Thursday, November 08, 2007

DeFazio responds to my WOPR rant

Dear Mr. Stansberry:

Thank you for your message regarding the Western Oregon Plan Revision (WOPR) process. I appreciate hearing from you.

I share your concern about the WOPR. According to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the agency is currently considering several action alternatives that will significantly change how BLM lands in southern Oregon are managed. Reducing riparian buffers, shifting to shorter rotations, and managing owl habitat according to a highly dubious Northern Spotted Owl Draft Recovery Plan (2007) is no way to manage these valuable public lands. Moreover, I am deeply troubled that this process is being undertaken as a result of a "sweetheart settlement" between the timber industry and the Bush Administration.

Despite these concerns, the BLM is legally permitted to undertake Resource Management Plan revision as necessary, even if the result of WOPR is a return to legal gridlock in the courts. I would prefer that the BLM - and the Forest Service - manage public forests in a more sustainable and ecologically-sound manner. To that end, I have introduced a bill in previous congresses that would direct the Forest Service and BLM to concentrate scarce dollars on thinning fire-prone and overstocked plantations on federal lands, rather than on logging old growth forests that are resistant to fire. I plan to reintroduce that bill again this year, and would like to count on your support for this legislation.

Thank you again for writing. Please stay in touch.

Sincerely,

Rep. Peter DeFazio
Fourth District, OREGON

3 comments:

Bpaul said...

It's amazing, they always write back, almost every time. Only G. Smith has not written back to me on occasion, and/or sent a dismissive form letter.

All this last minute scrambling to look good is B.S. in Smith's case, he sucks.

Anonymous said...

If your response is actually from Mr De Fazio it is appearent that he has not read the EIS nor recognizes the laws in which these lands are managed under.

Yes the riparian management areas under the BLM Plan are smaller than the NW Forest Plan. The NWFP riaprain areas were far in excess for achieving requirements for clean water and fish. The BLM revison meets the laws for clean water and fish.

The minimum harvest age under the NWFP for the BLM was 60 years. I believe under Alternative two is based upopn the culmination of mean annual increment which ranges from 90 years in the north and over 130 years in the southern part of the plan. In now way is the rotaion age being shotered under alternative two.

As for the "dubious recovery plan" the size and spacing requirments for the reserves for spotted owls has it roots in the Jack Ward Thomas Interagency Scientific Commitee report. I do not believe any credible owl scientist refutes the logic of the size and spacing of blocks to support the owl. The BLM plan meets these requirements.

As for the term sweet heart deal with the timber industry... please note the Association of O&C counties is the primary group in settlement agreement. The O&C act requires that the BLM lands are managed for permentat forest production in accordance with the sustained yield of timber and that amount of timber is to be offered for sale on an annual basis.

The BLM land is in compiance with all of the laws including ESA, Clean Water, and the O&C Act.

Read the plan, comment based on facts.. save your rants for shouting at the moon.

matt_stansberry said...

I agree, read the plan. I'm pretty sure this was a form letter to anyone that opposed the WOPR. But you can find my opposition to it here (based on the facts). Please leave your name if you'd like to be accountable for your comments. Thanks.