLM is proposing to clearcut forests older than our nation and turn complex ecosystems into tree plantations most susceptible to severe wildfire. Please protect remaining old-growth forests, focus active management of BLM lands in already logged-over areas, and create job opportunities in restoration forestry that would benefit watersheds and generate wood products. Let's restore what we have already damaged rather than multiply past mistakes. You manage these lands for all Americans, and future generations deserve a living legacy. If you, as the agency that oversees these public assets, do not protect the public's remaining old-growth, I ask Congress to enact legislation that once and for all protects all remaining old-growth on public lands. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I urge you to reconsider this destructive proposal. Sincerely, Deborah Beauchamp
WC-1092 WID-1455 W-0123bd65-4d06-4b7f-9ad9-eea25683a19b Draft EIS 1/7/2008 10:49:00 PM I am concerned that this latest EIS has underestimated the environmental impact of logging on endangered species and that it allows an unsustainable level of logging in protected forests. Please reject this attempt to sacrifice the health of our forests for shortterm financial gain. Thank you, Kevin Kraus, concerned citizen
WC-1093 WID-1451 58620096-a4db-4619-a471-8d5c7cfcaf7e Draft EIS 1/7/2008 11:01:00 PM I strongly urge you to reject the wopr ansd your proposed alternative 2. Your desire to clear cut all old growwth forests shows only concern for commerc- ial logging interests and disregrard for all environmental laws. Your efforts should be directed at thinning and logging only second growth forests. By clear cutting old growth forests yoy are destroying the most fire resistant trees, eliminating an ecosystem that never will be replaced and destroying an evironment that future generations will not have. You will only be establishing tree plantat- ions and not diversified forests and natural echosystems.
WC-1094 WID-1456 W-80904ac3-afbc-4964-84b2-a49296efe673 Draft EIS 1/7/2008 11:17:00 PM I would like to see more small clear cuts to open up the forest for increased food habitat for big game animals. Setbacks along streams should be based upon the potential for erosion. 300 feet in one case might be worse than 50 feet in another--one size fits all is not very scientific. More attention needs to be paid toward the management of fish predators whether it be cormorants, terns, seals, sea lions, etc.
WC-1095 WID-1458 W-b6237d80-8b35-4b41-a748-dd8968703819 Draft EIS 1/7/2008 11:56:00 PM Dear BLM, You must not cave into the Bush administration and chop down old trees. The current plan to chop down trees that are many decades or hundreds of years old is evil. Forests exist so that they can be protected. Logging should only be allowed in a manner that has the aproval of the Sierra Club and the National Resources Defense council. Given the political change that is about to occur you should work now to protect the forests so that you have good karma in the coming days.
WC-1096 WID-1499 None Interactive Map 1/8/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from No Action: Thank you for taking my comment. I am extremely concerned about the recent shift to clear cutting that I have noticed. I thought we addressed this ten years ago, but it appears that short term monetary gains are the only concern again. None of the alternatives you provide seem to address all the environmental concerns present in these lands. I am writing to support the "No Action Alternative" until we can get a rational forest management plan on the table. Thank you. -Jon
WC-1097 WID-1519 None Interactive Map 1/8/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_fulltime|tb_gen_ans: We moved here to our piece of parasdise for the quiet and serenity of the area and it's nature. PLEASE dont let the off roaders come anywhere near here or have an access way thru here and destroy it for us. Thanks you%21 %0DLeslie Searcy
WC-1098 WID-1519 None Interactive Map 1/8/2008 12:00:00 AM tb_gen_ans:
WC-1099 WID-1519 None Interactive Map 1/8/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_fulltime|tb_gen_ans:
WC-1100 WID-1518 None Interactive Map 1/8/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Forests: Returning to Tillamook County after a year away I was shocked to see the ravaged landscapes that had been clearcut. Visible from and alongside public roads, it is a poor message we send to visitiors to and citizens of our great state%3B a message of our desperation to squeeze every last penny out of timberland. This indiscriminate practice or clear-cutting eradicates the vitality and and integrity of our priceless forests. It is a sad example of greed and comodity dominating over rational, logical, and responsible logging practice. Selective logging is a much more ethical means to responsibly harvest lumber from our great state. Though it does not come with the ease of indiscriminate clear-cutting, it is a practice that will maintain ecoogical diversity%3B and that benefits the health of the forests and all its living things for generations to come. By decreasing the protection of streambeds, we undermine the foundations of another critical state economy, the fish and game habitats. No part of these ecological cycles can be valued above or below the rest.Please protect our forests from the ravage of clearcutting, unmonitored ATV use, and any loss of wildlife habitat. Our world's resources are shrinking fast enough as it is.Sincerely, a concerned citizen,%0DJennifer Wyss
USA.GOV  |  No Fear Act  |  DOI  |  Disclaimer  |  About BLM  |  Notices  |  Get Adobe Reader