February 9, 2010

Good Forestry in the Granite State

Steering Committee Meeting

NH TNC Office, Concord, NH

Minutes

 

 

Present:

Will Abbott, SPNHF, Karen Bennett, UNH Cooperative Extension, Emily Brunkhurst, NH Fish and Game, Phil Bryce, Fountains America, Kristina Ferrare, UNH Cooperative Extension, Will Guinn for Ken Desmarais, Division of Forests and Lands, Geoff Jones, Loveland Forestry, Don Kent, NH Natural Heritage Bureau, Bill Leak, USFS Northern Research Station, Rick Lessard, Timber Harvesting Council, Linda Magoon, NH DES, Brad Simpkins, Division of Forests and Lands, Jasen Stock, NHTOA, Matt Tarr, UNH Cooperative Extension, Dick Weyrick, GSD SAF, Mariko Yamasaki, USFS Northern Research Station, Mark Zankel, NH TNC

 

Karen called the meeting to order at 9:06 a.m.

 

Minutes from December 16, 2009

Emily made a motion to approve the minutes from December 16. Bill seconded the motion. The minutes passed without amendment.

 

Phil informed the group about the day’s work. We would focus on big themes from the comments. There would be a discussion about changes to the table of contents (TOC), revisions to chapters and combinations of chapters. We would also discuss the plan for the GSD SAF meeting on February 12.

 

Jasen asked a question about the minutes. He was unclear on whether we decided that the discussion of steep slopes should be a specific chapter. The minutes did not indicate a consensus on steep slopes as a separate chapter.

 

Karen responded that it was suggested that Will G. draft steep slopes. The decision to create a separate chapter was solidified in the editing team. Phil suggested looking at the content and the key pieces presented in steep slopes and deciding if it should be a separate chapter or incorporated into another chapter.

 

Mark welcomed the group to TNC.

 

 

TOC Discussion

Karen reviewed the reorganization of the TOC to given management topics greater emphasis. This, she hoped, would help address the comments suggesting the steering committee was anti-management. The introductory section “Setting the Stage” has less information in it. “Using this Manual” was edited. She noted that the conservation easement language is in “Using this Manual”. The “Getting Started” section has new information in it, including setting objectives. The sections on silviculture and timber harvesting follow.

 

Karen explained that she combined the former logging aesthetics, timing of forest management, slash and the aesthetics of clearcutting chapters into one logging aesthetics chapter. She also combined the chapter on truck roads and landings with skid trails. She hoped that combining these chapters eliminated repetition of information.

 

Will G. asked whether we could remove “aesthetics” from the title of “Aesthetics of Skid Trails, Truck Roads and Landings”. The chapter is about more than aesthetics and “aesthetics” is already in the previous chapter “Logging Aesthetics”.

 

Karen said the chapter really only addresses aesthetics, so she left it in the title.

 

“Harvesting in High Use Recreation Areas” remains in the Timber Harvesting section, but “Cultural Resources” has moved to sensitive areas.

 

Karen explained that the Additional Reading at the start of each section was carried over from the first edition. These suggested readings cover broad topics. She also has additional reading at the end of each chapter within. Additional reading will stay at the end of each chapter. References will be moved to the back and organized by chapter. Right now if something is listed in additional reading, it is not listed in references again. She has asked authors to review this when they review their revised chapters. She has been removing references if they are not directly cited in the text. If the author says a reference is a good general reference, she will put it back into additional reading.

 

Bill questioned whether the additional reading should come first in the sections. Karen said perhaps we need to come up with a better title than “additional reading” in the context of the chapters. There is also “additional reading” at the beginning of the sections, which cover broad topics within that section.

 

Bill said he would put additional readings at the end of the section. Mark agreed. Emily said the printed version tab should have a table of contents for the section but the online version could have additional reading at the second side of the tabbed page. Karen likes this idea.

 

Karen said the Erosion and Soil Damage and Soil Nutrients chapter are still listed separately because she has not worked on them yet. Based on committee direction, she intends to combine these chapters.

 

Don suggested removing the word “aesthetics” from chapter titles. He felt it placed an unintended emphasis on something potentially problematic on timber sales. We were perhaps implying that general operation was poor. Karen said the entire focus of the chapter would need to change if we removed “aesthetics” from the titles, as those chapters specifically address aesthetic issues.

 

Geoff said even under the best situations, timber harvesting is disruptive and messy. There is a need to continually address people’s perception of timber harvesting. People judge the quality of the work by the way it looks.

 

Phil said the forestry community has accepted the word aesthetics. He suggested continuing the conversation about this topic later.

 

Emily said she would like to see the “Staying Safe” chapter in the Timber Harvesting section. Karen said that, although that had been suggested, the chapter was landowner-safety based and not about timber harvesting. It discussed very preliminary safety information that a landowner should have. Phil noted that its position in “Getting Started” brings safety to the front of the conversation.

 

Bill asked about Bob Berti’s comments on “the right tree on the right site”. Karen has not had the chance to work on that chapter yet.

