Jim Soper (DCR), Ed Fuller (DCR), Jennifer Fish (DCR), John O’Keefe, Mike Mauri,
* * * * * *
Meeting called to order at .
Handouts: The agenda and handouts were provided to those present.
1. Public Notice
3. Draft minutes of June 21, 2006 meeting
4. Draft Forest Cutting Plan form
of Recommended Changes to the Ch132 regulations as identified by the Bureaus of
Fire Control and Forestry updated on
The minutes of the last committee meeting (
· Reminded the committee that cutting plan form revisions were tabled last meeting.
· Raised concerns that “we are caught in a feed back loop.”
· 2 year trial period
Urged return to first principles: look at context of
First page and through out the form changes were made in formatting and sentence structure to simplify
§ request visualize be retained from earlier versions (consensus reached)
§ discussion of the terms “healthy, vigorous”
§ request to add productive to capture economic aspect
Objective for Your
Paul noted change to the first sentence. The rest is a rework of earlier forms.
Key Regulatory Standards
Paul noted change in heading and rework of introductory sentences.
· suggestion “Key Criteria for Approval”
· discussion of simplifying list to include #4 and #5 under #3
· request to include following Ch131 to list
· Consensus reached for Key Regulatory Standards as title
· Change #2 to include “and Endangered”
· Add “per acre” and examples of regeneration harvest to #4
· Add “per acre” to #5
Process for Declaring Your
Paul noted that the most significant changes were made here
· Change “my” to “your”
· Question – what can or cannot be allowed under B
<15 minute Break>
· trying to put the cart before the horse by defining objectives before silvicultural principles have been defined
Use older language as a place holder
“Harvest trees on my property while …..”
“Harvest trees on my property as part ….”
Work this fall on principles and practices. Then add explanatory or editorial sentence(s).
· May need to make decision come fall to go with the best version of this cutting plan we have
· Can’t discount economics
· Can’t discount harvesters in this state
· Look at earlier version that uses Meets and Enhanced as heading – less confusion
· Issue don’t have Enhanced to show
· Question – what can you do under B that you can’t do under A
· Reminder this is a landowner’s objective
· Question - will there be on the ground changes
· Yes, practices need to be put on paper – available and defensible
Management Objectives for your
Paul noted return to all components. Addition of Landowner signature and date.
§ Point of concern – similar language “mix of tree ages, sizes, openings” in 4 of 5 categories. Need to make mutually exclusive.
§ Think of worst case scenario and try and get it on here
§ Trying to get at a mental picture
§ Question - since this is a trial period can we do a questionnaire
§ Pilot version
§ Question – How do we measure success
§ Question – Water Quality choices – does this get what people are thinking about
§ Reflection of general principle – acknowledge not particularly strong
Paul noted addition of websites and compound sentence broken into list
· Request – add DCR website too
Paul noted addition of CR check off box under Landowner
· Request – work on placement for visual reasons
Paul noted intro paragraph of Landowner signature section was removed to allow for larger font and clarity.
· Landowner Objective in the Stand Treatment section – need to decide whether to keep or not
· Need to change code at the bottom of the page to reflect final land owner objective titles
· Non-Standard Treatment (code at bottom of the page) now only includes OT
· Add “I (we) under #3 of the certifications
· Change “abutters of record within two hundred (200) feet” in certification #2 to “abutters of record in accordance with the regulations”
Narrative Page for BMP’s and Designation of Trees
Paul noted no changes
Narrative Pages for Type of Cut
Two options were presented. First requires narrative if using standard silvicultural treatment or non-standard treatment. The second option only requires a narrative if a non-standard treatment is used.
· Recollection – don’t need to fill out a narrative if using a system
· Include narrative page for either silvicultural system or OT. Provdes an learning opportunity for Landowner.
· Put on two pages to allow enough room
Appointment of Agent
Paul noted change to include description of 2 types of Landowner agent representatives, check off box and disclosure of who they are representing
§ Question - Did the lawyers look at this form
§ They are aware of it but have not seen it
§ Request for language of fiduciary responsibility
§ Comment – better than what it was
§ Request – insert space between two types of agent representatives
It’s close – need legal advice
Jim DiMaio noted that this is a new form. Cut and pasted from the regulations. In bold are disclosures that need to be made to the Landowner.
Question – is this ne
§ It is required of all licensed foresters regardless of agency
· this competes with commerce, is self-serving, brings harvesters into subservient level
· intent is different
· can add another page for a code of professional conduct directed at loggers
Get back on track with sub-committee meeting prep like was done in the past
Regulations – discussion tabled until next meeting
12 items: cross reference to existing regulations before next meeting
Come prepared to discuss alternatives
Request for public comment be confined to the last hour as in previous meetings.
Maybe it could be broken into sections instead of running comments.