REPORT OF THEFORESTRY TASK FORCE

PURSUANT TOSENATE RESOLUTION 55 of 2015

February 2017

2

OFFICE: ROOM 408FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PA 717-787-7570

REPLY TO:HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PO BOX 202254HARRISBURG, PA 17120-2254

SENATOR SCOTT E. HUTCHINSON CHAIRMAN

TONY M. GUERRIERI EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

TO: Members of the General Assembly

FROM: Senator Scott E. Hutchinson, Chairman

SUBJECT: Forestry Task Force Report

DATE: February 23, 2017

Pursuant to Senate Resolution 55 of 2015, the Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution Control and Conservation Committee submits the report of the Forestry Task Force. The recommendations adopted and presented in this report are the culmination of efforts on the part of the Forestry Task Force and its Advisory Committee. I served as chairman of the Forestry Task Force during the 2015-2016 Legislative Session.

3

MeMbers of the forestry task force

Senator Scott Hutchinson, ChairmanSenator Sean Wiley

Representative Kathy RappRepresentative Jaret Gibbons

MeMbers of the forestry task force advisory coMMittee

Mr. Rick AllanGovernment RelationsDomtar Paper Company

Mr. Wayne BenderExecutive DirectorPA Hardwoods Develop-ment Council

Dr. Dennis CalvinDirector of Cooperative ExtensionPenn State University

Mr. Dan DevlinState ForesterDept. of Conservation and Natural Resources - Bureau of Forestry

Ms. Ellen FerrettiFormer Secretary of Conservation and Natural Resources

Mr. Dave GustafsonChief ForesterPA Game Commission

Mr. Ken KaneGenerations Forestry Inc.

Mr. Bob KeatonGovernment RelationsAmerican Forest and Paper Assoc.

Mr. Marc LewisVice PresidentDwight Lewis Lumber Co.

Mr. Paul LyskavaExecutive DirectorPA Forest Products Association

Dr. Michael MessinaDirectorSchool of Forest ResourcesPenn State University

Mr. Dave MillerAllegheny Forestry, Inc.

Mr. Gene OdatoDistrict ForesterDept. of Conservation and Natural Resources - Bureau of Forestry

Ms. Janet SredyBeckets Run Woodlands

Mr. Keven StoutArea Procurement ManagerAllegheny Wood Products, Inc.

Ms. Sherry TuneSupervisorAllegheny National Forest

Mr. Peter YaffeGovernment RelationsGlatfelter Paper Company

4

forestry in Pennsylvania

All 67 counties in Pennsylvania host the forest products industry in some capacity. From logging operations to sawmills, furniture factories and small artisan shops, Pennsylvania’s economy is deeply intertwined with those industries that harvest or utilize forest products. According to recent estimates, the industry generates $5.5 billion in revenue each year, and employs over 90,000 Pennsylvanians. Many families and communities across the Commonwealth count on the continued productivity of this important industry.

The Commonwealth is also dependent on the iconic forests and ecosystems that support these operations. Aside from providing the raw lumber used for commercial products, forests contribute invaluable environmental benefits to Pennsylvania and it’s citizens. Among these benefits are wildlife habitats, clean air and water, flood protection and carbon sequestration. Pennsylvania is also famous for its outdoor recreation opportunities such as hunting, birdwatching and hiking, all of which rely on healthy and sustainable forests.

To balance the needs of the industry and overall forest health, the Legislative Forestry Task Force was first created by House Resolution 263 in 1994. The resolution was a byproduct of three statewide public hearings on forest management held by the Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution Control and Conservation Committee (Committee), which has been charged with administering the Task Force since its inception.

The Task Force is composed of four members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly: two Members of the Senate and two Members of the House of Representatives, representing both parties. It aims to ensure a bipartisan and collaborative approach to forest management in Pennsylvania, with common sense solutions aimed at improving forest health and productivity.

In pursuit of this goal, the Task Force convened a diverse group of stakeholders, reflective of the multiple forest interests across the state. Members of the Advisory Committee represent varying perspectives, bringing unique and important voices to the challenges of state forest management. Members come from a range of backgrounds, including academia, the forest products industry and government, yet they all share a common interest in forest stewardship.

The Task Force’s mission is to provide policy recommendations to the Pennsylvania General Assembly on the management of the Commonwealth’s forests at the conclusion of the Legislative Session. These recommendations are non-binding, but seek to generate a serious discussion among policymakers on how best to protect our forests and their associated industries.