 

In the Water Resources section, Water Quality is the first chapter. She asked whether Riparian Areas should go before Wetlands.

 

Don asked whether Forest Health should be before Water Resources. Emily reminded the group that they decided Water Resources were more connected to timber harvesting and would come before Forest Health.

 

Emily said she had a suggestion for the wildlife section reorganization. She passed her notes to Karen.

 

Group feels that the organization of the TOC is improved.

 

Will Abbott asked about the word count. Karen explained that she is trying to eliminate duplication, keep the background section as the scientific discussion, and deal with laws in the considerations. She is trying to streamline considerations and recommendations and remove in-text citations. She is trying to reduce the word count by about 25%. Generally, she has added some text back at the request of the author.

 

Emily said she is impressed with all of Karen’s work. She said we have more science to discuss in this revision, and we should be aiming for average chapter size.

 

Will G. asked if the two “aesthetics” chapters could be combined into one chapter. Brad said he had made a similar note. Karen said she will look into this.

 

Don asked if we could save more space by eliminating the appendices, such as the BMP manual. Could we simply direct people to follow online links?

 

Karen said she will give the web link to list of fourth order streams. She was not going to put the list in the appendices.

 

Mark noted that the appendices listed on the TOC are fairly short. He asked if other appendices would be added. Karen was unsure.

 

Phil said appendices are important because they give people complete information.

 

Geoff said having the BMP manual and any important forms included with the document is helpful if GFGS is to be used as a reference and resource.

 

Karen said at this point the BMP manual is not planned to be in the appendices. It is easy to get and is going to be revised.

 

 

Introduction: A Message from the State Forester

Brad explained his intent. He wants to address the audience, the goal of the revision and the publication, conservation easements and RSAs up front. He tried to address all these areas but keep it brief and conservational. He avoided technical language. He explained that he has heard from the attorney general’s office since this draft, and he has those comments to incorporate into the message.

 

Bill Leak asked whether we have addressed the comment concerning using GF as a reference in a conservation easement. Phil said it is how the document is referenced in the easement that is important. Bill also noticed the emphasis on biomass harvesting guidelines in Brad’s message.

 

Brad explained the federal legislation last year referencing biomass harvesting guidelines for states.

 

Bill said he is concerned about biomass guidelines being too restrictive.

 

Mark said he was concerned that there really are no biomass harvesting guidelines in the document. Someone searching for biomass harvesting guidelines specifically may not find anything. This will be confusing. Perhaps we should clarify the statement in the message.

 

Will A. said the key point is addressing biomass guidelines in this document. The congressional committee wants sustainability to be a component of the definition of biomass. They suggest referencing certification systems, a management plan by a licensed forester, and biomass guidelines developed by each state. The staff of the delegation liked the reference to voluntary forest practices. If we include biomass language in GFGS, and we are later required by federal law to create biomass guidelines, we should be careful that the reference in GFGS satisfies that requirement.

 

Mark agrees but suggested revising the sentences in paragraph five for clarity. Phil asked what is missing from GFGS if we addressed biomass guidelines, besides Bill’s concern about sending the wrong message about nutrient loss. Bill said there are also habitat implications. Mariko said that is dealt with in the habitat chapters.

 

Bill suggested that as we review chapters, we should keep Brad’s statement in mind to determine if we have adequately addressed biomass guidelines in this document.

 

Mark said the concerns he hears about biomass harvesting are mainly at a landscape level. How much of the forest may be on short rotations or converted to other species? Karen said she does not see that type of management happening in New Hampshire. Mariko added that the state does not have a huge interest in the size class or age class of the woods across the state.

 

Don said there are questions about the sustainability of biomass harvesting as new energy plants are proposed. We do not have the answers to those questions.

 

Phil and Will A. reiterated that if the government adopts a biomass definition and people are following the voluntary practices in GFGS, and biomass is not addressed in the book, that is a problem.

 

Phil asked if we should state explicitly that GFGS is for property level management and not meant to deal with landscape level sustainability issues.

 

Brad said he would work on the language. He suggested developing the idea that, if a landowner follows the practices outlined in this book, it is meant to serve all products coming from the forest including biomass.

 

Emily said if we do that we need to be sure that in the appropriate chapters (snags, downed woody material) there are qualifiers that reference whole tree harvesting and what actions are appropriate in those instances. For example, if a landowner is whole tree harvesting, we should point out that they may want to leave some snags or woody material on the landscape.

 

Mariko pointed out that the discussion is important. She referred to Charlie Levesque’s comment. We do not deal with the landscape level discussion very well in this document. Although he was specifically referencing early successional habitat, we stop short of saying we want a percentage of the landscape in early successional habitat. We stumble at the landscape level.

        

Phil asked again whether we want to say explicitly that the book is not meant for landscape level planning. Karen responded that the regular reader may not understand this concept.

 

Rick said we should be aware that the market is changing very rapidly. There will be more biomass markets, more pellet mills. We have to be aware that what we address in GFGS may limit the marketplace. We need the flexibility to adapt to the markets and keep forestry a viable industry in the state.

