Good Forestry in the Granite State Steering Committee Meeting

November 10, 2009, Conservation Center, Concord, NH

Minutes 

 

Will Abbott, SPNHF, Karen Bennett, UNH Cooperative Extension, Emily Brunkhurst, NH Fish and Game, Phil Bryce, Fountains America, Inc., Susan Cox, USFS State and Private Forestry, Northeast Area, Ken Desmarais, NH DRED, Division of Forests and Lands, Will Guinn, NH DRED, Division of Forests and Lands, Don Kent, NH DRED, NH Natural Heritage Bureau, Linda Magoon, NH DES – Water Division, Chris Mattrick, USFS White Mountain National Forest, Brad Simpkins, NH DRED, Division of Forests and Lands, Will Staats, NH Fish and Game, Jasen Stock, NHTOA, Matt Tarr, UNH Cooperative Extension, Dave Tellman, NH Tree Farm and landowner, Mariko Yamasaki, USFS Northeastern Research Station, Mark Zankel, NH Chapter - The Nature Conservancy

  

Members of the public: Hollis Austin, landowner and videographer, Moultonborough, Herb Farnham, landowner, Moultonborough, Tom Thomson, landowner, Orford

  

Phil Bryce called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. Karen Bennett introduced Brad Simpkins, Acting Director of the Division of Forests and Lands. Committee members introduced themselves.

  

Hollis Austin videotaped the meeting.

  

Brad thanked the committee for their hard work and emphasized the importance of the Good Forestry project to New Hampshire.

  

Phil asked the guests to introduce themselves. Hollis Austin thanked the committee for the opportunity to attend a meeting. Mr. Austin filmed the meeting. Herb Farnham also introduced himself. Both guests were from Moultonborough, NH.

  

Phil began to review where we are in the project and what tasks are ahead. Phil reminded the group that the document is in the hands of the steering committee on behalf of the Division of Forests and Lands (DFL). The authorship is in the hands of the steering committee, and changes and revisions will be brought through this body.

  

Karen asked the group about the question of authorship. She noted that there have been and will be additional iterations of each chapter, as the committee considers comments and suggests changes. The group agreed that the steering committee is the book’s author and will present the document as a group to the DFL. 

 

Minutes of August 24, 2009 reviewed

  

Karen noted that there was a typo on page ten. The last sentence on the page should read, “They should contact her.”

  

Mark Zankel clarified his statement on page three, saying that he wanted those with negative comments on the draft to clarify objections and explain them specifically. This would provide the most information to the technical teams and steering committee.

  

Emily moved to approve the minutes as amended. Dave Tellman seconded the motion. The minutes passed with amendments.

  

Review of Public Comment Feedback to Date 

 

Karen drew the committee’s attention to the handouts, which were a compilation of comments received to date. She asked if the organization of the handout made sense and was useful. The comments are organized by topic area. General comments are on yellow paper. Karen explained that general comments received from individuals are kept together in the document. If the commentator suggested additional reference materials, those are posted separately on the Good Forestry web site. 

 

Karen also explained that comments from the public outreach meetings are on blue paper. Karen took notes at the meetings on flip charts and Deb Park also took notes. Karen incorporated both sets of notes to develop the draft record of the meetings. We are calling these materials “drafts” until Jasen Stock and Deb Park from NHTOA review them. 

 

Karen explained that the goal of the handout today is to present voluminous commentary in a way that could be easily digested. She asked the group how we might better summarize the comments. Emily responded that they may have suggestions once they have an opportunity to review the handouts. 

 

Phil reminded the group that the comment period was extended until December 1. He asked whether we would separate comments received between now and that date. Karen explained that she preferred to keep all comments on all topics together. 

 

Matt Tarr said he felt it best to wait and review and assess all comments at the same time.

  

Chris Mattrick asked whether technical teams should address comments now and make edits in the document. Karen said no and suggested the group discuss the process from this point forward. Previously, the committee had decided that comments would be reviewed by technical teams and then brought back to the steering committee.

  

Karen, Will and Phil made a suggestion of a different way to proceed. Karen, as project coordinator, will incorporate edits as decided by an editing team: Phil, Will and Brad. Questions will be directed to the technical teams for clarification. Any content changes will be addressed by the authors and technical teams. 

