MASSACHUSETTS FORESTRY COMMITTEE MEETING

Harvard Forest, Petersham, MA

August 3, 2006

1:00 PM to 5:00 PM

 

Minutes

 

Attendees

            Committee Members: Paul Barten (Water Supply), Jim DiMaio (DCR Ex-        Officio), Loring Schwarz (Environmental Organization), Richard DeGraaf             (Fisheries and Wildlife), Roger Plourde (Consulting Forester), Harry Webb   (Forest Landowner), Bernie Bergeron (Primary Wood Industry), David Foster (Public at large)

            Others: Jim Soper (DCR), Ed Fuller (DCR), Jennifer Fish (DCR), John O’Keefe,         Mike Mauri, Joe Zorzin

 

* * * * * *

 

Meeting called to order at 1:11 PM.

 

Agenda/Minutes

 

            Handouts:  The agenda and handouts were provided to those present.

1.      Public Notice

2.      Agenda

3.      Draft minutes of June 21, 2006 meeting

4.      Draft Forest Cutting Plan form

5.      List of Recommended Changes to the Ch132 regulations as identified by the Bureaus of Fire Control and Forestry updated on July 27, 2006 to include public input

6.      Draft Forest Cutting Plan form with additional revisions from Paul Barten

 

            Minutes: The minutes of the last committee meeting (June 21, 2006) were          reviewed.  A vote to accept the June 21, 2006 minutes as presented passed       unanimously.

 

Introductory Remarks – Paul Barten

·        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 Massachusetts as a whole – the cutting plan is one component of protection

 

 

Item 1: Review Forest Cutting Plan Form changes

Paul Barten led an element by element review of the cutting plan form changes working primarily from the form he handed out.

 

First page and through out the form changes were made in formatting and sentence structure to simplify

 

The Massachusetts Forest Cutting Practice Act (FCPA)

            Discussion:

§         request visualize be retained from earlier versions (consensus reached)

§         discussion of the terms “healthy, vigorous”

§         request to add productive to capture economic aspect

 

Management Objective for Your Forest

Paul noted change to the first sentence.  The rest is a rework of earlier forms.

            Discussion:

                     None

 

Key Regulatory Standards

Paul noted change in heading and rework of introductory sentences.

            Discussion:

·     suggestion “Key Criteria for Approval”

·     discussion of simplifying list to include #4 and #5 under #3

·     request to include following Ch131 to list

            Summary:

·        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 Forest Management Objectives:

Paul noted that the most significant changes were made here

            Discussion:

·        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

            Proposal:

                     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).

 

            Further Discussion:

·        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 Forest

Paul noted return to all components.  Addition of Landowner signature and date.

            Discussion:

§         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

 

Landowner Responsibilities

Paul noted addition of websites and compound sentence broken into list

            Discussion:

·        Request – add DCR website too

 

Page 4

Paul noted addition of CR check off box under Landowner

            Discussion:

·        Request – work on placement for visual reasons

 

Page 5

Paul noted intro paragraph of Landowner signature section was removed to allow for larger font and clarity.

            Discussion:

·        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

            Discussion:

                     None

 

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.

            Discussion:

·        Recollection – don’t need to fill out a narrative if using a system

            Consensus:

·        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

            Discussion:

§         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

            Summary:

                     It’s close – need legal advice

 

Massachusetts Licensed Forester Standards of Professional Conduct Acknowledgement Form

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.

            Discussion:

§         Question – is this needed only if the forester is and agent

§         It is required of all licensed foresters regardless of agency

§         Comments:

·        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

 

Wrap-Up

            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.

 

Next Meeting

Thursday, October, 12th 2006 from 1:00 PM to 5:00 PM at Harvard Forest

 

Adjourn:       5:15 PM