Since its inception, the Task Force has continued its work through a series of resolutions enacted in succeeding legislative sessions. Each resolution presents an agenda of topics for the Task Force, based upon the most pressing concerns facing our forestlands at that time.

The most recent enabling resolution was introduced by the Committee’s chairman, Senator Scott Hutchinson. Senate Resolution 55 reestablished the Legislative Forestry Task Force and Advisory

Committee for the 2015-2016 Legislative Session, and set forth the issues that the Task Force examined during the course of their meetings.

5

The issues examined this session were as follows:• The implications of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources’

revised State Forest Resource Management Plan;• The impact of pests and invasive species on Pennsylvania’s forestry industry, as

well as the impact to overall forest health;• The regulatory relationship between the State’s forestry industry, local

governments and county conservation districts; and• The decline in qualified timber harvesters and other related occupations.

The Task Force conducted three meetings between June 2015 and October 2016, featuring a panel of experts for each topic. The meetings allow presenters to express their viewpoints, offer recommendations and receive feedback from the Task Force members.

The following organizations presented information to the Forestry Task Force during the 2015-2016 Legislative Session:

• Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR)• Department of Agriculture’s Entomology Program• The Nature Conservancy• DCNR’s Bureau of Forestry• Pennsylvania Association of Conservation Districts• Office of the Attorney General• Pennsylvania Sustainable Forestry Initiative

These organizations provided the Task Force with a wealth of expertise and perspectives. Their input was invaluable in creating and refining the final recommendations contained in this report. The Task Force meetings were characterized by engaged discussion and cooperation. Based on these discussions, a set of specific recommendations was developed for each of the topics examined this session.

Copies of the presentations, as well as minutes from the meetings, are available by contacting the Committee office.

dcnr’s state forest resource ManageMent Plan

The Department of Conservation and Natural Resources manages Pennsylvania’s state forests, which comprise 13 percent of state’s total forested land. The stewardship of these lands is vital, as they provide resources such as lumber and minerals, as well as less tangible benefits like natural beauty and wild character. Recreational activities such as hunting, fishing and hiking draw people from across the country and bolster local economies.

On June 11, 2015, the Task Force met to discuss the Department’s revised State Forest Resource Management Plan (SFRMP). Mr. Ryan Szuch, forest planner for the Department, introduced the document. The SFRMP not only guides the Department in its goals and activities, but signals its priorities and strategies to the public and industry stakeholders. The first draft of the document

6

was completed in 1955 and has been periodically revised to reflect ongoing scientific advances, emerging challenges and new best practices for forest management.

The 2016 version is the first major rewrite since 2003, incorporating new elements such as chapters on wild land fire and cultural and historic resources. Much of the history and inventories that existed in older versions of the plan were removed to make the document more accessible to the public.

Mr. Szuch referenced a public opinion survey conducted, which showed a positive view of state forest management and a high regard for conservation. Alongside the 3,200 survey respondents, the plan was subject to extensive public meetings and comment periods before release. Task Force members suggested that similar research be conducted in subsequent years so the Department could look at longitudinal changes in public opinion.

The document is divided into 12 resource chapters; Communications, Timber and Forest Products, Wildlife, Water Resources, Soils, Geologic Resources, Wildland Fire, Forest Health, Recreation, Infrastructure and Cultural and Historic Resources. Each chapter features a management principle which provides an overarching philosophical context for the section. More specific, objective-based goals are also laid out in the plan. For example, the Wildlife section of the plan directs readers to their Deer Management Assistance Program for coping with white-tailed deer and their impacts on the forest ecosystem.

Alongside these immediate and ongoing management strategies, the plan also details long term objectives to sustain Pennsylvania’s natural resources for future generations. Within the chapter on Native Wild Plants, for example, the Department makes a commitment to sustaining and increasing old growth stands by implementing limited resource management zones, buffers and other best management practices.

The resource chapters are followed by a collection of relevant resources and tools for accomplishing the plan’s goals. Websites, reports, statutes and research on the chapter’s topic are all listed. Each chapter closes by noting ongoing monitoring and research opportunities, such as the impacts of deer density on tree regeneration.