 

Referring to the first sentence in the forth paragraph, Mark asked to add “science” to the phrase “advances in technology”. The phrase would read “advances in science and technology”.

 

Phil wondered whether paragraphs five and six were contradictory. “Just as this publication has a diverse audience, it has many applications”. The following paragraph then addresses what is not an intended application. Brad said that was the intent. There are many applications for this book, but local ordinances are not one of them.

 

Emily suggested modifying “many applications” in paragraph four to “many suitable applications”.

 

Phil suggested Brad look at the last two paragraphs and see if they could be combined and shortened.

 

Brad explained that he received a comment that he should emphasize the economic importance more in the second to the last paragraph.

 

Karen offered to sit down with Brad to lighten the language. The group said they wanted to keep the language as strong as possible.

 

Brad said he was open for comments, but wanted the message to have his voice.

 

Using this Manual

Karen shortened this section, including the notion of sustainability. She emphasized the importance of landowner objectives. She also added the text about conservation easements developed by Mark Zankel and others would like the group to read and comment on it specifically.

 

Emily made a correction to the last sentence of paragraph three, noting that GFGS will be available for free at www.goodforestry.org. She also suggested that first bullet on the first page refer to the “Getting Started” section on setting objectives.

 

Phil suggested combining the notions in paragraphs two and three into one paragraph, and finding a different word than “intertwined” to describe the recommendations.

 

Phil also suggested that considerations are not explained in this section and should be. We explain recommendations.

 

Mark wrote the conservations easements section. He circulated it for comments to Steve Webber, Jasen Stock and Will Abbott. He received comments from Steve Webber. The group decided to hold discussion on conservation easements until Jasen and Will A. returned.

 

Water Resources

Karen asked for a discussion about referencing the BMP manuals. The initial references in the chapters referenced Cullen as not addressing the complete range of ecological services. Public comment also indicated that we were editorial in our reference to the Cullen manual. Brad had some concerns about making the Cullen manual, which is the state’s official BMP manual, appear to fall short of addressing all ecological concerns.

 

Emily said Cullen’s manual deals specifically with erosion control, while Smith takes water quality into greater consideration. It recommends larger culverts, among other things. The Smith manual gives better direction on protecting all water values.

 

Emily explained that in some cases the water quality chapters were even more conservative with protection of water resources. She addressed aquatic organism passage, for example. She said Smith and Cullen are both important manuals, and it is a concern that Cullen is the only manual referenced by law. Perhaps we could say that the law references Cullen, but there are voluntary practices that are greater and do a better job of protecting water quality and stream habitat.

 

Phil acknowledged that each manual is different. There is a regulatory and non-regulatory piece. How do we approach the overlapping but distinct pieces?

 

Brad does not want to reference two BMP manuals because it is confusing. Additionally, a revision to the official BMP manual is planned. We do not want to reference something that is out of date by the time GFGS is published. The revised BMP manual will have more information in it than the 2004 manual.

 

Phil said the text should simply reference the BMP manual as published by the DRED. Whatever publication Division supports as the latest document is the law. We do not have to reference a specific document.

 

Linda noted that NHDES rules reference a specific document (Cullen).

 

Karen asked if removing the name “Cullen” from the text would solve the problem.

 

Linda suggested saying that the BMP manual are the minimum standards. It is possible to exceed the practices in the guide to protect water quality and stream habitat.

 

Emily suggested annotating the additional reading section to identify the scope of each BMP manual.

 

Karen asked the group to look at the Stream Crossings and Habitat chapter, and how she addressed the Cullen and Smith documents.

 

Brad noted that this was still referencing two documents. He wants to avoid confusion and have one BMP manual. Karen said both manuals are being used now. Brad said there may be multiple updates to the BMP manual before GFGS is revised again.

 

Emily suggested that we state that there are BMPs that are legally required but there are additional BMPs that go farther to protect water quality. The wording can be vague, and we can annotate the manuals in the additional reading.

 

Don said we should simply refer to the most current version of BMPs available on the Forests and Lands web site.

 

Mark cautioned we do not know how comprehensive the revision to the BMP guide will be. He would prefer not to abandon the Smith document, which is more comprehensive from an ecological perspective. Not knowing what the new official manual will be, we should be careful about putting faith in the unknown.

 

Brad said it was acceptable to reference both in the additional reading, but not in the body of the text.

 

Phil said the message should be that the official BMP manual deals with erosion. GFGS presents important information about protecting other values.

 

Brad asked Karen to fix the reference in the narrative so it is less confusing. Emily suggested that “there are state regulatory BMPs to address erosion control. Other BMPs address other aspects of water quality.”

 

Phil thinks both references need to be included in the additional reading.

 

Phil suggested saying, “The primary focus of state regulatory BMPs is erosion control.” Later recommend following BMPs as written in BMP for Erosion Control on Timber Harvesting Operations in New Hampshire.

 

Mark stated that BMPs come from the Clean Water Act and are meant to protect public health and aquatic resources. They are grounded in federal statutory requirements. They can be more comprehensive than erosion control to protect a wide range of aquatic values.

