The EPA's proposal would mandate regulation of all silviculture activities as point sources of pollution under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), opening up all private landowners to NPDES permit regulations. Specifically, this regulation would include previously-exempt categories, such as nursery operations runoff, site preparation, reforestation activities, thinning, prescribed burning, pest and fire control, harvesting operations, surface drainage, and road building and maintenance.
I am concerned that removing the exemption on these activities may unnecessarily impose heavy-handed federal regulation on forestry activities. The silviculture industry has a long history of seeking common-sense solutions to achieve effective, sustainable land management. In a 1996 EPA report to Congress, forestry activities were identified as the smallest source of nonpoint source pollution, contributing approximately 3% to 9% of nonpoint source pollution to our nation's waters. Due to the relatively small impact of this industry, I believe that landowners should be encouraged to work directly with states and local governments to find answers to pollution problems. New Hampshire's forest landowners, through the use of Best Management Practices, the New Hampshire Professional Logger Program, the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, and Tree Farm Program, have contributed considerable resources and effort to protection of water quality.
Furthermore, in the original rule-making process following enactment of the CWA, the EPA recognized that Congress's original intent was to designate forestry activities as a nonpoint source of pollution. Therefore, this proposed rule would represent a departure from thirty years of regulatory practice. This change would subject landowners to citizen suits for permitted activities, not to mention potential fines, and necessitate federal permits for most forest management activities, which would be subject to unnecessary and potentially costly delays. The burden of these rules could force landowners to forfeit their stewardship of the land in favor of giving into the ever-present pressures of development, which we can all agree is not in the best interest of the environment.
Although we all share the common goals of categorically improving the quality of our nation's streams and rivers, we must not impose an excessive federal regulatory burden that could cripple the silviculture industry. Instead, I would encourage continued cooperation between the federal government and the states to provide the necessary incentives to landowners to maintain healthy forests.
In closing, I want to again thank Chairman Smith and the Committee for holding this extremely important hearing. I hope that the testimony presented today by myself and others will convince the EPA to reconsider this proposed rule.