[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ft-l] FW: Important: OFW Alert

Pam and others on the FTML,

Judy Hancock's interpretation of the proposed change in OFW designation for
isolated wetlands on the 8 state forests involved is not entirely accurate,
and all of you should strive to learn more about the proposal before
attempting to kill it.

I have discussed it with the DOF hydrologist and was advised as follows:
1.    OFW designation can appy to specific rivers, streams, lakes, and
wetlands or it can be applied to entire land areas in which case all waters
of the state within the area, including isolated wetlands, are OFW.  DOF
supports specific OFW designations and plans as part of the proposal
currently under discussion to redesignate specific waters within the 8
forests as OFWs.  Eventually, they hope to have additional OFW designations
in the other state forests.
2. Isolated wetlands did not have OFW designation at the time DOF's BMP
manual was developed which among other things called for a 200 foot no-cut
buffer around rivers, streams, and lakes with the OFW designation.  The
isolated wetland rule resulted in application of the 200-foot buffer to all
of the wetlands within the 8 state forests.
3.  The 200 foot buffers represent a substantial timber resource on those
forests that have a large number of isolated wetlands.  The rule now
prevents DOF from appling approved silvicultural practices within the
4.    The change would not result in pollution of the isolated wetlands
because DOF does not now and will not in the future permit timber harvesting
in wetlands.

I encourage all of you who remain unconvinced to contact Jeff Vowell at DOF
((850)-414-9935 or the Eric Shaw at DEP (Phone?).  DOF is an important trail
partner, and we need to be certain of our facts before firing off any

Fred Schiller

----- Original Message -----