Web-comments-801-900

# SenderID Ref.# Comment Tool Date Comment
WC-801 WID-1144 W-54a6fa0e-9412-4298-9e37-16951e298a15 Draft EIS 1/1/2008 9:51:00 PM I concur with the perferred alternative! We need to get back to cutting timber in a sustained yield fashon versis trying to "save something that is not saveable. Meeting the financial needs of local communities/counties by stimulating and assisting local forest work forces, mills and the economic needs of County governments is perimont. Utilizing a resourse that is otherwise headed for degredation/collapse and utimately a major conflagration only makes sense. I sincerely hope that this process will allow you to procede in such a sensable fashon. Craig Royce
WC-802 WID-1145 W-c177de6d-e508-41b9-addc-5e5d3ef843e3 Draft EIS 1/1/2008 9:59:00 PM We are against any further clear-cutting of BLM lands. Due to global warming there should be a plan created to plant as many trees as possible on the available BLM lands to protect the planet from over-heating. Any other attempts to profit from these lands through clear-cutting or other "treatment" would be against the wishes of the human and other species on this planet as it would further global warming.
WC-803 WID-1162 None Interactive Map 1/2/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_fulltime|tb_gen_ans:
WC-804 WID-1162 None Interactive Map 1/2/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from No Action: With the current low demand for wood products likely to continue for a few years, the timber industry needs no new lands to cut. Any cutting in genuine old-growth forests should be denied. The solution to rural county financial troubles should not come at the expense of the tremendous natural resource of the old growth woods in the Northwest.
WC-805 WID-1179 None Interactive Map 1/2/2008 12:00:00 AM tb_gen_ans:
WC-806 WID-1179 None Interactive Map 1/2/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_fulltime|tb_gen_ans: The potential harvest based for the 12,382 acres in this area ranges between 9144 - 9744 acres, depending on the option. This is FAR too much acreage, considering the natural beauty, recreation opportunities, and the fragile ecology of this tourist attraction. The Little Applegate Valley is a natural treasure. I urge you to throw out all WOPR options currently under consideration and opt for no change to the current protections. Thank you.
WC-807 WID-1184 None Interactive Map 1/2/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_tourism|cb_government|cb_industry|cb_farming|cb_timber|cb_ranching|tb_gen_ans:
WC-808 WID-1189 None Interactive Map 1/2/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_dirtbiking|tb_gen_ans: Please preserve the Florence dirtbiking areas. I'd like to take my grand kids someday. Thanks you%21
WC-809 WID-1189 None Interactive Map 1/2/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_dirtbiking|tb_gen_ans: Please preserve Huckleberry Flats riding area.Thanks
WC-810 WID-1149 0d5c3410-2180-44e5-9f86-cfa91900e7fc File Upload 1/2/2008 6:01:00 AM From a life long (so far 57 years) Lincoln County Oregon citizen.

Uploaded File:  WOPR.doc
WC-811 WID-1150 W-56a8b8cb-f3cc-40e6-8f0d-cbe56f10f5ea Draft EIS 1/2/2008 6:24:00 AM To whom this comment concerns. I would like to express myself about the BLM's WOPRO about logging the Old Growth Forests on BLM lands. I think it would be a short-lived benefit to the public both economically and especially environmentally. The value of fresh water, fresh air far outweighs anything that the general public would recieve from this short sighted plan to open up these islands of richly diverse old growth forests to logging. The issues of forest fires spreading in young even-aged stands that are denuded of diversity is critical. I believe that the BLM's plan to remove old growth forets from the land it is responsible for is wrong. It would be a short term gain for only a few people. Mean while, the rest of us get screwed! this plan lacks intelligence and common sense. No logging old growth forests! Work with what land has already been converted into tree farms and make those stands healthy again by diversifying the trees planted, creating a mosaic of diverse conditions etc..Thank-you for this oppurtunity to adress this important issue.
WC-812 WID-866 W-fb440049-4eaf-485c-bbad-6f1e5cf47605 Draft EIS 1/2/2008 7:45:00 AM I live at the confluence of Mill and Gooseneck Creeks in Polk County and have recently had a flood event larger than any we have experienced in the past 20 years; several feet higher than the one in 1996. The view out or the living room is of Mill Creek Ridge; it is good to see it covered with young trees and no evidence of recent clearcuts. I hope it continues so under future BLM stewardship. Perhaps there will again be some very old trees. I don´t think it is a coincidence that Mill Creek, Salt Creek, Rickreal Creek, and the Little Lukiamute had very high water on December 3, 2007 in spite of the fact that the amount of rain was less than in several past events. These watersheds have been greatly impacted by increased logging due to the shortened rotation periods on Weyerhaeuser and other private lands. As a matter of fact Polk County had a higher harvest volume in 2004 than at any time in the past (Oregon´s Timber Harvest 1849-2004; Oregon Department of Forestry) and it doesn´t look to me that this pace has slowed in the past 3 years. I went to Fanno Meadows, in the Coast Range, in June of this year for a weed pull and was shocked to see how the Little Lukiamute drainage had changed since I first visited it 25 years ago! Where was the forest? Range 7 W; Township 7 S has the following approximate ownerships in sections: BLM 20; Weyerhaeuser 12; Boise Cascade 3, and GDS 1. So far as I can determine the only public recreation on these lands is during hunting season; other than that the gates are locked and controlled by private industry. Since 55% of this township is in public ownership I would like to be able to visit my land during any season. There are birds (I saw a goshawk about 5 years ago on Mill Creek Ridge), flowers, waterfalls, mushrooms, and numerous other features that make it a great place for people other than hunters to visit. Why do they get special treatment? As a group do they have more influence? This also applies to other O&C lands in the area as well as to a small amount of Siuslaw National Forest west of Dallas. As for the alternatives, I prefer in order from better to lesser: 1. No Action No change in current plan - give it a chance, it is only 12 years old; no current shortage of lumber 2. Alternative 3 I like 360 year old trees but what is the chance of any plan lasting that long? See #1 3. Alternative 1 the lesser of two bad choices; it has more late successional reserve, riparian buffer, and less timber management area 4. Alternative 2 harvest level too high; rotations too short; salvage after disturbance allowed in successional management areas
WC-813 WID-1151 W-695960f2-270c-470e-a0ea-4e1e418e3c8b Draft EIS 1/2/2008 7:45:00 AM Old growth takes ages to grow and reflects the spirit of the land. Cutting down Oregon's remaining trees, while a band aid solution for tax revenues, would destroy the last vestiges of the land's spirit. Human population pressure is laying waste not only to forests here, but also in South America, Africa and Asia---in fact---pretty much every place our rapacious species can manage to make a buck. And while I enjoy reading Science Fiction in the comfort of an armchair, this does not mean I want to experience such scenarios first hand. Industrial harvesting techniques, whether applied to fishing, forestry, agriculture, etc., are leading us down a path to certain collapse, and this is not something anyone should desire, even those dependent on tax revenue.