 

Phil asked we handle this in the recommendations in this and other chapters. Emily asked if Karen could write some standard language for the group to consider.

 

Phil suggested making a timeless quote in the first recommendation, such as “BMPs adopted by DRED…” We should state in additional reading that Cullen is the book referenced in current law. We should also be clear that BMP manuals do get updated. People need to know that.

 

Karen will try to put similar language in all the chapters.

 

Phil asked for other comments on the revisions to Stream Crossings and Habitat.

 

Don asked what the primary criticisms were and how we addressed them. Karen said people were uncomfortable with some of the culvert discussion. She mostly deleted duplications.

 

Mark asked about the new NHDES rules on stream crossings. He wondered if anyone had checked the chapter to see if it conflicted with the new rules.

 

Emily said John Magee was heavily involved in the new stream crossing rules, and he wrote this chapter. Emily will ask John to double check.

 

Linda explained that the new rules list exemptions and criteria. She said this chapter does not reference specifics in the rules.

 

Mark asked about the recommendation that permanent crossings be designed to handle a 25 year flood. He thought that was different from the rules. Linda will check the rules and get back to Karen.

 

Don said that whatever the chapter, the agency at the table should validate the information in the document. We should not advise people to do things that may get them in trouble.

 

Phil said we should state under recommended practices that there are laws applicable to stream crossings. The language is not really strong enough for him. Permits are required, but there are associated standards and requirements. We need to state that there are other requirements besides the permit.

 

Mark suggested making the first recommended practice into two bullets. The stream crossing rules go much farther than mandating the use of BMPs.

 

Phil noted that following BMPs is a requirement to get the necessary permit. However, he asked if there are projects which require going beyond BMPs and submitting additional information for the permit for forestry. Linda said yes.

 

Mark said the first bullet should be “Contact your resource professional to figure out the permitting process.” The second bullet should say follow BMPs. Phil asked Linda to clarify that sometimes going beyond BMPs is required to obtain a permit.

 

Linda said you do not have to go beyond the BMPs published by DRED. BMPs as published by DRED are the minimum activity required.

 

Geoff said we should suggest that manager be prepared beyond the minimum requirements. The minimum may not work in a big storm event.

Don suggested that one way to handle this is to advise people to check with the agency, unless we can make GFGS complete enough for people to have all the information required.

 

Mark said that is difficult when there are changes to statutes and revised rulemaking that we cannot anticipate.

 

Phil asked to make the message explicit that there is a minimum requirement to comply with the law.

 

Will G. asked to soften the wording in the last recommendation about open bottom culverts. He said it sounds as if we are recommending that all culverts should be open bottom. Emily said we are. Will G. noted that we had received several comments about this. He urged the group to modify the language by including “consider.”

 

The group suggested using this revised language or similar:

To maximize aquatic organism passage, consider several options to help maintain a natural stream bed. Techniques vary in effectiveness and cost.

 

Water Quality

Emily said there were not many criticisms on the water quality chapter. Karen did some shortening and rearranging. This chapter has the same issue regarding the BMP manual references as Water Resources.

 

Karen said she tried to address points of confusion with recommendations related to municipal water supplies.

 

Emily said she felt the Background information is too brief. She suggested a sentence to bring back in. She also has some small comments to share with Karen.

 

Rick asked that the consideration to use vegetable based bar and chain oil be deleted

 

Emily said there will continue to be more and more choices for biodegradable oils.

 

This consideration was in the first edition.

 

Riparian Areas

Karen explained that she edited the language and eliminated repetition to shorten the length of the chapter. She also removed the discussion about how to determine management zone width. She felt that information is summarized in the table. She explained that between the written discussion and the table, it was unclear what we were recommending.

 

Mark said he supports what was done to the chapter.

 

Phil asked whether the consideration came specifically from the books on the additional reading list. Mark said the majority of the considerations came from one chapter in Verry and Hornbeck.

 

Emily hated to lose the discussion on designing the riparian management zone. She thought that section would be of interest to foresters. She asked if we could make a reference to Verry and Hornbeck within the chapter.

 

Phil question whether removing that discussion made the chapter less flexible. He thought the intent was to add flexibility to the chapter.

 

Karen assured him that it did not make the chapter less flexible, and that other language in the chapter builds in flexibility.

 

Don asked whether we have a sense of the pushback on the table.

 

Karen said there has been some opposition to the no harvest zone. We softened the language by suggesting that there may be good reasons to cut in the no-harvest zone.

 

Phil asked whether we add “voluntary” to the chart, as in “Recommended voluntary” for the RMZ and no cut zone recommendations.

 

Karen said no, she feels we have acknowledged the concern.

 

Will G. said he is comfortable with the changes to the chapter and how they will affect the work on state lands.

 

Karen asked if the group wanted to address the addition of wetlands to the table. While she added them to the table, Karen had not put widths in.   

 

Wetlands

Linda questioned the use of the word “buffer” in the riparian table title. She understood that the group agreed to avoid using that term because of its supposed association with regulation. Karen said it was a mistake. She had meant to use the word border.