Mr. Szuch went into detail about each resource section and how it was developed for this rewrite. The Department was mindful about potential conflicts from competing uses. For example, one stretch of forest may have value for subsurface resources, but also for recreation. Finding a balance between these interests, while also considering that maintaining undeveloped stands and old-growth trees is of value, was visited repeatedly in the presentation. Mr. Szuch emphasized that the Department once thought of state forests as a reserve for hard resources, but the vision of the Department has changed. Conservation, biodiversity and the ecological benefit of forests are now key considerations.

recoMMendations

• Require the inclusion of a fiscal note to accompany SFRMP programs to provide increased transparency of program costs.

• Require routine monitoring and evaluation to gauge the effectiveness of the programs outlined in the SFRMP.

7

• Support the continued use of the PA Game Commission’s Deer Management Assistance Program on DCNR forestland to help meet land use goals.

• Create incentives for resource developers to participate in voluntary invasive species early detection surveys.

the iMPacts of invasive sPecies

The world’s economy is becoming more interconnected each day. Pennsylvania exports many of its products to markets all over the world. Likewise, Pennsylvania imports many products from foreign countries. From cars to produce in super markets, goods can travel thousands of miles in the modern world before ending up in Pennsylvania. While this system provides economic growth, there are drawbacks. One risk that is often overlooked is the potential to accidentally import an invasive species of animal, insect, plant or pathogen.

While some invasive species may cause very little disruption to their new environment, others can change the landscape dramatically, pushing out native species and even causing extinctions. Plants, animals and insects from foreign ecosystems are kept in check by their native predators, which are not present when they travel abroad. Without this natural competition, species such as the emerald ash borer can destroy millions of ash trees in America and Europe while causing no harm in their native Asian environment.

Government involvement with invasive insects began in the early-1900s after the introduction of the gypsy moth. The gypsy moth defoliates and can ultimately lead to mortality of infested trees. In the early days, pesticides, biological controls and manual methods such as egg-mass scraping and burning were used. These techniques continued to be developed and many are still used today in our fight with invasive pests. Unfortunately, the main lesson learned by both state and federal government is how difficult and expensive eradication programs can be.

The Task Force met for its second meeting on April 14, 2016, to discuss how Pennsylvania’s forestlands are affected by invasive species and what can be done to mitigate their impacts. Sven Spichiger, entomology program manager for the Department of Agriculture, explained the steep cost of allowing invasive pests to become established in Pennsylvania’s ecosystem. The Department of Agriculture is often on the front line of defense against invasive insects, but Mr. Spichiger argued that the lack of flexibility, funding and manpower makes their role difficult.

He provided examples of pest introductions, many through industries that members of the Task Force did not expect. Gravel and live plant trades have a reputation for importing pests, but many would not think to check the chassis of a used car for insect colonies or eggs. Due to this misconception, he advocated for biosecurity training for importers. He noted how early detection and rapid response, which are the most cost-effective methods for combating invasive pests, work best with cross-departmental cooperation and training. He asserted that a small investment in early detection can prevent costly “slow-the-spread” programs, which can cost millions of dollars per year.

Dr. Sarah Johnson of The Nature Conservancy presented on the state of the hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA) in Pennsylvania and the partnership between the U.S. Forest Service and the

8

Conservancy to fight the infamous pest. The HWA has been steadily moving west, impacting the eastern hemlock, Pennsylvania’s state tree and an integral part of many forest ecosystems. Healthy hemlock stands can live for over 800 years and promote biodiversity, regulate water cycling and suppress invasive weeds. However, when infested by HWA, these trees can die within 5 to 20 years.

The Conservancy and USFS’s program first established partnerships across the area of northern Pennsylvania and New York, known as the High Allegheny Plateau. With cooperation established between landowners, pest management techniques can be implemented, including chemical and biological controls for HWA. Dr. Johnson emphasized the importance of cooperation between the landowners and the program partners to ensure continued success.

Finally, Don Eggen of DCNR’s Bureau of Forestry addressed his department’s statewide efforts to eradicate forest pests. Predicting funding and dealing with a yearly budget process for a fluctuating, long term problem was a central theme to his presentation. In other words, environmental factors may suppress a particular insect’s activity for one year, reducing the amount that the legislature budgets for the program the following year. However, the population may rebound the following year, causing a significant funding shortage for detection and eradication efforts.

The Department is currently combating the spread of the emerald ash borer (EAB), which has become infamous in recent years for threatening the very existence of ash trees here in America and in Europe. Almost 100 percent of perfectly healthy ash trees will die within 5 years of being infested by the insect . Pennsylvania is home to over 300 million ash trees, which support several businesses, such as baseball bat manufacturing.