WC-814 WID-866 W-e662c061-df5b-401b-a4f8-a8407cc3730f Draft EIS 1/2/2008 7:52:00 AM I have made several attempts at sending a comment but a "web page is not available message" is shown and all the time spent writing the comment is lost and I have to start over again. This is a short test to see if it is currently working.
WC-815 WID-866 W-b22bf3ee-50d7-4931-82b8-6235d3517a49 Draft EIS 1/2/2008 7:57:00 AM I live at the confluence of Mill and Gooseneck Creeks in Polk County and have recently had a flood event larger than any we have experienced in the past 20 years; several feet higher than the one in 1996. The view out out living room is of Mill Creek Ridge; it is good to see it covered with young trees and no evidence of recent clearcuts. I hope it continues so under future BLM stewardship. Perhaps there will again be some very old trees. I don´t think it is a coincidence that Mill Creek, Salt Creek, Rickreal Creek, and the Little Lukiamute had very high water on December 3, 2007 in spite of the fact that the amount of rain was less than in several past events. These watersheds have been greatly impacted by increased logging due to the shortened rotation periods on Weyerhaeuser and other private lands. As a matter of fact Polk County had a higher harvest volume in 2004 than at any time in the past (Oregon´s Timber Harvest 1849-2004; Oregon Department of Forestry) and it doesn´t look to me that this pace has slowed in the past 3 years. I went to Fanno Meadows, in the Coast Range, in June of this year for a weed pull and was shocked to see how the Little Lukiamute drainage had changed since I first visited it 25 years ago! Where was the forest? Range 7 W; Township 7 S has the following approximate ownerships in sections: BLM 20; Weyerhaeuser 12; Boise Cascade 3, and GDS 1. So far as I can determine the only public recreation on these lands is during hunting season; other than that the gates are locked and controlled by private industry. Since 55% of this township is in public ownership I would like to be able to visit my lands during any season. There are birds (I saw a goshawk about 5 years ago on Mill Creek Ridge), flowers, waterfalls, mushrooms, and numerous other features that make it a great place for people other than hunters to visit. Why do they get special treatment? As a group do they have more influence? This also applies to other O&C lands in the area as well as to a small amount of Siuslaw National Forest west of Dallas. As for the alternatives, I prefer in order: 1. No Action No change in current plan - give it a chance, it is only 12 years old; no current shortage of lumber 2. Alternative 3 I like 360 year old trees but what is the chance of any plan lasting that long? See #1 3. Alternative 1 the lesser of two bad choices; it has more late successional reserve, riparian buffer, and less timber management area 4. Alternative 2 harvest level too high; rotations too short; salvage after disturbance allowed in successional management areas
WC-816 WID-866 W-de1f42d6-aa07-4006-8302-5cc61a74ed7a Draft EIS 1/2/2008 8:01:00 AM I am going to send my comments in paragraph installments. I live at the confluence of Mill and Gooseneck Creeks in Polk County and have recently had a flood event larger than any we have experienced in the past 20 years; several feet higher than the one in 1996. The view out out living room is of Mill Creek Ridge; it is good to see it covered with young trees and no evidence of recent clearcuts. I hope it continues so under future BLM stewardship. Perhaps there will again be some very old trees.
WC-817 WID-866 W-aa75ec0b-bebe-40a9-b5e3-1d06bc8aa4f6 Draft EIS 1/2/2008 8:02:00 AM I don´t think it is a coincidence that Mill Creek, Salt Creek, Rickreal Creek, and the Little Lukiamute had very high water on December 3, 2007 in spite of the fact that the amount of rain was less than in several past events. These watersheds have been greatly impacted by increased logging due to the shortened rotation periods on Weyerhaeuser and other private lands. As a matter of fact Polk County had a higher harvest volume in 2004 than at any time in the past (Oregon´s Timber Harvest 1849-2004; Oregon Department of Forestry) and it doesn´t look to me that this pace has slowed in the past 3 years. I went to Fanno Meadows, in the Coast Range, in June of this year for a weed pull and was shocked to see how the Little Lukiamute drainage had changed since I first visited it 25 years ago! Where was the forest?
WC-818 WID-866 W-1fd440dd-30be-40a7-86c7-3f7cbd7cc079 Draft EIS 1/2/2008 8:03:00 AM Range 7 W; Township 7 S has the following approximate ownerships in sections: BLM 20; Weyerhaeuser 12; Boise Cascade 3, and GDS 1. So far as I can determine the only public recreation on these lands is during hunting season; other than that the gates are locked and controlled by private industry. Since 55% of this township is in public ownership I would like to be able to visit my lands during any season. There are birds (I saw a goshawk about 5 years ago on Mill Creek Ridge), flowers, waterfalls, mushrooms, and numerous other features that make it a great place for people other than hunters to visit. Why do they get special treatment? As a group do they have more influence? This also applies to other O&C lands in the area as well as to a small amount of Siuslaw National Forest west of Dallas. As for the alternatives, I prefer in order: 1. No Action No change in current plan - give it a chance, it is only 12 years old; no current shortage of lumber 2. Alternative 3 I like 360 year old trees but what is the chance of any plan lasting that long? See #1 3. Alternative 1 the lesser of two bad choices; it has more late successional reserve, riparian buffer, and less timber management area 4. Alternative 2 harvest level too high; rotations too short; salvage after disturbance allowed in successional management areas
WC-819 WID-1153 01959204-918e-47c9-a4f4-7b3247c0020e File Upload 1/2/2008 9:48:00 AM

Uploaded File:  wopr.doc
WC-820 WID-1155 W-724471c4-0015-4f41-92b5-79b00910c70a Draft EIS 1/2/2008 10:13:00 AM BLM, I have been an active equestrian riding in the areas of jackson county for 30 years, I ride barefoot, follow every rule and clean trail as I go. Leave it better than when you came. This philosophy would be difficult for the OHV's by nature of their machines and speed they would prefer to travel. Over the thirty years the areas of rural horseman has diminished by nature of development and multiple use. We now pay fees to park and ride, but it hasn't assured us access. Please keep our heritasge available in terms of backcountry for generations to come. I have ridden in areas where OHV riders go and even from vast distances, horses are put on alert and makes for a more dangerous ride for all. Horses do not crisscross areas and rarely break-into areas that are illegal to ride. There should be a way of reqarding those you for years have played by the rules and not to those who wish to take over for exclusive use many areas after having ruined terrain in the past. I am in total agreement with Robert Kingsworth who wrote and editorial, Guest Opinion in the Medford Mail Tribune in the last few weeks. At the least to expand areas for OHV, horse designated areas should be equally increased. Respectfully submitted, Joanne Hebert
WC-821 WID-1159 W-012b3856-6dbe-46e3-926e-f8e12a8366e0 Draft EIS 1/2/2008 10:48:00 AM I would like comment that the WOPR plan is too aggressive in logging and not sustainable. Remaining old growth and even middle growth forests should be conserved, and you should really protect watersheds and streams, leave big buffer zones even for intermittant and small streams. Thanks, Felton Jenkins
WC-822 WID-1161 W-58d44eaf-07aa-438d-afc6-400f558f38c0 Draft EIS 1/2/2008 11:24:00 AM Increased logging to pay for rural fundings(schools, law enforcement, etc) is not a sustainable practice. We cannot log off the last forests and decimate what remains, just to pay a few more years of revenues to the rural counties. This will only lead to forest destruction and rural enslavement to logging practices. Rural communities also prosper from recreation from healthy forests and it is critical to protect forests for clean drinking water.