 

Karen explained that for riparian areas, there is a RMZ and a no cut zone. In the wetlands chapter we have a “no cut border”. She asked if there is an equivalent wetland management zone.

 

Linda said we don’t want to refer to a “zone”. Karen said there is only a no cut zone in the wetlands chapter and that seems very inflexible.

 

Linda said that there are too many types of wetlands, and they are too variable. It is impossible to lump them all together and make a blanket recommendation. Karen acknowledged this, and added it is not clear what we are advising other than a no cut zone.

 

Linda said she had a very difficult time making recommendations because the literature is not there. Chase came up with a blanket number of 100 feet.

 

Phil suggested the recommendation be to understand the type of wetland you have.

 

Linda said it is important to understand the values of the wetland you have and to decide how harvesting will effect those values.

 

Karen said if we don’t want to have numbers related to wetlands then we should take wetlands out of the table.

 

Will G. said we can put the 100 feet in the chart.

 

Phil asked if we are creating a wetland management zone (for lack of a better term) by applying the same principles to wetlands as the RMZ.

 

Mark urged the group to be cautious. There is a lack of literature out there about management around a wetland versus management around a water body.

 

Someone asked if our purpose is to give people a recommended practice. If we don’t have the literature to back up a recommended practice, do we need a wetlands chapter?

 

Mariko said the issue is prime wetlands: what are they and what do we recommend around them.

 

Phil noted that there is consideration about prime wetlands in the wetlands chapter.

 

Mariko asked whether there are any specific recommended practices associated with being a prime wetland.

 

Linda said harvesting is allowed but landowners need to get a waiver. Brad noted that the rules are being written now.

 

Linda noted that the 100 foot width is in the statute.

 

Phil asked if we should add a consideration that you should determine if your wetland is a prime wetland. Would that give the issue more clarity?

 

Linda noted again that prime wetlands are defined in the considerations already.

 

Mariko said the recommendation should be to identify wetland features on your property that are classified as prime wetlands.

 

Will G. opened the discussion about the difference between the terms “buffer” and “border”. He noted that they should not be used interchangeably, because a wetland “border” refers to the edge of a delineated wetland. The use of the term “border” instead of “buffer” is confusing.

 

Karen asked whether “upland border” was better than “wetland border”. Will G. said its still confusing.

 

Mark asked why we avoiding the term “buffer”.

 

Linda reminded the group that there was a discussion about the term “buffer”. Some members of the steering committee felt that the term has regulatory connotations.

 

Will G. asked why this group cannot define what we mean by buffer for the purpose of GFGS. It is not meant to be a regulatory term. It means you have to be more aware of management activities in that area.

 

Phil said we should avoid “buffer” because it has regulatory connotations.

 

Someone asked whether upland border captures the concept of width.

 

Mariko said that we are not defining a zone. We are simply suggesting that people think a little more about what they are doing for management in that area.

 

Bill Leak said that he cannot tell what can cut or how much he can cut from the recommended practices.

 

Karen said she had purposefully removed footages from the text. She did not believe we wanted a 100 foot of no cut.

 

Will G. agreed, but added that we do want a management zone where someone might modify a silvicultural prescription. Speaking about management on state lands, Will G. said when harvesting around a wetland, they leave some area around the wetland uncut and then some additional area with lighter cutting.

 

Mariko noted that if an objective was regenerating a shrubby edge, the place to do that is around a wetland.

 

Emily said perhaps we should qualify what we consider a no cut zone. We should not say there is a no cut zone around a wetland since harvesting is sometimes done on frozen ground in a wetland.

 

Mark said we are getting tripped up over the type of wetland. We are thinking of a no cut zone around open wetlands, but we are really talking about forested wetlands. We want to be cautious around emergent and open wetlands. We have more flexibility around forested wetlands. This clarification may help the discussion.

 

Bill suggested eliminating recommendations to avoid harvesting around wetlands.

 

Matt said harvesting around wetlands is important. There are habitat characteristics that are enhanced by cutting to the edge of the wetland.

 

Phil discussed the distinction between emergent wetlands and forested wetlands. There are two management options for forested wetlands: maintaining elements that support wildlife and specific landowner objectives that may justify cutting up to the wetland.

 

Karen reiterated that there should be a distinction between forested and non-forested wetlands. She asked Linda for her help. Linda will get the revised draft from the GFGS web site.

 

Jasen said he wants to keep the term “buffer” out of GF except in a strictly regulatory context. Karen offered to do a call out box to explicitly define the meaning of “border” in the discussion of wetlands.

 

Karen asked Linda if she could make another revision to the wetlands chapter before Linda reviews it further.

 

Phil asked Jasen to consider other acceptable terms to be used in place of “buffer”.

 

Bill asked that the wetlands chapter be more explicit regarding RSA requirements. He asked if there are basal area laws on wetlands. Linda said no.

 

Karen said we should state that there are laws but not be too explicit. Bill said we should summarize what the RSAs require.

 

Emily noted that the third consideration was not accurate. Cullen does not address how to harvest in and adjacent to wetlands and surface waters. The booklet states that a permit is required and lists the triggers for a permit but does not give guidelines for harvesting.