 

Matt felt this was appropriate as long as technical teams were involved in discussion and decisions about potential content changes.

  

Karen noted that there are a couple of chapters that will require heavy editing. 

 

Will Abbott clarified that there will be a professional editor brought in once the committee has a draft that is agreed upon. Many concerns, such as length and organization, will be addressed in the professional editing step.

  

Karen asked the group for their thoughts about the suggested process. She explained that at some point, there needs to be one person overseeing edits to the entire document. 

 

Emily agreed that this approach is a good idea. Technical teams could then focus on larger issues with the content. Having one person make edits also builds continuity between chapters and sections.

  

Karen explained that one of the things she was not able to do before the first draft was made public was to look at the considerations and recommendations in and of themselves. She will be doing this and sharing her findings with the steering committee. 

 

Phil emphasized that we need to step back and look at the whole document.

  

Karen said she feels confident that she has the skills to do this effectively. 

 

Don cautioned that at this point in the process, we also should revisit our audience to make sure we are moving in the right direction.

  

Jasen asked for clarification of the new process. He reiterated his understanding that, as of December 1, Karen will make edits with the help of an editing team and in consultation with technical teams for content changes. After that time, a professional editor will be involved. He asked, whether the revised draft will come back to the steering committee for review and if so, when. 

 

Karen explained that the committee should meet after the public comment period closes to discuss comments and make some decisions. After that meeting, Karen will begin editing. The steering committee should also meet in January to see where we are.

  

She also explained that some people have suggested that another draft be presented to the public for review. She suggested doing this in February, possibly at GSD SAF and the Farm and Forest Expo.

  

Karen felt that the revised draft will be more positively received because we will have addressed comments on the first draft.

  

Karen also noted that there is no steering committee meeting on Monday, November 16, 2009. 

 

Phil said it is very important to clearly outline our next steps. If there are structural issues with the document, the editing team should offer suggestions to the steering committee. Suggestions from this subgroup should be presented at the December meeting.

 

Phil noted that the addressing content will be handled differently. 

 

Jasen asked if there would be value in having a layperson from our target audience on the editorial team. Karen agreed it was a good idea 

 

Will A. disagreed. He explained the importance of continuity in the process. He felt the editorial team should be people on the steering committee.

  

Jasen said there had been discussion that a group of practitioners would review the document and get their comments to the steering committee.

  

Karen said that has happened and is ongoing through the public comment process. We are incorporating feedback. 

 

Don said that the perceived divide between people “with mud on their boots” and “academics” is misleading. He added that everyone on the steering committee has “mud on their boots”. There are lay people on the committee. 

 

Emily agreed that there are foresters, landowners and practitioners on the steering committee. All are a valuable component of the process. She explained that her sense of the editing team is to build flow and look for places where considerations and recommendations do not agree and decide how to address them.

  

Ken Desmarais said that Will Guinn on his staff has participated in the steering committee and has to apply Good Forestry on the job. Ken recommended Will for the editing team. He added that Will has expressed interest in participating. 

 

Karen agreed that Will G. would be a good addition to the editing team. She explained that she used the word “team” loosely. She will call team members to ask their opinions and thoughts.

  

Will A. explained that the process going forward must allow everyone to weigh in before the book goes to press. He added that the editing team is not rewriting. The document will be representative of the entire steering committee. Everyone at the table should be comfortable with the process and product. 

 

Phil added that Karen’s everyday work is about communicating with foresters and forest landowners. She is the correct person to oversee edits. She understands how people think and work.

  

Phil also explained that Will A. has spoken with the funders. They realize the importance of the document and the importance of the public comment process.

  

Karen gave an explanation of general feedback. Several people said the draft document is too long and too technical. Others commented that we have not addressed the audience.

  

Phil said he has been thinking a lot about the document. He explained that the steering committee has presented a lot of information and that is the right thing to do. We should discuss the entire spectrum of what we consider good stewardship. Through the public comment process, we are now filtering out what the state should recommend.

  

Phil added that we should push the envelope when it comes to applying good stewardship principles. Now we can really focus on our audience. We should not be discouraged, because we are right where we need to be.

 

Don said that the phrase “too technical” may not be accurate. Some sections are written accessibly and others not. We need to address the inaccessible parts. 