WC-823 WID-1165 38f65432-e62b-4853-b93d-ddc77a4f904a File Upload 1/2/2008 11:38:00 AM I am resolutely OPPOSED to the BLM's WOPR plan. It is short-sighted, environmentally destructive, greedy, and violates the responsibility we have to the future. I am attaching Kelpie Wilson's article. If you can read it and still move ahead with the egregious WOPR plan, you have neither heart nor wisdom.

Uploaded File:  NO TO WOPR.doc
WC-824 WID-1168 906f20dd-d2bd-414f-bba3-cd524a3e0ca1 Draft EIS 1/2/2008 11:55:00 AM The WOPR is not a sustatinable solution to your problems. Wake up! One must honor both long term and short term goals. You all are headed for disaster -- especially if someof those California fires head your way.
WC-825 WID-1166 W-91d1e63c-f07c-48c1-9c7d-35da8b00898a Draft EIS 1/2/2008 12:06:00 PM I am for the No Action Plan, but actually, I am for an Action Plan which goes in the direction of more protection for the natural environment, ZERO cutting on in our National Forests and a paradigm shift from the notion that we should be profiting at all from timber sales off our National Forests. The clear-cutting and lack of regulation on private lands puts enough burden on ecosystems. Our National Forests and BLM land should not be considered as profit centers at all and the only goal should be to manage them as healthy ecosystems and natural recreational areas. The WOPR plan is another plan to put profitability above all and it is cloaked in impotent claims about protecting the environment. Many of us see through it and we are ready for the Environmental Protection Agency, the BLM, the Department of Fish and WIldlife, etc, to become the protectors of our last remaining wild areas and cease being the strong arms for the forest industry, pesticide and herbicide companies, agri-business, the hunting industry. etc. It may sound idealistic to want to have a ZERO cut policy in our National Forests, but when you look at the numbers and the decimation of forests and ecosystems on private land, it makes sense to those who have not let their reason be blinded by thirst for profit.
WC-826 WID-1171 8064ee7e-29b3-40a5-b340-ececf2ba8ba9 File Upload 1/2/2008 12:18:00 PM

Uploaded File:  wopr.doc
WC-827 WID-1164 W-517a9451-0208-4e5d-bd02-a2dfe5d16eda Draft EIS 1/2/2008 12:27:00 PM I oppose the BLM's Western Oregon Plan Revision of the Northwest Forest plan. As a public agency, the BLM should instead be taking action to preserve all the remaining mature and old-growth forests on public lands. The BLM should instead place it's efforts on careful restoration of these forests in an effort to diminish the devastating wildfires we have experienced in the recent past. This restoration work would help to preserve water resources in supporting salmon populations and the watersheds communities depend on. This restoration work could provide jobs needed in rural communities and protect these communities from wildfires. We need to look to the future generations and their right to our heritage forests instead of falling prey to the poor planning evident of the Bush administration and its efforts to pay back the timber industry's campaign contributions with the timber profits at the expense of the people's forestlands. I am very disappointed in the short-sightedness of our public agencies and their disregard to the benefits to the public of these diverse habitats and recreation areas. Please act in the best interest to the greater good, not the elite's pocket. Sincerely, Monica Gilman
WC-828 WID-1172 W-2ce12543-a49a-4e7f-9ff1-24638473699a Draft EIS 1/2/2008 12:50:00 PM Please reconsider your Western Oregon Plan Revision with its plan to clearcut the mature and old-growth public forestlands of Western Oregon. The public should not have to sacrifice it's forests with their biodiverse habitats to the timber industry that have financially supported the Bush administration during its political campaigns. Our future generations do not owe its heritage forests to the timber industry or the short-sighted Bush administration. The public needs its forest carefully restored by thinning overgrown forests that are vulnerable to wildfires which are impacting nearby communities. These communities need their watersheds protected instead of devastated. The public needs the BLM to protect our unique heritage forests which are irreplacable in their natural settings. Do the right action by protecting Oregon's treasure. Sincerely, Jay Humphrey
WC-829 WID-1175 W-9557481c-e619-433b-bb78-d88409c6536e Draft EIS 1/2/2008 1:11:00 PM None of the proposed "Alternatives", however, provide adequate conservation of habitats needed "for the survival and recovery of species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA." Indeed, from an aquatic and riparian conservation standpoint, the Preferred Alternative (Alt. 2) provides the least protection for listed species and will likely result in the most harm to aquatic species.
WC-830 WID-1174 W-be6984f8-d226-4e71-983e-6e2f83a1ca6a Draft EIS 1/2/2008 1:17:00 PM Please make your Western Oregon Revision Plan to reflect the needs of future generations. My 2 year old and all Oregonians deserve recreational access to the public's pristine forests more than the timber industry deserves their publicly supported welfare profits. The wildlife and other biodiverse life forms that live in these mature and old-growth public forestlands define the uniqueness of Oregon. Don't allow poor vision and planning to devastate BLM's forests. Support Oregon by restoring our forests by thinning to prevent forest fires and make rural communities more secure. The restoration would give jobs to those who need them and the public would benefit from these efforts. Clearcutting is not the answer. It is the problem that plagues our state. Sincerely, Daro Aberle
WC-831 WID-1177 cf20f664-2940-4502-9ebb-e014b742921e File Upload 1/2/2008 1:42:00 PM

Uploaded File:  OldGroth.doc
WC-832 WID-1178 W-7d705b20-d15c-4f6c-b521-a5a49d8cbd2b Draft EIS 1/2/2008 1:46:00 PM The draft EIS proposes to sacrifice 2.6 million acres of currently protected public forestlands in Western Oregon to loggers. These forests should be protected, not exploited. There are less than 5% of America's original forests remaining. We cannot afford to lose any more. Please withdraw the W.O.P.R.
WC-833 WID-1181 W-b6888be7-ef31-4a71-80f2-fb6fbe382d18 Draft EIS 1/2/2008 2:23:00 PM I prefer the no action alternative rather than any of the proposed. They are tools for exploitation rather than preserving our natural rescources. Also, as a scientist specializing in reptiles and amphibians, which are highly affected by deforestation and for long times, I am opposed to these changes on wildlife grounds as well.
WC-834 WID-1185 W-e0d86af0-ba49-4bc4-a95d-71a8b10f3721 Draft EIS 1/2/2008 7:15:00 PM I would like to express my support for the preferred alternative. As a former school board member, I recognize the contribution BLM harvest has made to stabilize school funding and provide employment in the rural areas of our state. It appears to me that a vocal minority of Oregon citizens has taken control of the decision process in timber harvest and eliminated public good sense and professional forestry experience. I hope this alternative will prevail in spite of the advertising blitz designed to defeat it.