 

Don noted that the wording in the last bullet in considerations was confusing. The sentence beginning “Because tree roots may take up the excess nutrients” suggests that timber harvesting in a wetland is always a good thing. Karen suggested deleting that sentence from the consideration.

 

Mark suggested that the first sentence in that consideration is vague. He asked how harvesting is beneficial to wetlands. Karen will reword the sentence to say harvesting in wetlands may be beneficial to habitat.

 

Don asked about the distinction between ponds less than 10 acres and ponds greater than 10 acres. Why is there a no cut zone suggested for one and not the other?

 

Brad noted that the basal area law applies to ponds greater than 10 acres.

 

Mark said he left that distinction in from the first edition.

 

Phil thought it has something to do with larger water bodies being public waters.

 

Don was concerned that the difference in the recommendation made us appear inconsistent.

 

Brad noted that while there is a distinction for pond size in the basal area law, the no harvest zone is not addressed in that law.

 

Will G. asked whether it was for aesthetics because a larger pond has greater recreational use. Mark noted that the first edition chapter had a greater aesthetic emphasis.

 

Ten acres is also the break point for regulatory purposes. Geoff suggested that Susan Francher may remember the rationale behind the distinction in the first edition.

 

Brad noted that technically under the basal area law, it specifies ponds less than 10 acres that are associated with streams. A pond without an inlet or outlet technically is not held to the basal area law.

 

Mark suggested that information be added to the first footnote.

 

Don asked if we have addressed all the comments on the riparian section. He wanted to be clear that we were keeping the no cut zone in the riparian table.

 

Phil said yes, since other language had been added to the riparian chapter to keep management options flexible.

 

Vernal Pools

 

Karen explained that many people had problems designating management criteria out to 950 feet from the pool. People also felt that there were too many references and did not like that some studies cited were from away.

 

Karen edited Vernal Pools considerably and removed references that were not specifically cited in the text. She also removed references from away if there were other more local references supporting a point.

 

Matt and Jessica Veysey reviewed Karen’s edits. They asked for some references to be put back.

 

She asked the group to advise here on references from away, since there were many comments on this. She feared that references from away might decrease the credibility of the chapter.

 

Karen explained the two lists of references in the handout of the revised Vernal Pools chapter. The extra reference list at the end highlighted some references that she had removed and Matt and Jessica had asked to be included.

 

Emily said there are different notions of “away”. We should include studies that are ecologically and biologically appropriate. Studies in the northern mid-west are applicable. She would prefer that the decision to include or not include these references not be political.

 

Matt said Karen did a great job of paring down the chapter without compromising intent. He did add a couple of important points back that was lost in the heavy edit. The references supporting those points were also put back in.

 

Mariko noted that only one Joyal reference was not included in the reference list.

 

Karen said the Renken study references how far critters travel. The deMaynadier study also discussed travel distance. Shouldn’t we go with the more local reference?

 

Matt urges the committee not to arbitrarily exclude studies outside of the region because they are from away. We have to look at the study and ask if the study is appropriate to use.

 

Phil said he is not comfortable excluding a reference simply because it is from away. It may get a point across that may lead to new research in the northeast.

 

Emily felt that the authors need to make those decisions, not the committee. She said it is a matter of people having the appropriate scientific knowledge to understand the transferability of scientific study. Emily also said it is important to emphasize to the public that we are not taking a scientific study at face value.

 

Phil said he is concerned about references dealing with vernal pools in highly developed areas versus forested areas. He asked if the studies cited are within the area of forestry and forest management and not development.

 

Matt said the studies are predominantly about vernal pools in a forested landscape.

 

Phil asked if this topic should be part of the discussion on Friday at the GSD SAF.

 

Don said the format of the Timber Talks did not allow us to converse with people. We could not address people, only take their comments.

 

Don asked if there were any major issues on content.

 

Karen heavily edited the chapter, eliminating the construct of what to do generally around pools versus what you do if you really like vernal pools. This essentially equaled eliminating the 950 foot buffer to encompass core habitat.

 

Linda noted that the word “buffer” appears on page three of the chapter.

 

Bill asked if the 200 foot buffer in the recommendations is a compromise of what the authors really wanted. Matt acknowledged that it is somewhat of a compromise. There is a biological basis for establishing that distance. Bill thought there was a no cut zone in ME. Matt said we do not have a not cut zone.

 

Phil asked if need to clarify that the 200 foot buffer is not a no-cut zone.

 

Will G. stated that we should be able to use the word “buffer”. Linda agreed that in the scientific community “buffer” has no regulatory implications.

 

Bill suggested the phrase “light – management buffer”.

 

Matt pointed out that the recommendations are organized from less restrictive to more restrictive.

 

Karen asked whether it is reasonable to list recommendations that are applicable to any woodlot.

 

Mark noted that recommendations four, five, six and seven are also in other chapters. They originally came from management recommendations within the 950 foot area.

 

Don wondered whether we could specify conducting these activities beyond 200 feet of the pool.