The loss of a single species of tree has a devastating ripple effect on biodiversity, overall forest health and on the human lifestyle. While the EAB is the most high-profile case currently, the Department is responsible for combating many other threatening invasive species.

recoMMendations

• Support legislation similar to the Controlled Plant and Noxious Weed Act, introduced by Senator David Argall in the previous session. This Act updates the current list of noxious weeds and forms the Controlled Plant and Noxious Weed Committee, which will be able to add and delete plants from the list following risk assessments and studies.

• Consider adding a tier of invasive plants that require labeling prior to commercial sale.

• Establish biosecurity training for commercial importers including invasive species risk education and reporting procedures.

• Create an emergency response fund which would allow for a flexible reaction to immediate threats posed by invasive species. Early response prevents costly eradication or “slow the spread” programs in the future.

9

the regulatory relationshiP between the state’s forestry industry, local governMents and country conservation districts

Conservation districts were created by Act 217 of 1945 and have continued to work with local governments, landowners and industries towards the goal of safeguarding natural resources of the 66 communities in which they operate. Conservation districts are local units of government established by state law and enacted by county governments to protect water and soil resources.

In the counties where they operate, the conservation districts form a board of directors, comprised of a member from the county government, at least two representatives from the farming community and at least two non-farmers. The State Conservation Commission, which is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, approves the board once they have been appointed.

The purpose of the districts is to conserve a county’s natural resources, to control soil erosion, floods and storm water, to prevent dam, waterway and reservoir impairment and to protect air quality and wildlife. All of this is conducted within the context of the public interest, health and safety. The district’s directors have the power to conduct investigations into soil and water issues, to carry out preventative or remedial projects and many other autonomous actions to pursue their natural resource management programs.

With the county conservation district’s assistance, local governments and the regulated community can make productive, mutually-beneficial decisions about the use of local resources. Often regulators and industry are seen as adversarial, but this relationship ideally works to strike a balance between the natural resources local governments are tasked with protecting and the vibrant and productive industries that keep Pennsylvania’s economy strong.

To investigate the state of this relationship, the Task Force met for a final meeting on September 29, 2016. The first topic, concerning these regulatory relationships, was introduced by Brenda Shambaugh and Ronald Rohall of the Pennsylvania Association of Conservation Districts, a nonprofit organization that supports local conservation districts. They began by asserting that the relationship between these districts, local governments and the regulated community is generally strong and collaborative in nature.

To illustrate, Mr. Rohall asserted that the former state Department of Environmental Resources was mainly focused on enforcement of regulation rather than voluntary compliance, causing tension between government and industry. In this context, some of the county conservation districts teamed up with local businesses to create a Clean Water Act compliance educational campaign for logging crews. Mr. Rohall described this as a profound culture shift that carried over into the modern day state Department of Environmental Protection.

Mr. Rohall praised the high level of compliance that the conservation districts and industries have achieved for the Clean Streams Law, the Dam Safety and Encroachments Act and the Fish and Boat Code (Title 30).

10

In order to continue this tradition of communication, education and voluntary compliance, Mr. Rohall strongly encouraged state agencies such as DEP to keep reference and educational materials for industries up-to-date. He noted that while relationships between county conservation districts, local governments and industry are typically strong, there are some exceptions. These exceptions, he stated, can occur due to misunderstanding. For example, when a member of the logging community is unfamiliar with environmental requirements, or when a local government official is unclear of their authority to regulate these businesses. Mr. Rohall again reiterated that education, training and outreach can solve many of these conflicts.

With respect to future challenges, Mr. Rohall cited the ongoing need for Erosion and Sedimentation technician education and training. In 2015, DEP and the PA Sustainable Forestry Initiative’s Implementation Committee hosted a session dedicated to such training and it was generally well received. Mr. Rohall expressed his belief that annual outreach would be beneficial. Finally, he noted the importance of stabilizing logging roads to reduce runoff and soil erosion.

Susan Bucknum followed the Association of Conservation Districts with a presentation on the role of the Office of the Attorney General in forestry regulatory relationships. Under Act 38 of 2005, commonly known as the ACRE law, the Office of the Attorney General is given the authority to review local ordinances as they relate to agricultural operations. While often overlooked as an agricultural industry, forestry does fall into this category of business operations.

