Dear BLM managers,

I am writing to strongly oppose the BLM\'s Western Oregon\
Plan Revision (WOPR) Preferred Alternative, and to\
state my preference for the No Action Alternative.\
\
I am particularly concerned about the threat to\
water and fish resources posed by the WOPR Preferred\
Alternative.  You are doubtless aware of the criticism\
of that alternative from the Environmental Protection\
Agency, in its letters to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife\
Service (see Eugene Register-Guard, Oct. 17, 2007, pp.\
A1, 7). I agree with the EPA\'s concern about the harm\
to rivers and streams and imperilment of fish from\
increased logging. Please note the scientific peer

reviews strongly criticizing the WOPR plan for its

potential harm to endangered species and\
water quality.  I suggest that the analyses of impacts\
be reviewed by a reputable independent scientific\
organization.\
\
 \
Also of concern is that all riparian area management\
zones in the WOPR EIS are reduced in size from those\
in the current (No Action Alternative) status.  This\
is a major mistake, since these riparian buffer reductions\
will result in harmful watershed impacts\
(sedimentation, higher peaks flows, woody debris loss, less

shade and subsequent heating of waters, greater\
intrusions of pollutants in surface runoff, etc.).\
All of these pose significant risks from increased\
harvesting in these zones, which must be coupled with\
additional threats from machinery and other operator\
errors, seasonal shifts in stream channels, and width\
of riparian zones in neighboring properties.      \
 \
\
I am also deeply concerned, in a future in which\
global warming threatens water quantity and quality,\
about the deleterious effects from increased logging\
of old growth forests, one of the best sources and\
conservers of cold, pure water for its slow and\
gradual release into our streams and rivers.  We are\
amazed that there is no recognition in the WOPR models\
of global warming, and no plans to address its looming\
problems, as they relate to forests and waters.  \
\
 \
As for the importance of old growth to water and fish,\
it must be recognized that more than ninety per cent of the old\
growth forests that covered western Oregon two\
centuries ago have been cut down.  Most of the small

amount that remains was set aside for permanent\
protection by the Northwest Forest Plan in 1994. Numerous

species depend on this habitat for some portion of their

life cycle. Loss of the remaining stands will likely lead

to species extinction of birds, amphibians, and more.\
The Bureau of Land Management seeks to log much of\
this last bit of old growth.  The WOPR preferred\
alternative would circumvent the Northwest Forest Plan\
by allowing massive logging of old growth and mature\
forests on Oregon BLM lands, permitting a 700 per cent\
increase in logging Oregon\'s last BLM old growth\
forests.  Lane County\'s protected BLM old growth\
reserves would be cut nearly in half.  Statewide, 24\
per cent of logging under the BLM\'s preferred plan\
would target trees 200 and more years old.  Over 200\
square miles of mature and old growth forests would be\
clearcut.\
\
  Once old growth forests are gone, they are gone, in\
effect, forever.  The ecological conditions of an old\
growth forest take up to a thousand years to develop.\
Once logged, old growth lands are simply added to the\
previously logged lands which become, in effect, tree\
plantations or tree farms, designed to be harvested\
over relatively short periods of time. No one is\
prepared to wait for a millennium while a clearcut old\
growth stand attempts to regenerate itself.  And the\
disappearance of old growth will promote increases in\
noxious weeds and invasive species which old growth\
resists, but which move in after a clearcut. Also,\
with indisputable global warming now occurring,\
moisture-holding old growth forests, like giant\
water-holding sponges, will be increasingly important,\
as they are less susceptible to the dryness and\
flammability of stands of plantation trees.\
\
 Rather than pursuing an ultimately disastrous policy\
of logging our old growth preserves for a short-term\
jump to the economy, we need a sustainable plan for\
the future.  The BLM and the federal agencies involved\
should be actively engaged in thinning the overstocked\
second and third growth public timber lands.  Such\
thinning and better management on these previously\
logged lands could provide an estimated two billion\
board feet of marketable timber.  The Siuslaw National\
Forest, in its collaboration with loggers, local\
governments, conservation groups, and others, presents\
an example of how to provide large amounts of wood for\
local mills without cutting old growth forests.\
Studies reveal that most Oregonians favor preservation\
of old growth forests and thinning of previously\
logged forests.  \
\
 Perhaps most important of all, old growth preserves\
are crucial for providing the conditions which we most\
value in western Oregon.  These conditions are\
directly related to our club\'s commitment \"to protect\
and increase the fishery resources.\"  Old growth\
forests are the indispensable anchor to our clean,\
clear rivers, streams, and lakes.  Old growth is a\
permanent benefit to the region\'s people and plants\
and animals-including endangered salmon and other\
species.  These stands of old trees are essential to\
our recreational and aesthetic needs, to the beauty\
and health which we think of as Oregon\'s core meaning,\
the deepest appeal of Oregon as a unique place.\
\
I strongly support the No Action Alternative, and\
reject the BLM\'s Preferred Alternative.\
Please protect our old-growth forests and the species

that depend on them.\
 \
\
Sincerely,\
\
Chris Beatty