 

Emily suggested saying something like, “since amphibians use the forest well beyond 200 feet, beyond 200 feet and up to 950 feet you should consider …” Alternatively, she suggested, “to minimize disturbance to amphibians during their adult wanderings, do this…”

 

Matt asked if there something those recommendations that we don’t agree with from a forest management or habitat management standpoint.

 

Phil asked if people agreed with breaking out the area beyond the 200 feet. Will G. said those recommendations have already been stated in other chapters in the context of other management objectives.

 

Geoff reminded everyone that the recommendations are voluntary. The recommendations are for people who want manage vernal pool habitat.

 

Will G. said he can live with the revision from a state lands perspective.

 

Bill and Mariko noted that in Maine, they have defined the pool, a 100 foot no cut buffer, and a partial harvest buffer out to 400 feet.

 

Jasen was concerned that he saw recommendations in the considerations section. He asked how the consideration about canopy cover might apply to the forester or landowner. Often canopy cover is below 55%. Matt said the assumption is within core habitat.

 

Matt explained that the research comes out of Maine. The deMaynadier study looked at three New England states. Brad suggested we state that all these considerations are applicable within the core habitat area.

 

Matt asked if an illustration might be helpful. Karen agreed. Matt also suggested calling the 200 foot buffer a “light harvest zone”.

 

Emily said the consideration about opening size may be somewhat misleading. Given a biomass or clearcut management scenario, vernal pools may be non-functional for a very long time. “Temporary” sounds like it is a brief period, but it may not be. Will G. felt the statement was well-qualified by “in most cases”. Matt added that the research supports that vernal pool functions begin to return when the site starts to revegetate and shade in.

 

Phil asked if this chapter satisfies what we need to include about vernal pools in this document.

 

Matt said he and Jessica were happy with the revision. Phil noted that there will be opportunities to discuss points of vernal pool management at Cooperative Extension workshops.

 

Bill said this chapter speaks to the importance of landowner objectives.

 

Mark referred to the first recommendation. He said there are many people that can identify vernal pools. He suggested changing the language to “contact a qualified resource professional”.

 

Karen said she only listed Extension and Fish and Game staff specifically because there would be no out of pocket cost to the landowner. Will A. agreed that the sentence should be revised.

 

Steep Slopes

Will G. developed the chapter on sheet slopes.

 

Bill thought much of the discussion could be built into other chapters, rather than giving steep slopes a chapter of its own. Brad said steep slopes are specifically referenced in the RSA. We may want to keep the discussion separate.

 

Will G. added that there are twenty-seven towns in the state of NH that have local ordinances on steep slopes. Several ordinances are forestry related.

 

Phil asked if the chapter should be separate. He asked whether there was an existing chapter where the discussion might fit. Will G. said some overlap of information is unavoidable.

 

Matt noted that the chapter was short and to the point.

 

Linda cautioned that the chapter refers to buffers.

 

Jasen asked about recommendation number six and the reference to a 35% slope. He asked how a forester might apply a silvicultural prescription on the landscape without flagging areas off that break the 35% limit.

 

Will G. said the 35% grade was in the first edition. He softened the language by adding the qualifier about salvage operations and a well established understory.

 

Phil asked about a landscape feature such as a small hummock.  How would that be handled? Will G. said this is talking about a continuous 35% grade.

 

Emily said foresters should be able to decide that for themselves. That is where professional judgment and experience would be important.

 

Phil said the size of the area impacts how to apply the recommendation.

 

Will G. asked if he should qualify the slopes by size of area. Matt thought that would be more confusing than leaving it to professional judgment.

 

Geoff noted that 35% is pretty steep.

 

Jasen said this issue of landscape features and the area of the sloped land was just the issue in Keene.

 

Geoff asked if we meant to recommend that a 35% slope with undulations on the landscape should be a no cut area.

 

Karen noted that 15% is not considered a steep slope in the forestry community. She suggested we qualify the first consideration by stating that 15% is not considered steep in the forestry community.

 

Don disagreed.

 

Will G. explained that he had considered adding a sentence that said “for the purposes of this document we think steep slopes begin at XX%”.

 

Bullet five under recommendations should reference slopes between 25% and 35% for consistency.

 

Geoff suggested we ask NHTOA constituents what they think is an appropriate range for steep slopes under current operating conditions and operational constraints. Jasen said the problem is as equipment changes, the perception of steep may change. If you have a high value material you may be able to afford a more expensive operation.

 

Will G. said the threshold for a steep slope is potential for erosion not equipment capacity.

 

Phil asked Karen to talk with Will G. and get some key points and language worked out.

 

Jasen asked that the first bullet under recommended practices be stricken. He felt the notion was covered under the first consideration. He argued that some town ordinances have nothing to do with forestry and others may be at odds with the right to harvest law.

 

Emily said removing that bullet puts the burden on the landowner. We should not put landowners in a position to inadvertently break ordinances.

 

Using this Manual – Conservation Easements

The group returned to the discussion of the conservation easement language in Using this Manual.