Forestry operates “as of right,” which means that townships may only require a permit from operators. So if an operator feels that the local government has overstepped its regulatory capacity, they may file a challenge to the ordinance with the Attorney General. Both Ms. Bucknum and the Task Force brought up concerns about the time it takes to process such requests. Business owners and employers lose revenue while they wait on unlawful ordinances to be replaced or overturned. However, investigating individual ordinances and affording each case proper scrutiny can be time consuming, especially when there is only one attorney responsible for all of the cases filed under the ACRE law.

Aside from assigning more resources to the cases, Ms. Bucknum advocated for outreach and education to local governments. Materials have been devised by Penn State University’s Cooperative Extension explaining the township’s role in regulating agricultural operations, including forestry. Model ordinances are also available through the Cooperative Extension.

Both Ms. Bucknum and many members of the Task Force agreed that many townships as well as the PA Association of Township Supervisors were proactive and cooperative, with many conflicts arising from a lack of education and outreach.

recoMMendations

• Guidance materials developed by DEP, Penn State University and other partners are critical for the forest products industry to remain in compliance. The materials listed below should be updated without delay:

• Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for a Timber Harvesting Operation• Timber Harvest Operations Field Guide for Waterways, Wetlands and Erosion Control• Professional Timber Harvesters Action Packet

11

• Amend the ACRE law to shorten the time frame in which the Office of the Attorney General will respond to requests for legal review. Consider the need for additional resources to deal with an expedited case load within the Office of the Attorney General.

• Promote the historical Local Conservation District operating model of educating the public and industry, providing technical assistance for environmental law compliance and solving problems.

• Encourage conservation districts and local governments to review Penn State University’s model ordinance to prevent unlawful restrictions on forestry operations.

• Encourage ongoing forest product industry involvement with Conservation Districts.

the decline in Qualified tiMber harvesters and related forestry occuPations

Timber harvesters are the lifeblood of the forestry industry, supplying businesses all over the country with Pennsylvania hardwood. Aside from safely operating equipment and felling trees, these professionals are also stewards of the forests their livelihoods depend on. Sustainable harvests ensure that the forestry industry can continue for generations to come and provide stable employment for Pennsylvania’s workforce.

The Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) is a nonprofit organization based in Washington D.C., that organizes the training and certification of loggers throughout the nation. Since the early 1990s, they have focused primarily on safety and harvesting techniques, ensuring the health and productivity of forestlands. Additionally, they administer a certification program to assure consumers that the wood products they buy are properly sourced and harvested in a sustainable manner. This includes tracking the amount of recycled post-consumer fiber contained in a product.

Recently, several factors have led to a steep decline in the number of certified loggers in the Commonwealth. However, the need for their expertise is as strong as ever. Investigating possible barriers into the field, the Task Force listened to a presentation by Chuck Coup of PA SFI Implementation Committee (PA SIC) at the September 29, 2016, meeting.

Mr. Coup began by emphasizing that logging is a skilled profession which requires in-depth, trade-specific knowledge. Without this knowledge, the most basic logging operations become extremely dangerous. His role as program manager is largely focused on helping loggers learn best practices and conservation, while earning a marketable, industry-recognized certification.

To illustrate the various causes of the decline in qualified timber harvesters, Mr. Coup referenced surveys that questioned loggers about barriers and challenges that they face. Financial barriers such as equipment costs and insurance premiums appeared to be the primary concern cited. Despite the preliminary nature of these surveys, Mr. Coup and the Task Force agreed that they illustrated a need for further research and attention.

Mr. Coup also addressed the lack of exposure of young people to timber harvesting professions. This effect is already felt within the industry as the average age of loggers continues to rise. High

12

schools, vocational schools and universities are lacking programs that demonstrate the skills and benefits associated with the timber harvesting industry.

Another detriment to the industry is the current public perception of logging. This view tends to be negative due to the dangerous nature of the profession, with the U.S. Department of Labor frequently citing it as one of the most dangerous occupations in the nation. Loggers are also exposed to the elements and experience the isolation that accompanies working in forests.

Traditionally, logging has recruited younger workers through family ties. However, child labor regulations from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) prevent early exposure and subsequent interest in the profession. While the Task Force recognizes the wisdom in keeping minors away from dangerous machinery, there are other roles within timber harvesting operations that can be safely performed by young adults. This introduces them to the family business and a potential career.

One of the most significant difficulties cited by the logging community is workers compensation and insurance premiums. Due to Pennsylvania’s exceptionally high rates, many timber harvesting business owners are not able or are unwilling to hire employees, preferring instead to work with independent contractors. This is not ideal for the owner nor the people working under them.

