The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) doesn't go it alone when they draft a plan for the land they manage. Many state and federal agencies cooperate to provide comments and feedback.

In the case of the WOPR, the feedback hasn't been what the BLM was hoping for. Read summaries of the comments below and click on the links for the full documents.

Environmental Protection Agency - The EPA strongly criticized the scientific underpinnings of the aquatic/riparian analysis contained in the WOPR. The EPA specifically was doubtful that the riparian buffer reductions would pass scientific muster.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA also harshly criticized the BLM for not having a coherent or cohesive strategy to protect salmon and steelhead. Again, NOAA questioned the scientific validity of the document.

US Fish and Wildlife Service - The major issue addressed in the FWS comments is the scientific underpinnings of the WOPR. The plan is based on a Spotted Owl Recovery Plan drafted by FWS that the agency now admits was based on bad science. FWS is currently reviewing the science.

State of Oregon Governor's Office - The Governor's comments are mostly a list of what the BLM must and must not do. Unfortunately, the State makes little arguments about how to achieve such goals or little criticism as to how the WOPR fails to meet certain goals (like ESA and Clean Water protections).