WC-835 WID-1188 W-5e9d3464-f6ff-4e1c-89b1-c2bee2ff9739 Draft EIS 1/2/2008 9:21:00 PM I am writing to state my opposition to the WOPR plan. I don't feel like I need to ramble on about why I oppose it except that it is basically an unsustainable, fool-hearty plan. Lets find other ways to fund our counties that benefit everyone. It will take time and we may have to deal with less for a while, but we will all be richer in so many ways in the end.
WC-836 WID-1190 W-f840753d-fe26-4477-8df0-f65c04e2c3b8 Draft EIS 1/2/2008 10:54:00 PM To Whom it May Concern, I am not a resident of Oregon, but as a forest ecologist I am very concerned about the direction of forest management in the country. I understand the need for increased production in Oregon, especially from timber products, but I believe that these "alternatives" are potentially environmentally dangerous policies. I dislike alternative 3 because there most land is given up to timber production. In this era of forest conservation, it is absolutely necessary to preserve large tracts of forest. First, large tracts of forest are very important in regulating climate; in recent years scientists and policy makers around the world have just started to realize how integral forests are for absorbing and storing carbon and buffering against the effects of global warming. Secondly, if most of the forest is allowed to be logged, these disturbances with disrupt the nutrient flow, forest maturation, and water quality. More importantly, this plan allows for logging of mature old-growth forests - this is unexceptable at this time. Old growth forests are very important sinks of carbon and biodiversity, and while forests can grow back to reclaim carbon, they can't grow back species that have been forced to go extinct. Loss of biodiversity is a great loss to America's environmental and cultural heritage, but more practically it is likely to cause a decrease in the health and efficiency ecosystems and consequently have negative economic impacts on the area. My suggestion is that a new plan be integrated that does NOT harvest from the present late-successional reserves and riparian management areas. Maintaining large tracts of forest undisturbed by logging is a crucial environmental step. The Northwest Forest Plan greatly hindered economically feasible forest management in timber-extraction areas, and I think that this is where the new BLM forest plan should be directed, i.e. make timber extraction there more feasible and accessible (I suggest you revist Thomas et al 2006's paper in Conservation Biology). Of the alternatives in the current plan, I favor 1 and strongly dislike 3 - I think though that another option should be created.
WC-837 WID-1196 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_photo|cb_hiking|cb_fishing|cb_birdwatching|cb_fulltime|cb_spiritual|cb_importantspecies|cb_scenicbeauty|cb_relax|cb_daily|tb_gen_ans: This area is an important watershed area for Brightwood, Marmot and other neighborhoods. It is an important bird habitat area for species in decline. It is the Sandy river watershed. It has been extensively cut by the forest service and BLM in the recent past. This area is important to bringing salmon back to the Sandy. It has a population of Elk, deer, bear and cats. It should not be used for timber production.
WC-838 WID-1196 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Forests: The forests in the Mt Hood area are important for remaining wildlife, fish, recreation and tourism. They are much more valuable intact than used as lumber products. The residents of Portland and the metro area use this area extensively for rural recreation. It needs to be preserved for these values.
WC-839 WID-1196 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Fish: With the recent removal of the dam on the Sandy river, it is imperative that every opportunity to enhance wild Coho and Steelhead populations in this river. Surrounding hillsides with their tributary streams must be protected and enhanced for fish and wildlife habitat. We have an opportunity to bring back the fish that have been declining after decades of logging and a dam on the river.
WC-840 WID-1202 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_government|cb_fulltime|tb_gen_ans:
WC-841 WID-1214 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Forests: BLM land has the last of the old growth left in this watershed.
WC-842 WID-1218 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_onceaweek|tb_gen_ans: There has been extensive clear-cutting in this area without due diligence in re-planting. The trees that abut the clear-cut areas that lie along HWY 101 are prone to wind damage and erosion because the clear-cut areas have left these screening trees vulnerable. The HWY 101 area is a prominent corridor used by visitors to the state and the clear-cut areas are visible, harming tourism and inhibiting tourism dollars.
WC-843 WID-1218 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_onceamonth|tb_gen_ans: The clear-cut areas are unsightly, damaging to the environment, and have serious ecological implications. In strong winds, the remaining trees abutting a clear-cut area have little to protect them, which means these trees fall or are uprooted. The damaging effects of clear-cutting have serious implications on native wildlife, flora, and watersheds.
WC-844 WID-1218 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_onceamonth|tb_gen_ans: Many parts of this area have been clear-cut, damaging the flora and fauna of the region. People who insist upon clear-cutting or over-cutting their forested areas are killing a vital natural resource in the interest of making a quick dollar that is not renewable. Proper forest management will curtail the odious practice of clear-cutting and preserve healthy forests for everone's well-being.
WC-845 WID-1218 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_1-4timesyear|tb_gen_ans: If I could, I would expand this pushpin to envelop the entire state. Logging, oil and gas drilling, mining and other resource-extratction activities on public lands must be curtailed. Habitat protections are vital. Logging should follow the 1937 federal law which directs the BLM to log on a sustained yield basis. People may lose their past ability to log, drill for oil and gas, and mine, but times have changed and individuals do not live on islands they can claim as their own personal cash cow. The needs of the rest of the citizens of the country and the state as well as the needs of the flora and fauna in the state must be taken into consideration and decisions must be made with sustainability in mind. We have already sacrificed too much in the name of a few people who use the valuable products of the environment to make themselves rich. I would suggest that the BLM ban any new roads on public lands and ban building on any watersheds or areas that affect watersheds.
WC-846 WID-1218 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_scenicbeauty|tb_gen_ans: This area is an example of a place that was wild until rich golfers discovered it. Now it is a sea of strip malls and vacation homes that sit vacent much of the year. Using public lands for the playgrounds of a few wealthy individuals is anathema to our country.
WC-847 WID-1218 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_fulltime|tb_gen_ans: How many golf courses can the Oregon coast absorb and how much wild land will be sacrificed so a few wealthy visitors can hit small balls around over-watered courses%3F The answer should be%3A NO MORE. The good of the whole is being sacrificed for the pleasure of the few.
WC-848 WID-1218 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_1-4timesyear|tb_gen_ans: This is the southern border of the ruined Oregon coastline that has been over-logged, over-fished, over-mined, and over-built. If the BLM doesn't stop these over-users, the coast will be one huge billboard for excessive consumerism and the land value will be lost.
WC-849 WID-1218 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_1-4timesyear|tb_gen_ans: This is the northern border of the over-used Oregon coast. See comment on the southerly flag regarding the coast.
WC-850 WID-1218 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Alternative 1: These areas must be expanded.
WC-851 WID-1218 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Alternative 2: Not enough land falls under this alternative.
WC-852 WID-1218 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Alternative 3: Not enough land falls under this alternative either.
WC-853 WID-1218 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Off-Highway Vehicles: All public land should be closed to all off-highway vehicles. These vehicles erode the land and pollute the ground and air.
WC-854 WID-1218 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Areas of Critical Environmental Concern: Do not withdraw any land from these areas. In fact, more land shold be subject to this category.
WC-855 WID-1218 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Wildlife: Close these areas to human encroachment except in cases where such encroachment can be managed to impact the Murrelet and Owl minimally.
WC-856 WID-1218 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Water Quality: All of these areas should be protected to the maximum extent available to ensure a stable water quality for Oregonians and to protect the watersheds.
WC-857 WID-1218 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Fish: Manage fish distribution and fishing and fisheries to protect the fish and provide viable fishing-related industries. Keep building and habitation away from these areas.
WC-858 WID-1218 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Wildland Urban Interface: All forests older than 75 years should be managed minimally, cleared by hand, and left alone. Younger forests should be managed wisely without clear-cutting, thinned by hand, and restored to health.
WC-859 WID-1204 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Off-Highway Vehicles: I have been a mororcycle rider for more than 25 years, and I can say that without a doubt, there is no such thing as NO IMPACT, and much to the dismay of the MRA and my riding bretheren, I feel that even LOW IMPACT OHV use is a bit of an ideolgy rather than a reality. The land, its inhabitants (human an non), and the other resources (watershed, etc) would be best served in OHV use was eliminated, or GREATLY restricted AND POLICED from BLM land. As a recent editorial stated, just because something has been done for 40 years, doesn't mean it's a good idea.
WC-860 WID-1214 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_importantspecies|tb_gen_ans: Raymond Creek is critical salmonid habitat
WC-861 WID-1214 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM tb_4_other: Water supply for City of Scappoose and important fish habitat|tb_gen_ans:
WC-862 WID-1214 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_importantspecies|tb_gen_ans: Significant investment in fish barrier removal
WC-863 WID-1214 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_importantspecies|tb_gen_ans: This is also a salmon bearing stream with significant investment in fish barrier removal (with BLM funds as well).
WC-864 WID-1214 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_importantspecies|tb_gen_ans: Fish barrier removal with BLM funds
WC-865 WID-1214 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_importantspecies|tb_gen_ans: Important coho spawning area
WC-866 WID-1214 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Fish: In the last 5 years the watershed council has partnered closely with BLM and many other partners to remove fish barriers in the N and S Scappoose Creek drainages.The points identified are just a sample. Potential salmonid use now extends well beyond the lines drawn on this map. BLM lands are the headwaters of many of these creeks. It would seriously degrade stream conditions if these headwater areas ceased to have a well protected riparian corridor.
WC-867 WID-1214 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Alternative 2: Alternative 2 offers almost no riparian buffers in important headwater streams in salmon refugia areas in the watershed. The Scappoose Bay Watershed Assessment identifyies much of the headwaters area of N ans S Scappoose Creeks as having a high erosion hazard rating. Both N and S. Scappoose Creeks (and smaller tributaries) are already 303(d) listed for sediment concerns. Most of the forest land surrounding BLM parcels is industrial timber and on a regular cutting rotation. Removing so much protection of riparian corridors on BLM land could have a very significant impact on the health of the watershed. The S. Scappoose Creek drainages is also the water supply for the City of Scappoose, and would be heavily impacted by this alternative.
WC-868 WID-1214 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_importantspecies|tb_gen_ans: fish barrier removal project with BLM assitance
WC-869 WID-1214 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_importantspecies|tb_gen_ans: Fish barrier removal project with BLM assitance
WC-870 WID-1214 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_importantspecies|tb_gen_ans: Salmonid refugia area with BLM lands in the headwaters.
WC-871 WID-1214 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from No Action: This option offers the best protection for riparian areas that are importnat to threatended and endaged salmonid species. BLM lands are in the headwaters of salmonid refugia areas in this watershed. Some of the streams are too small to have "fish-bearing" status, but the condition of the riparian area on these streams has a big impact on water quality. This option also offers the best protection for municipal water supplies on S. Scappoose Creek and tributaries.
WC-872 WID-1214 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Water Quality: This map is not accurate. Most of the creeks in the watershed are listed for sediment concerns. None of these show up on this map.
WC-873 WID-1218 None Interactive Map 1/3/2008 12:00:00 AM cb_fulltime|tb_gen_ans: This area has been invaded by land speculators interested in plowing up and developing the coast in the interest of their vacation rentals and making a quick dollar. The area of the coast has been overdevelooped for years and the overdevelopment has gotten out of control and outside the realm of reasonable. Much of the Oregon coast is in a tsunami hazard zone which is at odds with the increase in building in this area. Private land notwithstanding, individual landowners do not have the right to destroy ecosystems, create eyesores, and pave the natural world for their own selfish aggrandizement.
WC-874 WID-1191 a7abd1c1-25c2-4aa5-9d68-e54c2bd48bab File Upload 1/3/2008 12:52:00 AM

Uploaded File:  WOPR.doc
WC-875 WID-1193 W-1e23fce2-e7f1-494e-a001-2da09d8a85a9 Draft EIS 1/3/2008 7:53:00 AM As a concerned Oregonian, trained wildlife biologist (MS degree), science teacher, and lifelong hiker and camper, I strongly call for the "no action" alternative. It is imperative that we utilize ecological knowledge gained from recent research upon which to select management alternatives. Protection of forest riparian zones, sensitive plant and wildlife species, and critical habitats must remain our strongest priorities, or we'll be the agent of irrevocable damage to Oregon's finest resources. Using a 70-year old act to justify old-fashioned harvest decisions, in which soils, waters, old-growth forest stands, and sensitive plant and animal species are negatively impacted on a long-term or permanent basis, is irresponsible.
WC-876 WID-1065 W-19a479d3-0fa0-4da4-a4aa-3d384b99b4e0 Draft EIS 1/3/2008 9:26:00 AM To BLM Management: I am writing to voice my opinion that off-highway motorcycle trail systems need to be expanded. The trail systems provide OHV recreation to thousands of families that travel (and spend lots of money), camp, and ride as their primary recreation. Riding motorcycles off-road gives families a chance to have fun together and be outside, enriching their lives and alleviating the stress of everyday life. These families pump thousands of dollars into local communities by their activities. The John's Peak OHV area (outside of Medford, Oregon) has been used for 40 years. The area can be managed responsibly and should be expanded. Opposition to the OHV area is scant, while the majority of residents appreciate having a small area set aside for people to recreate off-road. The OHV community brings vital dollars to the strained economy southern Oregon. OHV trails can be successfully managed as a resource for the local community. Southern Oregon has the best OHV potential in the Western United States and with one of the most depressed economies, it could use the tourism dollars. With the huge growth in the popularity of being off the pavement comes many challenges. This opportunity should be embraced and expanded, just ask any successful area that is supported by tourism; from Vail Colorado to the Oregon Dunes. Anyone who doubts the potential income should go to their local RV dealer, off-road show, or even the local motorcycle shop. Look around at the "Toy Haulers" or at popular staging areas, the parking lots are full of $50,000 to $100,000 rigs per space. Sincerely, Ethan Lodwig
WC-877 WID-1198 W-4ebff9d4-e6f8-434f-a673-487a6def9cdf Draft EIS 1/3/2008 10:23:00 AM As an environmental attorney, I find this draft EIS woefully inadequate. The potential negative impacts to endangered species, water quality, global climate change, landslide and fire hazard potential, and forest ecology, among other things, are, at best, inadequate. To allow the EIS to stand as it is would be a violation of NEPA, and to allow the plan to go forward would violate the Endangered Species Act, at a minimum, and would cause serious threat to human health and safety, especially in the more impoverished communities of Oregon that can't afford to fight this plan.