 

Susan Cox explained a conversation she had with Dave Welsch, Watershed Coordinator for USFS State and Private Northeastern Area. He advised that the document be written in the context of how a forester speaks to a landowner. Technical information should be in the back of the document where professionals can reference it.

  

Karen acknowledged that the group had defined its audience as landowners and the foresters who work with them. They are, in fact, two different audiences with different training about forests. 

 

Emily said she recalls discussing this as a group. She thought that technical teams addressed the introductory information in each chapter to a landowner audience and the considerations and recommendations to the forester/professional audience. She cautioned about oversimplifying the language for practitioners.

  

Phil asked whether we needed to break the document up for different audiences. Emily said no, but we need to be mindful of these different perspectives as we revise. 

 

Susan asked if we intended for landowners to use the document on their own. She thought not. We are encouraging landowners to work with a professional to help them interpret recommendations.

  

Karen thought that the “heavier”, more technical discussion should be in the Issue section, rather than in the recommendations.

  

Using the riparian chapter as an example, Phil said the intent of the chapter was to describe technically what a landowner may want to achieve within the riparian zone. It states options, and, therefore, the flexibility of what the riparian zone can be. A landowner is not going to be able to apply that information without professional assistance. He asked Mark if he agreed. Mark agreed. 

 

Karen said that anything done on the ground is site-specific and based on landowner objectives. Recommendations cannot be applied out of that context. That is the intent of all the chapters, not just the riparian chapter.

  

Jasen said that the issues section is too technical. He suggested removing the issues section and presenting the recommendations. The objectives section would be followed by the recommendations. This would make the document less prescriptive. Foresters may want to prescribe something differently than what the manual recommends. 

 

Phil disagreed and noted that recommendations are most flexible within the context of the background information (as presented in issues). Without background information, practitioners are more bound to a list of recommendations presented out of context. 

 

Matt added that his technical teams sought to give the most flexibility by presenting the issues clearly. This intention, however, is somehow lost on the audience. He suggested that this needs to be addressed and wondered the best way to accomplish it.

  

Will Staats said that the question always comes back to how do we use the document.

  

Phil asked Ken if he ever applies different principles on state lands than those recommended in Good Forestry when they are presented in the context of issues, considerations and recommendations.

  

Ken said this happens quite often. He explained that they use Good Forestry as a management tool, but not exclusively. They invite specialists to attend management meetings. They begin with Good Forestry, but if experts assess a specific situation and make a different recommendation, they may go with that.

  

Brad added that the DFL uses the book as it is intended – as a tool.  If there are good scientific reasons to do something differently than recommended in Good Forestry we may follow that. 

 

Matt added that the steering committee acknowledges that recommendations conflict. Wildlife professionals deal with this type of conflict all the time. The background gives context. The book is not designed to be a cookbook. We need to communicate this better.

  

Don agreed saying that the issue provides context. Context is critical for the landowner audience. If we didn’t present the issue section, recommendations might be applied in too defined a manner at a local level. 

 

Karen said it seems people have a problem with the word “issue”. Perhaps the section should be called “background” instead of “issue”. Susan agreed that “background” is a better description of the contents of that section.

  

Phil responded and said it is beyond simply “background” information. In some cases, the background section says, “do what you want but think about these specific things”.

  

Mark added that the issue does not contain recommendations. It is meant to provide background to set the stage for what follows: the considerations and recommendations.

  

Phil asked how we would explain that, in some cases, the Issue section gives background so that it may not be necessary to look at considerations. If you are unable to apply the recommendations, then you should think about some specific things in the issues and considerations sections. Don noted that Phil was actually talking about considerations, and they are presented to the audience for that purpose.

  

Chris Mattrick noted that if the steering committee is still struggling with these questions, it is not surprising that there is confusion about how to use this manual. He asked whether we needed a document that is just the recommendations. We could publish one complete manual and one with just considerations and recommendations.

  

Mark said that suggestion would address many of the comments we have received so far.  There are, however, many drawbacks to this option.

  

Matt added that while this suggestion might address the “too long, too technical” comments, it does not address the concern about using the document for regulatory purposes. If we present the recommendations alone and out of context, this document would be very easy to adapt for regulatory purposes. This is dangerous.

  

Phil said he would not consider publishing recommendations without considerations.

