PCPF News & Legislative Updates Volume II

PCPF News & Legislative Updates
Vol. 2, No. 1

June 1998

Edited by:
Donald P. Oaks
PCPF Secretary/Treasurer
311 Second Street
Pine Grove, PA 17963-1612
Tele: (717) 345-6284
Work: (717) 385-7805
Fax: (717) 345-5471
e-mail: pnforest@ptd.net

Paul A. Johnston, Co-Chair -

Governmental Affairs Committee

P. O. Box 45

Quakertown, PA 18951

Work: (215) 538-0637

Fax: (215) 538-4027

e-mail: pauljpa@aol.com

_____

Membership

· Membership Growth

¨ 1997 saw a twenty percent increase in member entities and a twenty four percent increase in numbers of foresters represented. Through June 1998 the Board has approved four membership entities increasing forester representation by ten individuals.

· Membership Initiative

¨ PCPF Members are encouraged to obtain at least one new member entity to apply for PCPF membership. Your personal involvement in this effort can quickly double PCPF membership. While we are a viable organization with ever increasingly effectiveness, doubling membership will send a strong message of forester legislative involvement to the General Assembly. Several membership applications are included for your use in this effort.

· I Support PCPF

¨ Enclosed is your I Support PCPF lapel button. This button advertises your support of PCPF legislative initiatives and your commitment to professional forester leadership in forestry legislation in Pennsylvania. Wear your button proudly and be recognized as the leader you are in advancing professional forestry in Pennsylvania.

Board Actions

· New Officers

¨ President: Effective January 1, 1998 , as provided by PCPF Bylaws, President Elect Robert J. LaBar succeeded to the PCPF Presidency upon the completion of the term of PCPF’s first President, Donald P. Oaks. Bob presided at the February 3, 1998 Board of Directors and Annual Membership Meeting.

¨ President Elect: On February 3, 1998, upon the re-adjournment of the PCPF Board of Directors Meeting following the conclusion of the Annual Membership Meeting, the Board elected, newly elected director, Kenneth Balliet to the office of President Elect. PCPF Bylaws provide that Ken will serve two years as President Elect and succeed Bob LaBar as President.

¨ Secretary/Treasurer: On February 3, 1998, upon the re-adjournment of the PCPF Board of Directors Meeting following the conclusion of the Annual Membership Meeting, and upon the voluntary resignation of Jerome Magistrella as Secretary/Treasurer to pursue personal responsibilities, the Board appointed Donald P. Oaks to the office of Secretary/Treasurer. The Board expressed appreciation to Jerry for his dedicated service as PCPF Secretary/Treasurer.

· PCPF Position Statements & Pennsylvania Facts:

¨ On February 3, 1998, at the PCPF Board of Directors Meeting preceding the Annual Membership Meeting, the Board adopted the enclosed PCPF Position Statement On the Sustainable Forestry Initiative and On Forester Licensing. The Board also approved the enclosed Pennsylvania Facts for distribution. The PCPF Position Statement and Pennsylvania Facts were provided to legislative members of the Forestry Task Force through Legislative Staff present at the Annual Membership Meeting luncheon.

· Governmental Affairs Committee (GAC) -

¨ Following the Membership Meeting the PCPF board appointed Ken Balliet and Paul Johnston as Co-Chairs of the Governmental Affairs Committee. Directors Winieski and Oaks and President Bob LaBar serve on the GAC. On April 22, 1998, by Action by Written Consent, the Board gave the GAC authority to formulate and execute, through designated members, legislative strategy. Activities include drafting PCPF Position Statements for board review and concurrence, presentations to members and fellow professionals, and initiating contacts with members of the General Assembly and others as appropriate. The committee currently has before it the presentation to the Forestry Task Force which will occur in July or August.

· Bylaws:

¨ On April 22, 1998 upon Board Action by Written Consent, Article 1 - Section 1.01. Principal Office, PCPF Bylaws were amended to permit the Board of Directors to determine the location of the principal office of the Pennsylvania Council of Professional Foresters. A new copy of PCPF Bylaws is enclosed for your use. A slightly different format in the new bylaws will permit easy revision in the event of further amendment to the bylaws. Those section of the bylaws that have been amended are annotated with the date of amendment. Amended pages can easily be replaced and a new cover page will be issued to indicate the last amended date.

· Business Address:

¨ On another Action by Written Consent on April 22, 1998, the Board acted to designate the Secretary/Treasurer’s address as the PCPF Principal Office. All PCPF business correspondence should be addressed to this address. The address is given at the beginning of this issue of PCPF News and Legislative Updates in the Edited by section.

Annual Membership Meeting

· Election of New Directors:

¨ Charter Members Roy Seifert and Jack Winieski were reelected by the PCPF membership to new three year terms as members of the PCPF Board of Directors. Kenneth L. Balliet, PCPF #17 and Paul A. Johnston, PCPF #18 were elected to three year terms to the PCPF Board of Directors. Ken is President of Susquehanna Forest Services, Inc. and Paul is a Marketing Specialist with Timberland Enterprises, Inc. A listing of PCPF Board Members is enclosed.

· Presentations By PCPF Members:

¨ Newly elected Director Ken Balliet made the keynote luncheon address to the PCPF membership and the staff representing the Forestry Task Force General Assembly members. A copy of Ken’s presentation is enclosed.

¨ Ken Balliet also addressed a group of consulting and industrial foresters who attended the Consulting and Industrial Foresters meeting sponsored by the Bureau of Forestry’s Weiser, Valley Forge and Tuscarora Forest Districts on February 24^threlative to PCPF.

¨ PCPF member Art Brooks made an excellent presentation to the same group of consulting and industrial foresters on OSHA regulations pertaining to killer trees and two separate fatalities suffered on a timber sale conducted by him. Art’s home is in Central Square, New York and he practices forestry in New York and Pennsylvania. OSHA inspectors attempted to build a case against Art alleging that Art was the employer, and responsible as such, under OSHA regulations. Art has successfully refuted their assertions. Art also reinforced Ken’s message on PCPF.

Forestry Task Force

The Forestry Task Force of the General Assembly, Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution Control and Conservation Committee met 10:00 a.m., May 8^th at the Holiday Inn, Warren, PA. A copy of the minutes of the May 8^th Forestry Task Force meeting is included for your information. The issue of Certification and Licensing of Foresters will come before the Forestry Task Force in July or August. The PCPF Governmental Affairs Committee (GAC) is preparing, and will present, PCPF’s position that licensing foresters in essential to sustaining Pennsylvania forests.

Issues included in the enclosed Forestry Task Force minutes are as follows:

· Road Bonding Issue:

¨ See enclosed proposed amendment to the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code.

¨ See enclosed letter to Representative Lynch from Elam M. Herr, Director of Legislation, Pennsylvania Association of Township Supervisors.

· Sustainable Forestry Initiative:

¨ See enclosed Forestry Task Force minutes.

· Forester Licensing and Certification:

¨ See enclosed text of letter sent to Forestry Task Force Legislators by GAC Co-Chairs, Ken Balliet and Paul A. Johnston. PCPF will propose to the Forestry Task Force that the Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution Control and Conservation Committee sponsor PCPF’s proposed amendment to the Engineer, Land Surveyor and Geologist Registration Act. The amendment will be know as the Forester Accountability Act stressing the desire of professional foresters to self regulate themselves with the ultimate goal of sustaining Pennsylvania forests. The text of the amendment remains as previously published and discussed.

Legislative Updates

· Legislation

¨ House Bill No. 1677: HB 1677 would sunset the various Licensing boards and commissions within the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs of the Department of State on January 1, 2003. The duties now performed by the various licensing boards and commissions would be performed by employees of the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs. The remaining parts of the respective acts would remain in effect under the administration of the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs. PCPF proposes to amend the legislation concerning Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors & Geologists to include foresters. Various Professional licensure groups are in opposition to HB 1677. PCPF has not taken a position on this bill pending further determination of the position of other professional groups and the effect on forester licensing. This bill remains in the House Professional Licensing Committee where it was referred in June 1997.

· HB 2023 Introduced by Rubley, Fargo, Lynch, Wilt, Pistella, Stern, Youngblood, E. Z. Taylor, Hershey, DeWeese, Ross, Semmel, Fairchild, Sather, C. Williams, Zimmerman, Belfanti, Shaner, Birmelin and Hess, November 25, 1997

¨ An Act amending the Engineer, Land Surveyor and Geologist Registration Law, providing for the exepmtion from licensure for design of on lot sewage disposal systems by Sewage Enforcement Officers qualified by the Department of Environmental Protection. Referred to House Professional Licensure Committee November 25, 1997 where it still remains.

· HB 2242 By Representatives WILT, DEMPSEY, ARGALL, HERMAN, GRUITZA, HERSHEY, WOJNAROSKI, HENNESSEY, E. Z. TAYLOR, SAYLOR, GEIST, MAITLAND, ZIMMERMAN, BELFANTI, ROSS, NICKOL, YOUNGBLOOD, FARGO, McNAUGHTON, STABACK, STERN, EGOLF, ROONEY, BENNINGHOFF, SEYFERT, THOMAS, SCHRODER and C. WILLIAMS. Printer's No. 2964.

¨ An Act amending the act of April 22, 1909 (P.L.124, No.79), entitled "An act to permit the acquisition of forest or other suitable lands by municipalities, for the purpose of establishing municipal forests; and providing for the administration, maintenance, protection, and development of such forests," repealing management by Commonwealth of municipal forests. Referred to LOCAL GOVERNMENT, Feb. 11, 1998 where it still remains.

· HB 2249 By Representatives WILT, DEMPSEY, ARGALL, HERMAN, GRUITZA, HERSHEY, WOJNAROSKI, HENNESSEY, E. Z. TAYLOR, SAYLOR, GEIST, MAITLAND, ZIMMERMAN, BELFANTI, ROSS, NICKOL, YOUNGBLOOD, FARGO, McNAUGHTON, STABACK, STERN, EGOLF, ROONEY, BENNINGHOFF, SEYFERT, THOMAS, C. WILLIAMS and SCHRODER. Printer's No. 2971.

¨ An Act amending the act of February l, 1966 (1965 P.L.1656, No.581), known as The Borough Code, deleting provisions relating to municipal forests. Referred to LOCAL GOVERNMENT, Feb. 11, 1998 where it still remains.

· AGRICULTURAL LAW RESOURCE & REFERENCE CENTER ACT - ENACTMENT ACT OF 1998, No. 11

¨ Establishing the Agricultural Law resource and reference Center and its board of directors; and providing for their purpose, duties, powers and responsibilities. The Northern Logger & Timber Processor “Regional Roundup”(Pennsylvania reported by Kent Fox, HLMA) indicated that HLMA was offering an amendment “that would assure that “forestry” and/or “silvicultural activities” would come under the term “agribusinesses””. No amendment introduced.

· PA Timber Trespass Law i.e. Title 42 JUDICIARY AND JUCIDIAL PROCEDURE amendment

The Northern Logger & Timber Processor “Regional Roundup”(Pennsylvania reported by Kent Fox, HLMA) indicated that “An amendment to Pennsylvania’s Timber Trespass Law has been proposed that would require a person found liable of removing timber without permission to compensate the aggrieved landowner for any survey costs.” * Bill introduced March 11, 1998 remains in the Judiciary Committee where it was assigned.

· Proposed Legislation

Freedom to Manage Private Forests Act continues under consideration by the Hardwood Lumber Manufacturers Association (HLMA). HLMA’s analysis of the Freedom to Manage Private Forests Act as presented to the HLMA membership and PCPF’s analysis and probable position were included in Volume 1 - No. 2 of the PCPF News and Legislative Updates. PCPF believes that Forester Licensing should be enacted prior to enactment of this legislation. No legislation has been introduced.

MINUTES

FORESTRY TASK FORCE MEETING

May 8, 1998 - 10:00 a.m.

Warren Holiday Inn

Warren, Pennsylvania

Senator Roger A. Madigan, chairman of the Forestry Task Force, called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. and asked the members of the forestry task force, advisory committee, and guests to introduce themselves.

Senator Madigan thanked Mr. John Palmer, U.S. Forest Service, for the tour of the Allegheny National Forest on the previous day.

Mr. Richard Fox said that the road bonding issue was discussed at the December 10, 1997 meeting of the Forestry Task Force and a subcommittee was formed. The subcommittee held a meeting on January l2, 1998 in State College. As a result of that meeting, an amendment to Title 75 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes was drafted. Mr. Fox summarized the road bonding amendment and presented the task force and advisory committee with a written response to the amendment from the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors (PSATS) concerning the draft legislation.

Mr. Fox asked Mr. Tom Buzby, Weaber, Inc., to talk about the proposed legislation.

Mr. Buzby said that the road bonding issue has been a top priority for the Hardwood Lumber Manufacturers Association (HLMA) for the past four years. HLMA has investigated the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's (PennDOT) authority to enforce Title 75. HLMA's review suggested that the Title 75 regulations are sufficient, but absent in the law was a finding of culpability and a mechanism to enforce the regulations. No burden for accountability is placed on a township to produce road surveys or engineering studies when posting a highway. The amendment provides for a District Justice to enforce the regulations and requires a certain level of accountability.

Mr. Fox said that a provision was also added to the amendment that holds the municipality's liquid fuels tax in escrow until compliance with the bonding regulations is achieved.

Representative Jim Lynch discussed the response from the PSATS regarding the legislation and some of the concerns raised by Mr. Elam Herr, Director of Legislation for the Association. In his statement, Mr. Herr said that the PSATS opposes the amendment as written because it may subject townships to litigation based on minor technicalities.

Representative Lynch said that the legislation needs to be introduced, but would like to have one more meeting with the subcommittee on road bonding, PennDOT, and PSATS as soon as possible. Members of the subcommittee are: Representative Lynch, Mr. Buzby, Mr. Herr, Mr. Jeff Haste, PennDOT, and Mr. Kim Wenturine, Wenturine Bros. Lumber Inc.

Mr. Fox said road bonding is also an issue with the Pennsylvania Concrete and Aggregates Association. They have corresponded with the task force about the problems they are having with road bonding.

Representative Gary Haluska said he has also heard from other groups about the issue.

Senator William Slocum suggested changing page 1, line 17 of the amendment by adding the word "substantive" before the word "requirements." Senator Slocum said this addition may help to alleviate some of the concerns that the PSATS has with the legislation.

Senator Madigan suggested that the task force move forward with this issue and vote to support the amendments to Title 75 with the understanding that the subcommittee will meet with industry and agency representatives one more time to discuss the amendment.

Representative Lynch moved to support the legislation.

Mr. Doug Carlson, Forest County Conservation District, seconded the motion and suggested that the legislation be prepared and ready pending one more meeting with PennDOT and PSATS.

The motion carried.

Senator Raphael J. Musto said that this idea might be hard to sell in the Legislature.

Representative Haluska said that this issue has been tabled for years, and as a result, townships have not been held accountable for their actions. The amendment to Title 75 provides the accountability that is needed.

Mr. Carlson agreed with the level of accountability, but has a problem with the exemptions in the law. Mr. Carlson suggested that the exemptions from bonding are arbitrary and that certain industries and businesses are exempt without proper cause. Mr. Carlson asked if an "incidental use" exemption would be feasible.

Representative Haluska said it could be handled as a "local delivery" but it is now handled through the State Police on state roads only. Once this law goes into effect the local government may allow for a negotiation for "incidental use."

Representative Haluska said that there was an article in the Pennsylvania Township News that focused on the most frequently asked questions about road bonding m Pennsylvania. Representative Haluska reproduced the information in a brochure for his constituents and offered assistance to other members.

Senator Madigan said that Dr. James Grace, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, would give an update on the forest certification program at a future Forestry Task Force meeting. Senator Madigan said that he is aware of at least one sawmill that is certified.

Senator Madigan introduced Mr. Ken Manno, Program Manager for the Sustainable Forestry Initiative in Pennsylvania.

Mr. Manno thanked Senator Madigan and the other legislators for the opportunity to speak on the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and for the increased appropriation for the Hardwoods Development Council.

Mr. Manno gave a brief overview of the SFI program. Mr. Manno said that there was a study. conducted by the American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA) regarding forestry issues. The survey showed that people do not think the industry protects forest resources as well as it could.

The SFI began about three years ago in Pennsylvania. Mr. Manno started in September 1996 as coordinator for the SFI. The primary focus was to provide logger training, and to try to lower the costs of workers compensation for those that are performing logging functions on a daily basis. Mr. Manno stated that there are five core level training programs.

1. Logger training;

2. Business management;

3. Environmental timber harvesting;

4. Logger safety; and,

5. CPR and First Aid.

Mr. Manno said that we need to share the benefits of the SFI with the public and nonindustrial landowners. We need to promote the program beyond the timber organizations and incorporate and expand the number of organizations that need to get involved and adhere to the SFI requirements.

Mr. Manno said that more materials are being developed for the landowner. Landowner organizations are being receptive to the information. Efforts will be increased on landowner outreach and to expose the public to the SFI program.

The sawmill community is another element of the program. The industry has to be involved in the program for it to be successful. Sawmills are being asked to comply with the same standards as members of the AF&PA.

Mr. Manno introduced Mr. David Manley of International Paper to discuss the AF&PA principles and implementation guidelines from an industry perspective.

Mr. Manley said member companies must follow the AF&PA guidelines and report their progress on a state and national level. Members must report the number of acres regenerated, reforested, and harvested. They must demonstrate this in order to be members of the AF&PA.

Mr. Manley referenced the AF&PA document "Sustainable Forestry." Companies are asked to follow those guidelines. Since the program began, 15 companies have dropped out of the AF&PA.

Mr. Manley said that International Paper encourages logger-training programs in different states. International Paper has adopted a policy of not purchasing wood from companies that do not participate in the logger training programs.

Mr. Fox asked how many companies in Pennsylvania are members of the AF&PA.

Mr. Manno said there are more than 20 companies, mostly larger companies.

Mr. Manley said it is a national program and each state has to tailor the pro- gram and customize the principles to meet the needs of individual states.

Mr. Carlson asked what the benefits were for a company participating in the SFI program.

Mr. Manley said that the timber industry had some issues that needed to be addressed.

Mr. Carlson asked about the reaction of the environmental community to the program.

Mr. Manno said environmental organizations have issued endorsements of the SFI and others have adopted a "wait and see" attitude toward the program. This is a long-term, evolving program that will take a few years to develop. It has the potential to benefit everyone involved. However, some groups feel it is just a public relations program by the industry. Mr. Manno said it is more than public relations because there have been companies dismissed from the AF&PA because they do not adhere to the guidelines.

Mr. Carlson applauded the industry for participating in the SFI and promoting its principles.

Senator Madigan complimented International Paper and other companies that adhere to the SFI principles and their commitment to purchase wood from companies that follow the SFI.

Mr. Manno said that 1,644 loggers have attended some level of training since March of 1997. That may be 60 percent of the logging community. Training has been provided in 152 locations m Pennsylvania. Loggers pay $10 per person per training program.

Mr. Buzby said the training programs provided through the SFI are the best in the country and a massive national program to promote these programs was started five years ago. It took at least three years to develop the program. The program is about continuous improvement. It is a public/private partnership, not a regulatory program. Member companies have to submit to an audit to ensure compliance with the program: It has only been two years that the SFI has had the materials and programs in place to take it to the public.

Mr. Manno also said that the entire program is about continuous improvement. Managing a healthy resource and informing and educating the public about forestry practices helps change the public perception about logging practices. This is a public/private partnership that has the ability to partner with environmental groups and industry alike.

Mr. Manno said that regeneration is a critical issue in Pennsylvania and they are trying to identify the technology that will most effectively measure timber stands and find solutions to the regeneration problem. They are currently working with Penn State and others on regeneration.

Mr. David Anundson, Anundson Forest Enterprise, Inc., said that the private landowner is an obstacle to SFI programs. Many landowners need short-term profitability from their land. The message about using a consulting forester needs to be delivered to the private landowner. The state has finally backed this initiative. Mr. Anundson said that if a private landowner is going to maximize his investment, he needs to use independent consulting foresters. It is often hard to convince a private landowner to develop a forest management plan. It costs between $5.00 and $10.00 per acre to develop a forest plan. Many landowners simply do not know what forest resources they have on their land.

Mr. Buzby said the SFI is the opportunity for everyone to work together.

Mr. Ken Kane, Pennsylvania Division of the Society of American Foresters, said that we need to look at managing forest resources from a historical perspective and look at what 75 years of nurturing has accomplished for the Allegheny National Forest. We need to look at nurturing the resource in Pennsylvania. Mr. Kane said that whoever is dealing with the private landowner has to have a land ethic. It was very farsighted for the government to purchase land for Allegheny National Forest many years ago. This is because there was a land ethic and a value placed on the resource. We need professionals on the job with an ethic.

Representative Haluska asked if we are heading down the road of certification and licensing for foresters.

Mr. Kane responded not necessarily.

Mr. Anundson said that one thing that hurts the logger is compensation.

Representative Lynch said that Senate Resolution 29 requires the Forestry Task Force to look at the licensing and certification of foresters.

Representative Haluska suggested that the SFI use the small business development centers in Pennsylvania as a resource to help landowners develop a forest business plan.

Mr. Manno said logger training is an ongoing process. There will be two levels of training. A master logger program is being developed. In Pennsylvania, 23 sawmills are signing up for the SFI logger-training program.

Senator Madigan thanked Mr. Manno for the presentation on SFI. The future of the forests will hinge on how the SFI is implemented in Pennsylvania. Mr. Carlson said there are other threats to the forests. Mr. Carlson referenced the "Wildlands Project" and said that this particular organization wants 50 percent of the public forestland to be wilderness. He said he would send information about the Wildlands Project to the Task Force and Advisory Committee.

Representative Lynch said that a conference on acid precipitation and forest health will be held on September 14-16 at Penn State University.

The next meeting of the Forestry Task Force will be scheduled for July or August and the certification and licensing of foresters will he discussed. Senator Madigan adjourned the meeting at 12:20 p.m.

Forestry Task Force Members in attendance: Senator Roger A. Madigan

Senator Raphael J. Musto

Representative Gary Haluska

Representative Jim Lynch

Advisory Committee Members in attendance:

Mr. David Anundson, Anundson Forest Enterprise, Inc.

Mr. Thomas Buzby, Weaber, Inc.

Mr. Douglas Carlson, Forest County Conservation District

Mr. Kenneth Kane, Pennsylvania Division of the Society of American Foresters

Mr. Jeff Kochel, Forest Investment Assoc.

Mr. David Manley, International Paper

Mr. John Palmer, U.S. Forest Service

Guests in attendance:

Mr. Ken Manno, Sustainable Forestry Initiative of Pennsylvania

Mr. Todd Nyquist, staff, Senator William Slocum

William Slocum, State Senator

Staff in attendance:

Mr. Craig Brooks, Executive Assistant, Joint Legislative Conservation Committee

Mr. Richard Fox, Executive Secretary, Joint Legislative Conservation Committee

1998D01547 01547JAM:CMM 04/29/98 #75

AN ACT

1 Amending Title 75 (Vehicles) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated

2 Statutes, further providing for the scope of the chapter on

3 size, weight and load, for restrictions on use of highways

4 and bridges and for penalties.

5 The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

6 hereby enacts as follows:

7 Section l. Section 4901 of Title 75 of the Pennsylvania

8 Consolidated Statutes is amended by adding a subsection to read:

9 § 4901. Scope and application of chapter.

10 * * *

11 (d) Responsibility of department and local authorities.--The

12 department and local authorities have the burden and

13 responsibility to properly administer, adhere to and enforce

14 compliance with the requirements of this chapter and the

15 regulations of the department. Failure of the department or

16 local authorities to Properly administer, adhere to or enforce

17 the requirements of this chapter and the department's

18 regulations shall subject the department or local authority to

1 penalties set forth under section 4907 (relating to penalty for

2 violation of chapter).

3 Section 2. Section 4902(a) of Title 75 is amended to read:

4 § 4902. Restrictions on use of highways and bridges.

5 (a) Restrictions based on condition of highway or bridge.--

6 The Commonwealth and local authorities with respect to highways

7 and bridges under their jurisdictions may prohibit the operation

8 of vehicles and may impose restrictions as to the weight or size

9 of vehicles operated upon a highway or bridge whenever they

10 determine by using sound engineering standards that the highway

11 or bridge may be damaged or destroyed unless use by vehicles is

12 prohibited or the permissible size or weight of vehicles is

13 reduced. School buses, emergency vehicles and vehicles making

14 local deliveries or pickups may be exempted from restrictions on

15 the use of highways imposed under this subsection.

16 * * *

17 Section 3. Section 4907 of Title 75 is amended by adding a

18 subsection to read:

19 § 4907. Penalty for violation of chapter.

20 * * *

21 (e) Penalty for failure to properly administer, adhere to

22 and enforce the requirements of this chapter. --

23 (1) In any summary proceeding, when it is determined

24 that the department or local authority failed to adhere to or

25 comply with any of the requirements of this chapter or the

26 department's regulations in the administration and

27 enforcement of such requirements, the department or local

28 authority shall be liable for the costs for scheduling and

29 the conduct of the proceeding and al1 costs incurred by the

30 defendant to respond to and defend against the charges

1998D01547 - 2 -

1 brought by the department or local authority. The costs shall

2 be assessed by the district justice and a able within

3 30 days of assessment.

4 (2) If the department or local authority fails to

5 comply, that portion of the liquid fuels tax received by the

6 Treasury Department from the Department of Revenue which is

7 directed b law to be returned to the cities, boroughs,

8 incorporated towns and townships for their road, street and

9 bridge purposes shall be held in escrow until the department

10 or local authority complies with section 4901(d) (relating to

11 scope and application of chapter).

12 Section 4. This act shall take effect in 60 days.

D29L7SJAM/1998D01547 - 3 -

PSATS

P E N N 5 Y L V A N I A S T A T E A S S 0 C I A T I 0 N O F T O W N S H I P S U P E R V I S O R S

May 6, 1998

Representative James C, Lynch

Pennsylvania House of Representatives

162A East Wing - Main Capitol Building

Harrisburg, PA 17120

Dear Representative Lynch:

This correspondence is in regards to the draft proposal of the Joint Legislative; Conservation Committee pertaining to the bonding of roads by the Commonwealth and municipalities.

Municipalities are required to comply with the bonding procedures prescribed by the Vehicle Code and its corresponding regulations. We are concerned, however, that the proposed penalties for violations of these procedures are inappropriate and ill-advised.

The notion of penalties against governmental bodies is contrary to historical general rule. For example even in the area of civil rights violations, a municipal government may be found in violation of the civil rights law, but cannot be held liable for punitive damages. The basis for this rule is that a penalty against a public body ultimately falls upon the society itself, rather than upon an individual wrongdoer. The reason for imposing a penalty is not served when the penalty is paid out of public money.

Additionally, the provisions of Section 4907(e)(1) are ill-advised and we oppose them for the following specific reasons:

1.The punishment does not fit the crime. The general rule is that defense and court costs are rarely imposed upon the losing party to litigation; and are imposed only when it is clear that the action should not have been brought and the losing party acted outrageously in bringing the action. Conversely, this statute would impose such costs based upon the merest mistake (page 2, line 24, "...failed to adhere to or comply with any of the requirements of this chapter.-,").

2. The punishment does not necessarily have any relationship to the victim. in other cases where costs are imposed, the defendant has been wrongly put to the expense of defending himself. In this bill, the defendant may be entirely guilty of the charge made, but may escape conviction and the cost of the defense because of a technical, or previously unknown miscue by the government, which has no direct bearing upon the charged offense.

3001 Gettysburg Road

Camp Hill, PA 17011-7296

Telephone; (717) 7 63-0930

Fax: (717) 763-9732

Internet: www.psats.org

P E N N S Y L V A N I A S T A T E A S S O C I A T I O N O F T 0 W N S H I P S U P E R V 1 S O R S

Representative James C. Lynch

May 6, 1998

Page 2

3. This section works against the purpose of the law. The purpose of the law is to attain enforcement of certain rules which are deemed to be worthwhile and in the public interest. This section works against that purpose because it would discourage enforcement. Enforcement action would carry a risk of greater punishment to the government than to the offender. The municipal government, therefore, would be discouraged, by this language, from taking the actions necessary to accomplish the principal purpose of the law of protecting the interest of the general taxpaying public.

4. While discouraging enforcement and fulfilling the primary purposes of the law, this language will encourage prolonged litigation. Under this proposal, where a district justice of the minor judiciary invokes the language and imposes a penalty upon government, the government will, on account of both the stigma and the disproportionate costs involved, have an incentive to appeal the case, thus increasing litigation while decreasing the effectiveness of the law.

By using phrases as "...have the burden and responsibility to properly administer, adhere to and enforce compliance..." (page l, line 12) promotes some unstated purpose. It seems highly implausible that a government's failure to meet "any requirement" could be seen as justifying the remedy stated in this legislation. By way of comparison, many traffic citations are successfully overturned by showing that the arresting officer failed to meet "some requirement" of the citation process. Yet, it has not been suggested that such failure should entitle the accused offender to reimbursement of defense costs.

It must be remembered that the reason for the weight restrictions and bonding requirements is to protect the citizens of the commonwealth or the specific municipality that enacts the regulations and ordinances. Maybe the solution isn't to penalize the taxpayers of the municipality for protecting their investment, but rather to address the issue of whether the present law and regulations need to be updated to entice better compliance. It has been years since the department has set the figures at what level a road may be bonded this may be a better approach than the draft before us.

We hope this better answers your concerns of the Association's position in this matter. If you would like to discuss it further, please contact us.

Again thank you for your time and understanding.

Sincerely,

Elam M, Herr

Director of Legislation

EMH:ls

FORESTRY TASK FORCE MEMBERS

RE: Task Force - Joint Legislative Air & Water Pollution Control & Conservation Committee

Dear Forestry Task Force Member:

During the past few months, professional foresters across the state have been meeting with other foresters, and with representatives of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative of PA. (SFI). The main objective of these meetings has been to gain a better understanding of the SFI program, and try to determine what role the SFI and the Hardwood Lumber Manufacturers Association (HLMA) have for professional foresters in sustaining the health of our forests in the future.

The SFI has been very insistent that professional foresters “participate” in the SFI Program, and indeed foresters have been conducting basic training courses for loggers in many aspects of timber harvesting, identification of environmentally sensitive sites, etc. However, the program literature avoids suggesting that landowners seek the skills and services of a forester, and intentionally fails to define a “forester” even though any industry claims of leadership in forest management have to be credited to the professionally trained foresters that work for the larger lumber and paper companies across the US.

Research has shown that in Pennsylvania, less than 20% of landowners harvesting timber utilize the services of a forester. Less than 5% involve the services of a consulting forester (an independent third party working for the landowner). The rest of the landowners (95%) sell direct to the industry! Accordingly, research has also shown that an alarmingly large portion of the forests are not being managed or harvested in a sustainable manner. (Penn State 1997 Harvesting Study). Because of this fact, and after careful review of the SFI program, professional foresters in Pennsylvania and across the country are concerned about the industry sponsored SFI program. On behalf of the membership of the Pennsylvania Council of Professional Foresters (PCPF) , I would like to take a few minutes of your time to set forth 1) How the Pennsylvania Council of Professional Foresters (PCPF) views the SFI Program . and 2) What we believe is required to sustain our forests.

Since the implementation of the Pennsylvania SFI Program through HLMA, representatives of SFI have looked to foresters throughout Pennsylvania for “support”. However, while many forester organizations endorsed the concept of SFI prior to implementation, many now have serious questions about “ how” or “if “ they should participate in the program based on the above-mentioned lack of SFI’s recognition of the value of trained, experienced, and scientifically current professionals in the management of NIPF ownership’s. The result of this perceived lack of support of SFI by professional foresters has provoked some confrontational dialog with SFI, and we feel the need to directly address the Task Force with our position.

Initially its important to understand that the Pennsylvania Council of Professional Foresters is an organization whose members can be generally placed into one of four groups based on their employers. Our members are : 1) industry foresters who are employed by the sawmills, pulp and paper mills, and logging contractors, 2) governmental foresters who are employed by state and federal agencies to manage public lands, 3) consulting foresters , private business owners who are hired by private landowners to manage their lands and represent their best interests. 4) research and teaching professionals in academia and elsewhere. Specifically, with respect to SFI we would like to address the following questions.

Will PCPF members participate in SFI?

The answer is yes! Members who are industry foresters, if their employers are members of SFI, will participate in the program. Members who are governmental foresters will participate as directed by their supervisors. Currently public foresters as well as private consultants, research specialists and university professors are assisting in training seminars for loggers, and other SFI support functions. It is important to note that the PCPF sees the SFI Program as an industry marketing and promotion program. As such, we feel that “sponsorship” of such a program should NOT be supported with public funds unless the activities support all private enterprises competing for and serving the same resources.

Members who are consulting foresters are employed by landowners to represent them in conducting forestry operations. In as much as landowners are not part of the forest “industry”, neither are consultants. It is in the best interest of landowners that the forest consultants they hire to manage their lands not be affiliated or tied in any way to the sawmills who purchase timber from them.

Will PCPF as a professional organization endorse or recommend SFI for marketing purposes, as the answer to sustaining our forests? Unfortunately the answer has to be “NO”. We applaud the educational and promotional efforts of SFI. We feel the program is a good “first step” in the right direction. But we know, and they know, that much more is needed from the industry to ensure forest sustainability. SFI as it currently stands will not have any significant impact on the practice of forestry by private landowners who own 75% of our forests. Why? Because it fails to address two issues that are critical to the effectiveness of the program, and hence the future sustainability of our forests.

First, SFI is a marketing program whose main elements include promoting good forestry and certainly to no small degree, promoting the industry as good forest managers. Many publications of the industry state that “SFI establishes industry as the leader in progressive forest management“. Foresters, and the role they play, has been intentionally left out or minimized. True. Industry has been a leader in forest management! Industry foresters have been practicing sustainable forestry for decades. But it has been foresters in the large lumber and paper operations who have amassed an impressive record in productivity and regeneration. Unfortunately most sawmills in Pennsylvania do not have foresters, and most of those that do are limited to procuring timber on private lands for the benefit of their mill employers, not company owned lands. SFI needs to clearly identify and recommend third party foresters, or other forester accountable to a code of ethics, to landowners before they harvest timber. To say to landowners that selling timber to sawmills and loggers, without professional forestry assistance , will sustain their forests is to ignore the accomplishments of generations of dedicated foresters who have made our forests healthy and productive.

Does the PCPF mean that the assistance of a “FORESTER” will guarantee a sustainable forest?

The answer can -and should be “Yes”. But they way the market functions today - the answer is no. Why? Because anyone can advertise and represent themselves as a forester in Pennsylvania! To recommend the use of a forester is meaningless unless the term “forester” and the “practice of forestry” is legally defined. The high value of timber has spawned the growth of many unqualified or unscrupulous practitioners calling themselves; timber brokers, foresters, resource managers, and many other “professional titles” simply to make the landowner think they are “doing the right thing for the forest”. In a scenario that happens many times each day, a qualified forester may recommend a sustainable cut to a landowner only to have a “timber buyer” recommend a cut that yields more dollars immediately but is detrimental to the forest. Who does the landowner believe? Both are able to call themselves “foresters”. Of course most landowners will opt for more money - and the forest resource values are compromised.

What’s the answer to the problem?.

Experience has shown that that educating landowners is very difficult and never ending job. According to the USDA Forest Service, 55% of our private timberlands will change hands in the next 20 to 30 years. How can we insure the education of such an ever-changing ownership? Many years of educational programs have had only a marginal impact on forest management in the state, including the latest forest stewardship program that has only affected less than 1% of the landowners after 5 years of promotion and a budget in the millions of dollars! Clearly education, by itself, is not the definitive answer we all seek.

The PCPF was created by foresters to help the public and legislative bodies better understand the best science-based alternatives to today’s complex forest problems. Pennsylvania foresters want to be made accountable for managing our forests in a sustainable manner. Industry needs to be held accountable for the implementation of SFI principles on all private lands. Not just their own company owned lands as the program is now set up. SFI progress needs to be monitored by professional foresters independent of industry control. The PCPF is ready to introduce a bill to both houses in Harrisburg to do just that. Its called the Forester Accountability Act (FAA).

The Forester Accountability Act will:

· Add foresters to the Professional Board of Surveyors, Geologists and Engineers

· Define “forester” and the “practice of forestry” in the state and set minimum standards through education, experience and testing.

· Provide for continuing education requirements so that practicing foresters stay scientifically current.

· Establish a code of professional ethics and provide a review board with authority to enforce the code through licensing.

The Forester Accountability Act does NOT require landowners to use a forester. However, if a landowner chooses a forester - they should be assured that they will receive the best scientific advice and services based on the potential of the forest and the objectives of the owner. The act will do just that by establishing professional ethics and a panel of professional peers to weed out the unscrupulous timber “sharks” who prey on landowners abusing the profession and meaning of the word “forestry.”

In summary, the professional foresters of this state want you to know that SFI’s failure to recognize and promote the role of “scientific forestry” and “professional foresters” in sustaining our forest resources MUST NOT be supported by the Forestry Task Force without licensing professional foresters to protect landowners and encourage the practice of scientific sustainable forestry. It would be irresponsible to the half million forest landowners, and the public at large, in this state, to pretend that sustainable forestry does not require the application of scientific forest management principles by trained professionals. And it would be just as devastating to professional foresters, who have spent countless hours fighting the efforts of “anti-timber harvesting groups“, if they learned that the SFI was held out to the public as the standard in forest management in Pennsylvania. If forestry is to have real meaning to forest landowners, the General Assembly and the Administration must fully recognize the role of foresters, and the practice of forestry, in sustaining Pennsylvania’s forests through professional licensing.

The General Assembly must recognize the valid need to license professional foresters and act decisively by enacting the Forester Accountability Act which the PCPF has prepared for introduction. Lets not play games with our most precious resources by not recognizing the role of scientific forestry in sustaining our forests! To make an impact in the health and productivity of our forests we , the professional foresters who are trained to manage the most complex resources of this state, need the Forester Accountability Act! We need to:

· define forestry;

· define who a forester is;

· make foresters accountable to the landowners they pledge to serve;

· require continuing education to insure forester competency.

We urge the bipartisan introduction of the Forester Accountability Act by the membership of the Joint legislative Air and Water Pollution Control and Conservation Committee, at the recommendation of Forestry Task Force members. This Act will be recognized by landowners and citizens as the prudent and wise course of action to sustain Pennsylvania Forests and protect the consumer interests of Pennsylvania landowners, all of which is in the public interest.

Our sincerest thanks for your time . We look forward to meeting with you and the Forestry Task Force in the near future to further discuss these important issues. If we can be of any help in the interim please don’t hesitate to contact us at the address below.

Sincerely yours,

Kenneth L. Balliet

Paul A. Johnston

Co-Chairmen, Governmental Affairs Committee

Kenneth L. Balliet, President Paul A. Johnston, Marketing Specialist

Susquehanna Forest Services, Inc., Timberland Enterprises, Inc.

RR #2 Box 114 1055 Doylestown Pike

Turbotville, PA 17772 Quakertown, PA 18951

Phone: (717) 649-6164 Phone: (215)538 - 0637

Fax: (717) 649-6372