WC-878 WID-692 d2e12c0e-a7e2-43df-b004-95377fe5fb4f File Upload 1/3/2008 10:27:00 AM

Uploaded File:  EIS Comments.txt
WC-879 WID-1199 d2e12c0e-a7e2-43df-b004-95377fe5fb4f File Upload 1/3/2008 10:29:00 AM Common Sense Returns

Uploaded File:  WOPR comments.doc
WC-880 WID-1205 W-8289d442-c8f3-4783-884a-d4e32778a8a4 Draft EIS 1/3/2008 1:55:00 PM I urge the BLM for Oregon to adopt a plan that takes into account the inter-connectedness of all parts of our fragile ecology and allow logging only with sustainable forest practices.
WC-881 WID-1203 W-7fd10fbf-88b9-4d1d-8d1c-1a8da575b191 Draft EIS 1/3/2008 2:43:00 PM After reading through the summaries of the Alternatives (1-3),the Issues that were identified, and the Socioeconomic impact of the WOPR, I feel that Alternative #2 would be the best for the Roseburg area and should be the plan to be implemented. In the last several months there was an article printed in the Roseburg News-Review that indicated that the Spotted Owl was being killed by another species of owl in our Oregon forests. I believe that the spotted owl and marbled murrelet can adapt and relocate to other forested areas - just like us humans adapt and readjust. I applaud the BLM management team that did the painstaking task of dancing through the hoops to write these alternatives that included the interests of local and federal government enities, our environment, and the public at large. Thank you, Nancy Austin
WC-882 WID-1208 W-9bbec221-5886-479b-81c7-25b46ba8549f Draft EIS 1/3/2008 3:32:00 PM At least 3 generations of my late husband's family were in the wood products business in Oregon. They were instrumental in developing management plans for the forests knowing that trees are a valuable renewal resource. It distresses me to hear the misinformation being put in radio ads paid for by those who would not have us cut a tree. And, further it distresses me to see all the salvagable wood lying in rot on the forest floors because of preservationists' roadblocks. Please do the sensible thing and support Alternative 2 for the good of Oregon and all our citizens, as well as the industrial base it supports. Linda VanOrden, Junction City, Oregon
WC-883 WID-1210 W-c51f0b5c-f843-437d-893a-9bff957f8bd5 Draft EIS 1/3/2008 4:21:00 PM After reviewing the alternatives listed in this draft, I would like to comment. First off, I am a life-long citizen of a small rural logging town. Our logging industry crashed, shutting down the mill and forcing many families to move, and so I am familiar with the need for timber revenue. However, I also hold a B.Sc. in Biology and have directly studied logging in relation to forest ecology. I believe in a balance of logging and forest conservation as the best help to a struggling town such as mine. After reading through the draft, I wish to support the No Action Alternative. Increasing the timber yield to include areas not currently under production will not serve to stabilize logging communities, nor will it benefit them in the long run. Much of the logging collapse in towns like mine was due to the mismanagement of lands by specific logging companies, not because of the BLM. As a biologist, I object to the 80-100 rotation of late-successional management areas listed in several of the alternatives. The actual rotation would have to be much longer, in the range of 200-300 years, to manage such an area sustainably. Old growth could be harvested under such a long rotational plan, but as this is unlikely to ever be drafted, I encourage the 80-100 year rotation to only be used on timber less than 100 yrs old, assumably land already under production. As a federal agency, I believe it is the BLM's responsibility to manage public lands for the public, and as the public's interests are varied, the managed lands should be equally varied. This should mean that mature, late-successional forests need to be weighed with as much importance as forests which yield timber revenue. This maintains the public's best interest, which is the duty of the BLM. Better management of existing timberlands is a more reasonable solution to the revenue problem. The BLM should investigate smaller cuts, selective logging, and longer rotations. My opinion is based much on my home town, which is currently surrounded by large tracks of forest too young to be harvested, the result of too much clear-cutting, too fast. Until the trees have matured in 40-50 years, there will be no further logging jobs in this area. Some of the alternatives listed in this draft would change that, but only temporarily, and then the situation would repeat itself. This is not the solution I would like to see the BLM take. Please reassess the need for a change in the current resource management plan. Please retain the No Action Alternative. Thank you.
WC-884 WID-1210 W-d695c170-f155-4340-a112-f1e7982c16b0 Draft EIS 1/3/2008 4:21:00 PM After reviewing the alternatives listed in this draft, I would like to comment. First off, I am a life-long citizen of a small rural logging town. Our logging industry crashed, shutting down the mill and forcing many families to move, and so I am familiar with the need for timber revenue. However, I also hold a B.Sc. in Biology and have directly studied logging in relation to forest ecology. I believe in a balance of logging and forest conservation as the best help to a struggling town such as mine. After reading through the draft, I wish to support the No Action Alternative. Increasing the timber yield to include areas not currently under production will not serve to stabilize logging communities, nor will it benefit them in the long run. Much of the logging collapse in towns like mine was due to the mismanagement of lands by specific logging companies, not because of the BLM. As a biologist, I object to the 80-100 rotation of late-successional management areas listed in several of the alternatives. The actual rotation would have to be much longer, in the range of 200-300 years, to manage such an area sustainably. Old growth could be harvested under such a long rotational plan, but as this is unlikely to ever be drafted, I encourage the 80-100 year rotation to only be used on timber less than 100 yrs old, assumably land already under production. As a federal agency, I believe it is the BLM's responsibility to manage public lands for the public, and as the public's interests are varied, the managed lands should be equally varied. This should mean that mature, late-successional forests need to be weighed with as much importance as forests which yield timber revenue. This maintains the public's best interest, which is the duty of the BLM. Better management of existing timberlands is a more reasonable solution to the revenue problem. The BLM should investigate smaller cuts, selective logging, and longer rotations. My opinion is based much on my home town, which is currently surrounded by large tracks of forest too young to be harvested, the result of too much clear-cutting, too fast. Until the trees have matured in 40-50 years, there will be no further logging jobs in this area. Some of the alternatives listed in this draft would change that, but only temporarily, and then the situation would repeat itself. This is not the solution I would like to see the BLM take. Please reassess the need for a change in the current resource management plan. Please retain the No Action Alternative. Thank you.