  

Emily said the many comments about “too long, too technical” may be based on the presentation of the draft. Printing the document from the web without any organization such as tabs is unappealing and overwhelming. People wanted a hard copy and may have reacted differently to a hard copy. 

 

Karen pointed out that Kristina had hard copies and has mailed many throughout the public comment period.

  

Emily clarified, saying that the steering committee should be cautious about minimizing the document too much without considering the organization and presentation of the draft.

  

Karen said there are some new chapters and other chapters that are longer than in the first edition. The public comment feedback will inform the decision of what to eliminate or reduce. Some comments have critiqued chapters in the first edition. 

 

Phil asked Brad what chapters are required by the statute. Brad said RSA 227 – I:4 mandates that Good Forestry address “voluntary forest management practices for sites or practices which are ecologically sensitive due to soils, wildlife habitat, and other unique natural features such as high elevations, steep slopes, deer wintering areas, riparian zones, sensitive soils, and clearcutting.”

 

Phil acknowledged that the current draft presents a more ecological context.

 

Will A. explained that after the public outreach sessions he reviewed the entire document. He feels that good editing may reduce the size by 25% without changing the content. He suggested that, once the public comments have been reviewed, the steering committee should provide direction on which chapters can be eliminated or merged. It may be helpful to have feedback on this before the December meeting. 

 

Don said he does not support separating the considerations and recommendations from the background information. The goal of the document is to promote informed decision making. We should focus on distilling the background information. 

 

Ken asked whether the document could be separated into two volumes - one for office work and one for field work.

  

Phil asked for examples of information that would not be needed in the field. Ken responded that estate planning and landscape level analysis topics are not needed in the field.

  

Karen disagreed with the suggestion. She said that she does not believe that Good Forestry has been or will be used as a field book. Most field books are about identification or individual topics, not a complex synthesis of information. She said that while Good Forestry does not need to be dense or complicated, it is still a reference book.

  

Phil asked if the document was online, whether people could download whatever parts they wanted to take into the field or are people really looking for a waterproof field book.

  

Susan said that at the Epping public listening session, someone suggested publishing individual sections and not a complete book.

  

Matt said that is how the document is written now. That is why there is repetition of concepts between chapters.

  

Will S. agreed that Good Forestry is not used in the field.

  

Karen added that the measure of success for this project is not that the book is in people’s pickup trucks. Chris said that the risk is that people are not using the document at all.

  

Brad cautioned the group saying that it is too soon to decide what the final document should look like before we edit the draft. We are not looking at the final product.

  

Phil said we do need to think about options. We are being asked for a pickup truck version. Phil suggested that Jasen speak to his staff and members and ask them how they would do this. He also cautioned that presenting recommendations out of context may lead to regulation.

  

Emily asked whether folks are looking for a backpack version or a pickup truck version. She said that any book could fit in a pickup truck, but if people want to take it into the woods with them, that is different.

  

Charlie Levesque suggested in a letter that the committee consider a longer text book version and a field version.

  

Karen said the original document was not a pickup truck version. She suggested that the committee focus on the general comment that the draft is too long and too technical.

  

Mark asked whether it is too arbitrary to give editors guidelines that no chapter should be more than a specific number of pages. It forces the editor to make tough choices about what to cut.

  

Phil suggested if a chapter’s content relies heavily on another reference, maybe we refer the reader directly to that primary reference. We should direct the audience to very specific usable references. We should not edit out content to meet an arbitrary length.

  

Emily said she is confident that the editors will do a good job editing the draft down. A field version could simply eliminate references. References currently constitute a large amount of text.

  

The group reiterated the following conclusions from the discussion:

  

Karen will be the primary editor with support from a technical editing team. Will Guinn will participate. She will consult with the technical teams about substantive changes.

  

Editing will reflect feedback received during the public comment period. The goal will be to shorten the draft. The comments will inform the committee about which chapters should be combined or deleted.

 

The word “background” will be used instead of “issues” in each chapter. The introduction will be revised to reflect this change, and to better clarify the relationship between chapter parts.

  

Matt asked how conflicting comments will be reconciled. Karen said she hoped to see a preponderance of suggestions in one direction or another. Questions that cannot be resolved will come back to the steering committee for discussion. 

 

Will A. added that there will be a discussion of how the final book will be structured at the December meeting. 

