The mission of my agency is to protect and promote the values provided by trees and forests. Forests and Lands is responsible by statute for "all matters pertaining to forestry, forest management, and forestlands within the jurisdiction of the state." This includes acquisition and management of state owned forestlands, forest fire protection, insect and disease control, the state forest nursery, the natural heritage inventory program, natural resource education and forest policy.
The Division of Forests and Lands is also the primary state agency responsible for the enforcement of forestry laws, including, in cooperation with the NH Department of Environmental Services, those protecting water quality. Law enforcement officers from my agency conduct onsite inspections of logging operations to ensure compliance with water quality and other timber harvesting laws.
The state also provides training in compliance with forestry laws and implementation of Best Management Practices through the Professional Logger Program. Recommended timber harvesting practices for controlling soil erosion have been around in New Hampshire for at least 20 years. Implementation of these practices has been a critical component in reducing the impacts of logging on water quality.
As a state forester, I am strongly opposed to the proposed rules on three major grounds:
1. The proposal is a major departure from the historical interpretation and implementation of the Clean Water Act, and is not supported by statutory authority.
2. The proposal ignores the relatively minor contribution made by forest management to water quality problems nationwide, and threatens to disrupt the effective approach taken by the State Foresters and our Federal partners to achieve these results.
3. The proposal will be extraordinarily difficult to implement in practice and will result in drastically higher costs for both States that must develop TMDL's and the landowners and operators who might become subject to NPDES permitting requirements.
As stated earlier this year in my comments to the EPA, the proposed rules will do little if anything, to improve water quality in the State of New Hampshire. It is a poor allocation of collective public and private resources to protect the environment. It is our experience that those few individuals who have little regard for the law will ignore any new permitting process. For the rest, a permitting process will divert energy away from other efforts that have a proven track record of success in protecting the environment, particularly the implementation of BMP's.
New Hampshire has a long and proud tradition of protecting personal and property rights while working collaboratively to resolve public issues and problems. I have characterized this as a balanced and collective form of forestry leadership. The top down approach promulgated by EPA is a threat to maintaining that spirit of collaboration between the private and public sector that has worked so well here in New Hampshire to address natural resource challenges.
An outstanding example of that spirit is Good Forestry in the Granite State. Not only does it have a chapter on water quality, but it incorporates a complete copy of the state's BMP's recognizing even further the importance of protecting this our water resources.
The collaborative work of a broad spectrum of interests, from representatives of the forest products industry to the staunchest critics of that industry, have identified more than once the need for education, monitoring and enforcement of existing laws to address environmental protection and forest stewardship.
The legislatively mandated New Hampshire Forest Resources Plan recommends that we develop and implement forest practices regulations under the following guidelines: scientific information shows a clear need; voluntary measures are in place; education and incentives have not changed behavior; and monitoring shows that current practices are not sustainable."
The Plan also recommends that the state "Provide consistent, swift and equitable enforcement of forestry laws" and that we "Secure funding for five additional (Forest) Ranger positions."
In addition, the final report of the Forest Liquidation Study Committee to the state's Forest Advisory Board concluded that, with respect to improving forest practices, eve need increased efforts to educate individuals about sound forest management, better data gathering on the level and harvesting activity within the state, and enhanced enforcement of existing laws. What we really need are the resources to carry out these recommendations.
I recognize that the EPA has been working to address issues surrounding the proposed rules. There remains a great deal of uncertainty as to the degree to which the EPA is responding to these issues. Questions remain:
1. Do these rules lead to the improvement of water quality beyond the capability of existing state laws?
2. Is EPA considering forestry and silviculture as a non-point pollution source or not? This is the critical question.
3. Under what specific circumstances will EPA issue a clean water permit or require the states to do so?
4. What is the relationship between existing BMP's under the 319 program and BMP's recognized under the new rule. If the 319 BMP's are not acceptable, what are the new criteria?
5. Regardless of current policies or the intent of EPA, what is the actual impact on landowners and forestry activities if there is full enforcement of the proposed rules?
6. To what extent will additional regulation drive landowners to convert land to non forestry uses?
In summary, while we look forward to working with EPA to protect water quality, the proposed rule is misguided. Even with recent changes in policy, it creates ominous and certain federal regulation over silviculture and forest management. I am concerned that it also opens the door for abuse by those who do not support active management and stewardship of our natural resources.
Our collective efforts on behalf of the public should focus not on additional permitting and a shift to federal control, but on monitoring, education and additional support to the states to enforce existing laws.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony.