You asked about proposed forestry regulations and specifically about a proposal that would require certified foresters to supervise cutting of as few as 25 cords of wood on land of only a few acres.

SUMMARY

According to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) the only change to forestry regulations it is actively considering concerns the conduct of forest practitioners engaged in forest practices (commercial activities). We have attached a copy of that proposal. DEP held a hearing on it in June 2002, and expects to issue a hearing report shortly.

The department held a hearing in 1999 on other proposed changes to the Forest Practices Act (CGS § 23-65f et seq. ), but plans to revise those proposals before pursuing them further.

DEP has not considered requiring certified foresters to supervise cutting on land as small as a few acres and of as few as 25 cords. Such a change could not be effected through regulation but only through a change in the law. Currently, only commercial foresters need certification. The harvesting they supervise involves a minimum of 50 cords (or 150 tons or 25,000 board feet) of wood harvested from a tract of forest land in a 12-month period. We are not aware of any recent effort to modify the law.

PROPOSED CHANGES IN CONDUCT OF FOREST PRACTITIONERS REGULATIONS

2002 Proposal

DEP held a hearing in June 2002 on proposed Conn. Agencies Reg. § 23-65j-1. Among other things, the proposal would require each certified forest practitioner to disclose in writing to each client and prospective client:

1. the nature of the services he may provide and all direct and indirect costs the client would incur,

2. the nature of any financial interest or business association the practitioner or his employer has that may influence the practitioner's judgment in connection with the performances of his professional services, and

3. the existence and nature of any exclusive contracts or obligations to sell forest products to certain individuals or firms.

It also would bar a practitioner from:

1. making false statements or providing false information;

2. disclosing information about his employer or client without their express written permission (except as required by law);

3. accepting compensation from more than one party for services on the same project, unless he discloses this in writing to each person from whom he receives compensation; and

4. engaging in fraudulent or dishonest business practices relating to any forest practice.

The practitioner also would have to notify his client or employer in writing if any actions the client or employer take or decisions they make violate the Forest Practices Act.

A hearing examiner's report on the June hearing is expected shortly. DEP will review the report before submitting any proposed regulatory changes to the attorney general and Regulation Review Committee.

May 1999 Hearing

DEP held a May 3, 1999 hearing to consider both the proposed changes in practitioners' conduct discussed above and other proposed changes to the act. Among other things, the agency proposed establishing various best management practices for forest harvesting and a registration process for the harvest of commercial forest products.

According to DEP hearing officer Brain J. Emerick, about 100 people attended the hearing. Of the 33 people who spoke, 29 spoke against the proposal and the remaining four supported the regulations in concept but opposed its specifics. No one spoke in favor of the proposal. Only one speaker addressed the conduct of forest practices proposal discussed above, and he supported it with minor changes.

In his February 3, 2000 hearing report, Emerick states that most of the individuals who opposed the Forest Practices regulations objected to "the principle of further regulating the harvesting of forest products. " Many of these, Emerick reported, said the forest practitioner certification process should be allowed to "mature" before the state enacted further changes. Others stated that the proposed regulations would be "an infringement upon personal property rights and contrary to the `agriculture as a right' policy defined by statutes. " Also, some people said the regulation would accelerate the conversion of forest land to other uses, contrary to the state's open space objectives.

The strong opposition apparently prompted the department to focus on the conduct regulations and reconsider the rest. In a May 4, 2001 letter, DEP commissioner Arthur Rocque told the Connecticut Farm Bureau Association the department intends to re-draft the forest practices regulations once the conduct regulations are in place. He said the re-drafted regulations would focus on notification of pending forest practices and establishment of a set of best management practice standards for practitioners.

PF: eh