WC-885 WID-1210 W-9ef8f4e6-688f-4089-b483-e235f2b832b6 Draft EIS 1/3/2008 4:21:00 PM After reviewing the alternatives listed in this draft, I would like to comment. First off, I am a life-long citizen of a small rural logging town. Our logging industry crashed, shutting down the mill and forcing many families to move, and so I am familiar with the need for timber revenue. However, I also hold a B.Sc. in Biology and have directly studied logging in relation to forest ecology. I believe in a balance of logging and forest conservation as the best help to a struggling town such as mine. After reading through the draft, I wish to support the No Action Alternative. Increasing the timber yield to include areas not currently under production will not serve to stabilize logging communities, nor will it benefit them in the long run. Much of the logging collapse in towns like mine was due to the mismanagement of lands by specific logging companies, not because of the BLM. As a biologist, I object to the 80-100 rotation of late-successional management areas listed in several of the alternatives. The actual rotation would have to be much longer, in the range of 200-300 years, to manage such an area sustainably. Old growth could be harvested under such a long rotational plan, but as this is unlikely to ever be drafted, I encourage the 80-100 year rotation to only be used on timber less than 100 yrs old, assumably land already under production. As a federal agency, I believe it is the BLM's responsibility to manage public lands for the public, and as the public's interests are varied, the managed lands should be equally varied. This should mean that mature, late-successional forests need to be weighed with as much importance as forests which yield timber revenue. This maintains the public's best interest, which is the duty of the BLM. Better management of existing timberlands is a more reasonable solution to the revenue problem. The BLM should investigate smaller cuts, selective logging, and longer rotations. My opinion is based much on my home town, which is currently surrounded by large tracks of forest too young to be harvested, the result of too much clear-cutting, too fast. Until the trees have matured in 40-50 years, there will be no further logging jobs in this area. Some of the alternatives listed in this draft would change that, but only temporarily, and then the situation would repeat itself. This is not the solution I would like to see the BLM take. Please reassess the need for a change in the current resource management plan. Please retain the No Action Alternative. Thank you.
WC-886 WID-1211 W-b84dcd2b-b33e-4e4f-97b3-b9ea7436bd15 Draft EIS 1/3/2008 4:23:00 PM After reviewing the alternatives listed in this draft, I would like to comment. First off, I am a life-long citizen of a small rural logging town. Our logging industry crashed, shutting down the mill and forcing many families to move, and so I am familiar with the need for timber revenue. However, I also hold a B.Sc. in Biology and have directly studied logging in relation to forest ecology. I believe in a balance of logging and forest conservation as the best help to a struggling town such as mine. After reading through the draft, I wish to support the No Action Alternative. Increasing the timber yield to include areas not currently under production will not serve to stabilize logging communities, nor will it benefit them in the long run. Much of the logging collapse in towns like mine was due to the mismanagement of lands by specific logging companies, not because of the BLM. As a biologist, I object to the 80-100 rotation of late-successional management areas listed in several of the alternatives. The actual rotation would have to be much longer, in the range of 200-300 years, to manage such an area sustainably. Old growth could be harvested under such a long rotational plan, but as this is unlikely to ever be drafted, I encourage the 80-100 year rotation to only be used on timber less than 100 yrs old, assumably land already under production. As a federal agency, I believe it is the BLM's responsibility to manage public lands for the public, and as the public's interests are varied, the managed lands should be equally varied. This should mean that mature, late-successional forests need to be weighed with as much importance as forests which yield timber revenue. This maintains the public's best interest, which is the duty of the BLM. Better management of existing timberlands is a more reasonable solution to the revenue problem. The BLM should investigate smaller cuts, selective logging, and longer rotations. My opinion is based much on my home town, which is currently surrounded by large tracks of forest too young to be harvested, the result of too much clear-cutting, too fast. Until the trees have matured in 40-50 years, there will be no further logging jobs in this area. Some of the alternatives listed in this draft would change that, but only temporarily, and then the situation would repeat itself. This is not the solution I would like to see the BLM take. Please reassess the need for a change in the current resource management plan. Please retain the No Action Alternative. Thank you. (I apologize if this comment is posted multiple times, but the internet site is giving me error messages, so I'm reposting it.)
WC-887 WID-1211 W-faf75d42-1c7f-46b6-be7c-9c5ca2cfb52a Draft EIS 1/3/2008 4:24:00 PM After reviewing the alternatives listed in this draft, I would like to comment. First off, I am a life-long citizen of a small rural logging town. Our logging industry crashed, shutting down the mill and forcing many families to move, and so I am familiar with the need for timber revenue. However, I also hold a B.Sc. in Biology and have directly studied logging in relation to forest ecology. I believe in a balance of logging and forest conservation as the best help to a struggling town such as mine. After reading through the draft, I wish to support the No Action Alternative. Increasing the timber yield to include areas not currently under production will not serve to stabilize logging communities, nor will it benefit them in the long run. Much of the logging collapse in towns like mine was due to the mismanagement of lands by specific logging companies, not because of the BLM. As a biologist, I object to the 80-100 rotation of late-successional management areas listed in several of the alternatives. The actual rotation would have to be much longer, in the range of 200-300 years, to manage such an area sustainably. Old growth could be harvested under such a long rotational plan, but as this is unlikely to ever be drafted, I encourage the 80-100 year rotation to only be used on timber less than 100 yrs old, assumably land already under production. As a federal agency, I believe it is the BLM's responsibility to manage public lands for the public, and as the public's interests are varied, the managed lands should be equally varied. This should mean that mature, late-successional forests need to be weighed with as much importance as forests which yield timber revenue. This maintains the public's best interest, which is the duty of the BLM. Better management of existing timberlands is a more reasonable solution to the revenue problem. The BLM should investigate smaller cuts, selective logging, and longer rotations. My opinion is based much on my home town, which is currently surrounded by large tracks of forest too young to be harvested, the result of too much clear-cutting, too fast. Until the trees have matured in 40-50 years, there will be no further logging jobs in this area. Some of the alternatives listed in this draft would change that, but only temporarily, and then the situation would repeat itself. This is not the solution I would like to see the BLM take. Please reassess the need for a change in the current resource management plan. Please retain the No Action Alternative. Thank you. (I apologize if this comment is posted multiple times, but the internet site is giving me error messages, so I'm reposting it.)
WC-888 WID-1211 62160678-abe5-4cbc-bbf8-4a50c37c631d File Upload 1/3/2008 4:26:00 PM I could not comment on the Draft page, so I'm attempting to upload my comments directly. I am a resident of Douglas County, rural, living here for greater than 15 years.

Uploaded File:  WOPR comments.doc
WC-889 WID-1212 W-33f0f1a9-b9e6-426b-bb50-156097f5cffd Draft EIS 1/3/2008 4:56:00 PM I really object to the new plan. We do NOT need more off-road areas, and we definitely DO NOT need more roads. Your plan would maintain wilderness characteristics in ONLY about half of the identified wilderness areas. This is unacceptable!