 

Mark explained he wrote the language based on how NH TNC considers GFGS when they are writing easements.

 

Phil asked if the easements say “to the extent practicable”. Brad said state easements mostly say “in accordance with”. Phil said the language in the chapter should reflect the language that has been used in most of the state easements.

 

Mark said NH TNC easements say “to the extent practicable”.

 

Brad spoke about his conversation with the attorney general’s office. The statement “in accordance with” does not afford the landowner flexibility with the recommendations. The phrase takes the “voluntary” out of the document. It is critical that the revised GFGS explain the meaning of “in accordance with” so that landowners have the flexibility with practices that is intended.

 

Past easements have referred to subsequent revisions of the GFGS document. Explaining our intent in this revision will solve the problem.

 

 

Invasive Plants

Karen explained that the main controversy with this chapter was the power washing of equipment. Karen moved it from recommendations to considerations, but Chris Mattrick feels we should include some language about it as a recommendation.

 

Phil asked if the chapter in general was realistic with respect to on the ground operations.

 

Will G. said the revision is better than the original. He did think that the recommendation to avoid hay bales at closeout and after was too restrictive. He suggested listing some options, from the least to most reasonable and costly.

 

Jasen agreed that listing choices was acceptable.

 

Matt noted that hay comes from diverse cites and it is difficult to know where it is from.

 

Will said the recommendation as it is written does not give a good alternative.

 

Construction grade hay is more likely to have invasive in them.

 

Will G. asked about the recommendation against traditional conservation mix. Karen said her understanding is that quality control isn’t great. Often, you are planting non-natives and invasives.

 

Geoff recommended using a seed mix that requires lime and fertilizer. Once the lime and fertilizer is used up, the natives will out-compete the non-natives

 

Jasen suggested recommending using a local source or straw, hay or seed mix.

 

Will G. said the options should be cost effective.

 

Geoff said a good alternative is to scarify the soil, spread lime, fertilizer and seed, and scarify again.

 

Matt said it is possible to get seed mixes that are predominantly native so that it is not necessary to lime or fertilize.

 

There should be a consideration about problems getting good invasive-free materials. Karen thought she would move the Materials recommendation to Closeout and After, although she is unsure about where the gravel and mulch recommendation would best fit.

 

Phil asked if we would include information about where people can source native seed mixes.

 

Brad suggested asking an Extension Forester or NRCS, rather than recommend a company.

 

Geoff said mechanical scarification is a good the alternative to hay.

 

Matt said that prepares the seed bed for invasives and can sometimes be more trouble.

 

Don suggesting asking Chris what the USFS is recommends. He also thought we should consult with NRCS.

 

Matt has talked to Chris. He has a list of what WMNF uses. NRCS recommendations vary.

 

Will A. agreed that contacting Extension is the best recommendation.

 

Mark also suggested we recommend talking to the supplier about their seed mix. People could ask the supplier to compare it to the NH non-native invasive plant list.

 

Bill said he does not think that serious invasive problems come from hay. Matt was cautious and said he is hesitant to recommend hay bales for closeout applications.

 

GSD SAF Friday, February 12, 2010

The group discussed the plan for the 45 minute session on the GSD SAF agenda on Friday.

 

Karen noted that since we did not have a chance to correct misconceptions at the public listening sections, this would be a good opportunity.

 

She suggested that the theme be “this is what we heard and this is what we are doing about it”. She would discuss broad themes from the public comment period, such as the tone, too long, and too technical. She would mention the chapters with the greatest amount of discussion (the “heavy hitters”).

 

She noted that she has the statute, and that we should remind people what the project is about and why we are doing it.

 

Karen said she will tell people about Brad’s message and state the key points.

 

She will address the comments on conservation easements and town ordinances.

 

Emily asked that she remind people that there is a solid mix of academic and practical expertise on the committee, that the committee is using sound science, and that the committee is considering both science and practice.

 

Will A. asked if there a date certain when the second draft is available. We should give people a handout with this information, including how to access it and the time table for public comment.

 

Karen said she has a goal of finished the second draft before the end of March.

 

Mark asked how long we will allow for comment.

 

Someone suggested 30 days or six weeks.

 

Will A. suggested handing out Brad’s letter as part of the handouts. It sets a positive tone.

 

Bill asked whether we would address the length issue. Karen said this would be difficult to address because we have added topics.

 

Phil felt sure the length would be less of an issue in the second draft. When people see the content they will be pleased.

 

Will G. asked if the next draft will have tabs separating the sections. Karen said the draft will not. Perhaps we will distribute the second draft on CD to meet people half way. Making hundreds of copies is very expensive and time consuming.

 

Brad asked what the steering committee could do to help prepare for GSD SAF.

 

Mark cautioned that we should not talk at people for the entire 45 minutes. Are there questions we can put to the group?

 

Karen felt that we have listened a lot and we have much to report, so there may be more talking than not during the session.

 

Don asked that Brad present the background information. Karen will speak about what we have heard, how it has affected the document, and what is happening going forward.

 

The meeting adjourned at 3:02 pm.

Notes presented by Kristina Ferrare.