 

Mariko said we must be mindful of operational efficiency. We are assembling a document that deals with many subjects and many different recommendations. To best support this process, the steering committee must be responsive and keep a very operational awareness in mind during the editing and structuring process and discussion.

  

Karen added that many concerns from the public can be addressed easily. For example, public feedback indicated that timber management appeared unimportant in the draft document because the silviculture chapter was presented at the end. This can be addressed by moving the chapter to the front of the document. Changing the position of the chapter in the document is an easy fix but it speaks volumes to our audience. 

 

Don stated that he would rather sacrifice references than substantive content. The narrative is more important.

  

Will S. added that somewhere in the document we have to explain why we are undertaking the revision of Good Forestry. We need to be explicit about this. 

 

Karen responded that it is appropriate that Brad write a forward that addresses the statute, the right to harvest law, and other pertinent subjects. It is appropriate for the state forester to state the intent of the document. 

 

The group took a break at 10:45 a.m. and resumed meeting at 11:05 a.m.

  

Phil asked if there were any additional comments to address the too long, too technical comment. Mark suggested that perhaps we should decide what should be combined or cut before we remove substantive information from critical chapters.

  

Phil added that we first should address the comment that the draft has an overall negative tone toward forestry. 

 

Karen said that when someone has made this comment to her, she asks for specific examples in the text. In these cases, she usually has felt that it can be edited easily. For example, listing timber harvesting income first in a series about what can be accomplished by a management activity is a simple way to improve tone. Moving the silviculture chapter up to the front of the document is another way. 

 

Phil added that there is a feeling that there are a lot of topics in the document not about forestry. This comment may come from a lack of understanding about the origins of the document. Regardless, we must be sensitive to this issue. 

 

Karen agreed that people think that the emphasis is biased toward wildlife. She thinks that wildlife management integrates nicely with promoting forest management because in New Hampshire, you have to cut trees to manage for wildlife.

  

Karen also said that people are now just starting to read the draft thoroughly. She is not sure where this will lead. She advised that we need to hold our judgment until we have all the comments on all the chapters.

  

She added that some people have made specific recommendations on chapters to combine or delete. 

 

Emily said she likes idea of Brad writing a forward, although she suggested not calling it a “forward”. The piece can set the stage and address the concern about the document becoming regulatory.

  

Don said he can see both sides of the argument. Initial feedback suggested the tone was anti-forestry, and now we are getting more specific feedback. Now is the time to address the tone throughout the document.

  

Phil said it is very positive that we are at this stage of the process when there is a lot of public involvement.

  

Phil reminded the group that some chapters and topics cannot be eliminated from the document because they are mandated by the statute.

  

Karen asked Jasen to consider the process of reviewing the next version of the draft. Members of the steering committee met with the NHTOA policy subcommittee before the public comment period began. She wondered if this should happen again when the next version of the draft was ready.

  

Phil reminded the group that any group can request a similar meeting to review the draft. Jasen said he would like the NHTOA policy subcommittee to review the next draft. Karen suggested that perhaps the subcommittee could review the entire document with a focus on some specific chapters. 

 

Jasen agreed that this would be helpful. He added that by doing this, we may be able to address possible flash points that have been missed.

  

Phil suggested that NHTOA put together a small focus group to do this. Jasen asked when this review would occur. Karen felt that mid-January would be the earliest.

  

Matt said that the next draft should be reviewed by the steering committee before it goes out to the NHTOA policy committee. This way everyone is on the same page and is reviewing the same version of the document.

  

Town ordinances 

 

Phil began the discussion by stating that Good Forestry is the starting point for everything that one should know about protecting and managing the forest resource. The document has a scientific basis. It is striving for “perfect forestry in the Granite State”.

 

In NH, we have one document where every stakeholder has buy in. If every agency had their own document, there would be no context for forest management. Now information is presented in one resource, increasing the probability that we will have good stewardship

 

The first edition came out when there were proposed forestry regulations in the legislature for clearcutting. Good Forestry was the alternative. The problem is that it requires a compromise on the part of those in the forestry community. The book discusses more than just timber harvesting. Agencies whose missions are focused around specific natural resource attributes have to compromise because the information may be stated differently than they wish. However, one document for forest management practices means a more widely used product.