The Task Force agreed that the high cost of workers compensation and insurance needs to be addressed to prevent further industry decline. To better understand the current rate structures and the reasoning behind them, many of the Advisory Board members advocated for a meeting with an insurance representative in the coming legislative session.

recoMMendations

• Meeting with representatives from the insurance industry as well as the Insurance Department in future task force meetings to understand worker’s compensation structures and other issues facing employers, employees and independent contractors.

• Develop forestry programs and curricula for high schools and vocational technical schools to foster youth interest in forestry occupations.

• Introduce a resolution urging Congress to reexamine OSHA regulations as they relate to logging, recognizing the roles that minors could safely fill while introducing them to career opportunities in the timber harvesting industry.

PRINTER'S NO. 653

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA

SENATE RESOLUTION

No. 55 Session of

2015

INTRODUCED BY HUTCHINSON, SCARNATI, ARGALL, ALLOWAY, GREENLEAF, MENSCH, RAFFERTY, STEFANO, VULAKOVICH, WARD, WHITE AND WILEY, MARCH 31, 2015

REFERRED TO ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY, MARCH 31, 2015

A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Establishing a forestry task force to study issues concerning the renewal and management of this Commonwealth's forests; providing for an advisory committee; and directing the Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution Control and Conservation Committee to provide administrative support to the task force.

WHEREAS, Seventeen million acres in Pennsylvania are forest

land; and

WHEREAS, Forests provide numerous economic, recreational and

environmental resources; and

WHEREAS, Sustainable forestry provides new management

strategies for our forest resources and improves the health,

quality and diversity of Pennsylvania's forests; and

WHEREAS, The new strategies will determine the future of

forests in this Commonwealth; and

WHEREAS, The forestry task force previously established by

House Resolution No. 263, Printer's No. 4110 (1994), Senate

Resolution No. 29, Printer's No. 720 (1997), House Resolution

No. 13, Printer's No. 2113 (1999), Senate Resolution No. 81,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Printer's No. 1077 (2001) and House Resolution No. 256,

Printer's No. 1510 (2003) has been helpful to the General

Assembly and instrumental in addressing issues facing the

forestry community; therefore be it

RESOLVED, (the House of Representatives concurring), That the

General Assembly establish a forestry task force to be comprised

of two members of the Senate, one appointed by the President pro

tempore of the Senate and one appointed by the Minority Leader

of the Senate, two members of the House of Representatives, one

appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and one

appointed by the Minority Leader of the House of

Representatives, and the members of the forestry task force

shall choose a chairman from their number; and be it further

RESOLVED, That the forestry task force conduct a

comprehensive study of and investigate the following:

(1) the implications of the Department of Conservation

and Natural Resources' revised State Forest Resource

Management Plan;

(2) the impact of pests and invasive species on

Pennsylvania's forestry industry as well as the impact to

overall forest health;

(3) the regulatory relationship between the State's

forestry industry, local governments and county conservation

districts; and

(4) the decline in qualified timber harvesters and other

related occupations;

and be it further

RESOLVED, That the forestry task force hold hearings, take

testimony and make its investigations at such places within this

Commonwealth as it deems necessary; and be it further

20150SR0055PN0653 - 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

RESOLVED, That an advisory committee be created by the

forestry task force to assist in developing facts and

recommendations concerning the renewal and management of forests

in this Commonwealth and that the advisory committee be composed

of representatives of the following entities:

(1) Department of Conservation and Natural Resources,

Bureau of Forestry;

(2) Department of Agriculture, Hardwoods Development

Council;

(3) Pennsylvania Game Commission;

(4) The Pennsylvania State University, School of Forest

Resources and Cooperative Extension Service; and

(5) United States Forest Service;

and be it further

RESOLVED, That the advisory committee have one representative

from each of five business organizations representing the forest

products industry and one representative from up to three other

organizations that the forestry task force deems appropriate to

be represented; and be it further

RESOLVED, That the General Assembly direct the Joint

Legislative Air and Water Pollution Control and Conservation

Committee to provide sufficient staff and other administrative

support to the forestry task force; and be it further

RESOLVED, That the forestry task force prepare a report

containing its findings and recommendations, together with any

necessary legislation, and deliver it to the General Assembly as

soon as possible.

20150SR0055PN0653 - 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27