WC-890 WID-1213 7e2e3231-ca96-4159-8014-b3e263183a51 Draft EIS 1/3/2008 4:56:00 PM As a guide, hunter, and fisherman in western Oregon, I am deeply concerned with the Bureau of Land Management´s recently released draft version of the Western Oregon Plan Revisions. The plans outlined in the document would dramatically alter public lands management in western Oregon to the detriment of fish and wildlife and, by extension, hunting and fishing. I frequently visit Bureau of Land Management land in western Oregon, and I´m worried the BLM´s plan would have a significant impact on my ability to hunt and fish in this region, and, more importantly, my ability to pass down my sporting heritage to the next generation of hunters and anglers in western Oregon. For example, reduction of streamside buffers to 25 feet would most certainly have a negative impact on our trout and salmon fisheries throughout the region. Timber harvest in close vicinity to fish-bearing or fish-spawning waters will contribute sediment to the systems, with the potential to smother fish eggs and spawning gravel. Additionally, removing streamside vegetation will reduce cover and likely result in temperature increases that could prove fatal to our fisheries. What´s more, plans to construct about 1,000 miles of new roads over the next decade, and to allow 14,000 acres of clearcut logging annually could have drastic impacts on the region´s struggling, but recovering, fisheries. Add in the conversion of our low-elevation oak savanna forests to conifer plantations and the creation of new off-highway-vehicle emphasis areas, and the plan becomes detrimental to our big-game herds and upland game bird populations. In short, the Western Oregon Plan Revisions are unacceptable from a hunting and angling standpoint. Ideally, the BLM would offer a full range of alternatives when it comes to the plan revisions, with all of those alternatives providing some measure of fish and wildlife protection. Finally, off-highway vehicle management should not be addressed at the region-wide level, but rather by individual BLM districts, and with a generous opportunity for public comment at the local level. Aaron Helfrich 2605 Harvest Lane Springfield, OR 97477 541-726-5039 541-913-7220 cell aaron@helfrich.com www.HELFRICH.com >-}}}}}:> <{{{{{-<
WC-891 WID-1216 dabccb1f-33e0-4184-a5f2-9841f04ddb27 File Upload 1/3/2008 7:54:00 PM To: The Bureau of Land Management From: David Funk/Levis & Associates, Inc. 1/3/08 Comments on the Western Oregon Plan Review Dear BLM, As a member of the City of Eugene Sustainability Commission and the former co-chair of the Mayor´s Sustainable Business Initiative, I strongly recommend that the BLM choose the No Action Alternative indicated in the Western Oregon Plan review. Besides the fact that the other alternatives continue to reduce critical wildlife habitat, the BLM recommendations totally ignore the impact on global climate change. It is elementary that forests sequester carbon and that carbon sequestration is critical to slowing the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Additially, as the father of two, and soon to be the grandfather of one, I am appalled that the government would be promoting short-term, unsustainable solutions to our forests. I strongly urge you to accept the No Action Alternative. Sincerely, David Funk

Uploaded File:  WOPR.doc
WC-892 WID-986 W-7bcb8d1f-d087-444c-8bf5-a24f2f226c04 Draft EIS 1/3/2008 9:35:00 PM Hope this will help with your decission, but me and my wife would like to see alternative 2 to be your final decission.
WC-893 WID-1219 W-02e5a498-0036-4897-baf8-4b625bbe29c4 Draft EIS 1/3/2008 9:47:00 PM I am not in favor of more logging of old growth forests. I think we can no longer pretend that the forest is not important for many more purposes and uses than for logging. Clear cutting is a particular problem - it is an ugly looking mess and it contributes to landslides. Those sitting in government offices and writing EIS reports probably rarely if ever get out into the forest to hike and enjoy its beauty so they don't know what clear cuts look like from the ground level. It is long past time that "timber communities" and big timber business come to the realization that the forest is not theirs alone to cut and destroy and that they must think of other activities for their livelihood. The Bush administration has had a single focus on the environment - take everything that it has today to make money for big business. We in Oregon should NOT put up with the poor decisions made by the neocons in the White House and let them get away with ruining our environment in order to line the pockets of their friends in big business.
WC-894 WID-1220 08bef80e-c296-4379-83b2-6191a668d925 File Upload 1/3/2008 11:00:00 PM

Uploaded File:  WOPR_comment.doc
WC-895 WID-1229 None Interactive Map 1/4/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from No Action: In reviewing the alternative summaries, I would favor the no action option. There seems to be to much emphasis on increased timber exploitation and clear cut resource extraction. There needs to be more attention paid to alternative logging methods (i.e. Selective Logging), which are less distrubtive to an ecosystem. I support resource extraction, but clear cutting is a relic of the past.
WC-896 WID-1229 None Interactive Map 1/4/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from Alternative 1: I like the age rotation as it would leave a tract of forest undisturbed for the most part for between harvest. I do not like the indication there will be no trees left behind indicating a full clear cut would be means of logging. I would like some indication of best logging practices included. What about selective logging%3F%0DThe rotation age would be approximately 80 to 100 years and there would be no green tree retention after regeneration harvesting.
WC-897 WID-1229 None Interactive Map 1/4/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from No Action: In regards to the BLM Checkerboard, the BLM should maintain the highest standard of forest and land management. If BLM lacks to financial and human resources to manage it's lands, then they should be locked up until those resources can become available. Again, I am NOT against resource extraction or public access. I just believe the BLM should lead with the BLUE ribbon standard. Regardless of the fact those porcessing may be more expensive, and time and labor intensive.
WC-898 WID-1229 None Interactive Map 1/4/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from No Action: In regards to road building, I'm of the belief there are enough roads in our public lands. In the presentation the BLM compared the percent of roads in BLM land to those of the rural environment, which means nothing. You need to look at the BLM lands by themselves. Roads are not a true asset, if what they bring is increased access for introduction for invasive species and illegal activites (i.e. dumping, resource exploitation, etc). If you build a road for 50K and make timber sale for 1 million, but you introduce an invasive species which costs 2 million to manage. Was the road worth it%3F It's documented invasive species are readily transported by vechiles introduced into an ecosystem.
WC-899 WID-1229 None Interactive Map 1/4/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from No Action: I heard on NPR about the increased access for off road vehicles. Has there been an assessment of what this will mean to those areas where this activity will be allowed. It's my believe this activity should not be allowed on public lands as there is not benefit to the public. The funds gained from the access for this activity can never pay for the management of the activity. In the most simple of issues how does the BLM plan to deal with erosion control. For 4 wheel vehicles this is a big issue. If you need to put in barriors for a construction project to prevent sediment from getting into the waterways. Will the BLM be installing barriors for all areas where this activity will be allowed%3F If the law states that this activity is not exempt, then I would be the first to turn the BLM in for no compliance. Again, not against the activity, but the activity needs to at least pay for itself in damage it causes to the environment.
WC-900 WID-1229 None Interactive Map 1/4/2008 12:00:00 AM Comment on DEIS excerpt from No Action: I reviewed the Draft EIS Presentation on Conifer Forest Ecology and NO ACTION would be my recommendation. The other three Alternatives do not represent a significant benefit to the management of the BLM land.
USA.GOV  |  No Fear Act  |  DOI  |  Disclaimer  |  About BLM  |  Notices  |  Get Adobe Reader
Privacy Policy  |  FOIA  |  Kid's Policy  |  Contact Us  |  Accessibility |  Site Map  |  Home