  

Worst case scenario is that towns will use Good Forestry for regulations. Every stakeholder has to have a comfort level with what is published in the document. If the practices presented are the best of the best and towns adopt it as an ordinance, practices are very restricted.

  

These are the conflicts of putting this information all in one place.

  

Karen sees this issue of town ordinances as a bigger issue than Good Forestry. Regardless of Good Forestry, towns will try to regulate forestry practices. There has been little comment that some recommendations in the draft are actually less restrictive than in the first edition.

  

Karen asked whether towns are adopting these forestry ordinances legally. New Hampshire has a right to harvest law. That suggests that there should be a bigger discussion of the legality of these ordinances. We need a bigger outreach effort to get to communities, local government centers, and conservation commissions. There are legal avenues to look at and there is a need for aggressive outreach.

  

Mark asked Jasen about the scope of the problem of towns trying to use Good Forestry to adopt regulations.

  

Jasen said he frequently gets calls from landowners, foresters and loggers having problems with towns. He mentioned Henniker and Durham as examples. Although these are not specifically cases of an inappropriate use of Good Forestry, he has as heard that the document is referenced in the discussion. Changing demographics in New Hampshire has meant a change in attitude towards forest management in some towns.

  

Matt asked if NHTOA would keep track of instances of where Good Forestry is being used to argue for ordinances.

  

Karen wondered if there might be another way to figure this out. She felt unsure about the burden falling to NHTOA.

  

Phil said we hear that this is happening all the time, but is it actually happening. Mostly what we know is anecdotal. 

 

Will A. said we have to say explicitly in the introduction that using Good Forestry to create local ordinances is not appropriate. He added that it is not the role of the steering committee to research and document the problem. If towns are doing this, other organizations can address it.

  

Emily said we can be most effective by doing outreach to conservation commissions and planning boards. She would like to use Good Forestry in her habitat workshops to get the word out about what it is and what it means. She knows of a case where one town thought Good Forestry did not go far enough and sought stricter guidelines in a proposed ordinance.

  

There is a need for solid, frequent outreach. 

 

Brad agreed that the forward needs to be very strong. The statute is very clear that it is not meant to be a regulatory document. We need to be aware of instances where towns may use this inappropriately and do outreach. Brad is waiting for clarification on the right to harvest law updates from this past year.

  

Susan said that people at the Epping session said that towns were picking and choosing specific recommendations. We should stress that this is a complete document and recommendations cannot be taken out of context.

  

Matt said that this seems a strong argument not to water down the sections more than they are. Making discussions simpler followed by a bold recommendation without proper context is dangerous.

  

Don said the best protection for the forestry community is a strong Good Forestry. There will be no need to have local ordinances.

  

Chris stated that people see the word “recommendation” and think “regulation”. Perhaps we can avoid use of the word “recommendation”. The word is in the statute. He suggested that using different language may help address the problem.

  

Will A. noted that whatever the name, there will be people who want to use the document against its intent.

 

Phil said towns often make decisions without complete information. The assumption is, because the state publishes this, it has to be good so let’s make an ordinance. Good Forestry has to be scientifically based and have solid credibility. There are repercussions for people practicing in some communities.  They see Good Forestry as perfect forestry and strive to regulate.

  

Karen again stressed that this is a bigger issue and somewhat different than simply adapting Good Forestry recommendations. There is a need for frequent solid outreach saying that regulations are counter productive. For example, the workshop “forest laws for municipal officials” sends the message that there are competent professionals working on the land doing a good job. 

 

Phil asked whether we shouldn’t recognize the issue in the document. Don said we intend to in Brad’s forward and a clear, explicit introduction.

  

Susan said stating the issue explicitly will support renewed outreach efforts.

  

Mark agreed with the discussion, but wants to keep the phrase “recommended practices” in Good Forestry. He said the committee has spent a lot of time and effort in research and should feel confident that they are presenting solid, credible recommendations.

  

Chris said that the conflicting recommendations are difficult for people. Mark responded that we should be cautious not to overstate the problem of conflicting recommendations. There are actually very few.

  

Emily emphasized the framework of the introductory material is very important. We need to make our case in the front of the book.

  

Phil asked who would do this solid, frequent outreach.  Karen said that Extension would. It is not necessarily the job of the steering committee.

  

Conservation Easements

  

Phil has had a discussion with Brad about potential ways to follow up on referring to Good Forestry in conservation easements. There is concern that people may not support a Forest Legacy easement if Good Forestry is referenced. 

 

Brad explained that there is discussion in the DFL about appropriate easement language. For example, what does “manage in accordance” mean? On state lands, the document is used as a tool. Experts may recommend something different.

 

The DFL is also considering past easements and what “in accordance” means. If they are deviating from a recommendation in Good Forestry, that can be overridden by the easement. 

 

Mark said TNC uses very similar language in its easements. TNC does not consider Good Forestry as doctrine. There is understanding that the book has to be taken as a whole. He wondered how other easement holders are writing that language.

  

Mark added that the state holds very few easements compared to land trusts and other agencies. He asked that agencies and land trusts be involved in the discussion of appropriate language because the state’s decision will affect many.

  

Phil said some easement holders have said that they are required to follow Good Forestry verbatim. We should find out more about these cases. 

 

Will Abbott suggested “will be guided by” as alternative language. How successors interpret the language is another legitimate concern.

  

Someone asked if “in accordance” refers to what is written in the management plan or the on the ground work. It refers to on the ground work.

  

Jasen said he had a meeting with NH Fish and Game on this issue. He knows of one person that has a Legacy easement, and it has meant implementing the recommendations as written in Good Forestry. Jasen suggested explaining in the Good Forestry document what it means when the document is referenced in an easement. In this manner, the document can defend the easement language itself. The landowner is no longer in a position to defend their decision. This explanation should be in the beginning of the document.

 

Phil Bryce left the meeting at 12:05 pm. Karen chaired the meeting.

  

Mark supported the suggestion, saying it was a practical way to deal with this issue. Land trusts work on their easement language and adapt it from time to time. The benefit of Jasen’s idea is it addresses broader issues about conflicting recommendations. If we can get that message right it will be a good service to the entire document.

  

Brad said that different easement holders may use the book differently. We cannot guarantee what subsequent versions of Good Forestry will look like.

  

Will A. said it is fair to say that subsequent versions will also be voluntary. 

 

Someone asked if there have been any problems on state lands with easement language being challenged to date. Brad said not so far.

  

Mark said he would like to help draft the suggested easement language. Karen encouraged Mark to draft some language. Karen noted that Brad will make important points as the state forester that are different from points made by the steering committee. Mark said he would like to work with Will A., Jasen and Ken on language. Jasen knew some staff from NHFG would like to be involved as well.

  

Karen requested that the proposed language be sent to the steering committee for comment.

  

Jasen asked whether the draft had any explanation of how Good Forestry interacts with easements and forest stewardship planning. Karen responded that the section “Using this manual – required reading” addresses this. She added that Brad’s forward may also address this, as will the estate planning section.

  

Question of authorship

  

Karen asked again about the question of authorship. When people ask her who authored what chapters, her response has been that this is a collaborative process. Some material was written by the original first edition committee. Material presented in the draft isn’t necessarily what the author wrote. It is a more complex question than presenting the individual chapter authors. 

 

Matt said editing reduces original ownership of the text. Authorship is by the technical teams and the steering committee. Don said we should present the author as the steering committee, or it is too complex. Emily advised that the technical teams should be listed.

  

Next meetings 

 

Karen reminded members of the steering committee that public comments they receive directly should be directed to Kristina to include in the public comment documentation. 

 

Emily requested a week to read through the public comment documentation before the December meeting.

  

Will A. agreed that the editors will need to digest the comments and come up with an agenda.

  

The steering committee will meet on the following days at the Conservation Center in Concord, NH:

  

December 16, 2009, 9 a.m.-2:30p.m.

January 22, 2010, 9 a.m.-2:30p.m.

  

Public Comments

  

Before closing the meeting, Karen asked the members of the public in attendance for their comments.

  

Tom Thompson said he had nothing to add but to encourage the steering committee to focus attention on the feedback given at the four public meetings. Some drove two hours and were very passionate about what they said. Also, there are a lot of stakeholders that want to see this document again. He advised that landowners are the stakeholders and committee needs to get the document right. 

 

Hollis Austin said the meeting was run well and he appreciates the serious thought given to the issues.

  

Herb Farnham agreed. 

 

The Steering Committee adjourned at 12:26 p.m. 

Notes submitted by Kristina Ferrare