State Forest Resource Management Plan

2001 — 2005

Phase II

PUBLIC INPUT COMMENTS REPORT

The current State Forest Resource Plan for the 2.1 million acres of state forest land is in the process of being updated. To ensure that the public's views and interests were addressed in the planning process, the bureau held a series of 27 public meetings across Pennsylvania in 1998. The input from these meetings and written correspondence was reviewed and considered during the development of the working draft State Forest Resource Management Plan 2001-2005 dated May 9, 2000.

This working draft plan contains the philosophies, policies, goals and objectives that the bureau proposes to use to guide the management of state forest land. It also includes indicators or measures as checks on accomplishments and includes research needs where it is felt that additional scientific knowledge is critical.

Following the development of the working draft State Forest Resource Management Plan, the bureau held a second series of public input meetings.

The meetings began on March 23, 2000, in Bedford and ended with the last meeting on June 29, 2000, in Philadelphia. There were 1,087 people in attendance and 4,662 comments and statements recorded. During this time, the plan was posted on the Internet for the public to view and a feedback form was provided. Copies of the draft were also available at bureau field offices and the central office for public review and comment. Internet comments and written correspondence was accepted for this draft through July 15, 2000. Approximately 200 individuals posted 503 comments on the Web site and 191 letters and other written correspondence were received that contained 1360 comments.

The purpose of this effort was to provide the public an interim opportunity to view the working draft and provide comment on the proposed vision and directions.

The comments and statements recorded at the meetings and through written correspondence were entered into a database.

Less than 10 percent of the comments received related directly to the plan. Written correspondence from individuals provided the highest percentage of plan related comments. It was obvious from the comments that these individuals took the time to read the plan. They provided the bureau with their interpretation of what is proposed and expressed their views, suggestions and recommendations. The comments on the draft were generally positive relating to the stated philosophies and direction outlined for state forest land.

This report is an overview of what the attendees' broad views, suggestions and recommendations are for state forest land. It is important to realize that each comment stands by itself and will be considered on an equal footing with all other comments. The comments were read and entered into the appropriate broad category(ies) established in the database. Each category was then further evaluated.

OVERVIEW
The response to the overall mission and goal of sustainability using an ecosystem management approach was positive. There was concern that the plan is somewhat ambitious which may put a strain on the bureau's technical, physical and fiscal resources. The bureau's decision to seek third party review under green certification got a favorable review. The lack of definition of terms was a concern.

Adjoining lands was an issue. It was felt that the bureau should consider adjacent landowners in its decision making process. It was also a concern that the adjacent lands strategy may cause problems with private property rights in the future. Adjacent landowners also had a concern relating to the intrusion of state forest users on to their property.

COMMUNICATIONS
It was felt that Information, education and enforcement through public contact and cooperative efforts with users and user groups is needed. Those who commented specifically about forest rangers want the bureau to hire more and they want them to be properly trained. For the most part, they want more enforcement of the rules and regulations, however they want the bureau to go about this business with a user-friendly attitude. They are looking for the bureau to show a greater presence through patrols and other methods to improve positive interaction with the users of state forest land. People want information and education on all bureau programs. Interpretive information of points of interest and technical aspects of the bureau's management is desired through all available media (e.g., signs, maps, brochures, Internet). Information and education in the form of programs, demonstration areas, signs and publications, including maps were very important. The "well managed" state forest was thought to be an asset that should be promoted to demonstrate best management practices for other landowners.

It was indicated in the comments that citizens have had positive experiences in their dealings with employees of the bureau and expressed gratitude for the public meetings as well as a need to continue public/user group meetings.

There was also a desire and willingness to volunteer for conservation and recreational projects, including trail maintenance and construction, monitoring, etc. It is felt that the bureau should develop work programs similar to the CCC, YCC and PCC. Others thought that we should use prison labor for clean-up and maintenance.

ECOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The degree of human impact that is tolerated by users is dependent on their individual interests. This was very obvious when assessing the comments. The input relating to off highway vehicle (OHV) use on state forest land was split. One view believes that OHVs are too intrusive and create severe impacts while the other view believes that these impacts can be managed. It was expressed that all recreation creates impacts on forest ecology that needs to be actively managed. Individuals who had comments relating to the extraction of products from the forest expressed similar concerns.

Comments were generally favorable relating to the working draft's direction on old growth, wild areas, natural areas, streamside and trail buffers and other reserves, including connectivity. The biggest concern was on definition, effects on other programs, level of protection and size.

It was suggested that the bureau be cognizant of fragmentation as a result of resource extraction and the development of facilities. It was recommended that the bureau actively manage to minimize fragmentation.

FOREST HEALTH COMPONENTS
Littering and dumping on state forest land was an issue. It was recommended that the bureau increase its education and enforcement efforts to reduce this problem. It was suggested that the bureau implement an "adopt a trail" program to encourage people to volunteer to help remediate the problem.

The effects on forest health from insects, disease and invasive species was also addressed. It was suggested that the bureau actively monitor their effects. There is also a desire that the bureau research and develop methods to control the hemlock wooly adelgid. It was recommended that the bureau be cautious when developing and maintaining trails and other infrastructure to minimize the introduction of invasive species. It was also felt that an effort should be made to educate the public on the effects of invasive species.

It was recommended that the bureau research and develop strategies on wildfire and prescribed burning to assess the benefits of fire on forest health.

The fragmentation of the forest by development, land use and resource extraction was also documented. Other concerns were related to effects of deer on forest regeneration and the use of pesticides for insect and managing competing vegetation. It was recommended that the bureau take an active role in monitoring air and water quality and remediate problems when they occur.

GEOLOGY - MINERALS
The feelings were mixed on the extraction of minerals from state forest land. It was generally suggested that the bureau monitor this activity closely to minimize environmental damage and actively take measures to enforce regulations and remediate environmental problems when they occur. There was concern about forest fragmentation as a result of gas roads, well sites and strip mining. It was suggested that the bureau pursue acquisition of mineral rights on all state forest land.

SOILS
It was recommended that the bureau take preventative measures to control erosion and sedimentation.

WATER
There were individuals that felt the bureau should actively monitor water quality and take preventative measures to protect water quality and aquatic ecosystems. They suggested that the bureau take a watershed approach on this issue. There was a feeling that streamside buffers and wetland protection are important to protecting water quality. When water quality is degraded the input indicates that people want the bureau to actively pursue remediation.

FLORA
Old growth and other age considerations relating to trees and other vegetation received favorable comments. The concerns on this issue were about definition, technical knowledge and management strategies for implementation.

Other suggestions involved the bureau's policy relating to native species. It was generally felt that the bureau should favor native species and protect species of concern when implementing and recommending management prescriptions. There was concern for the hemlock component of the forest due to hemlock wooly adelgid. There were also suggestions that the bureau be involved in developing oak regeneration guidelines and the effort to re-establish American chestnut.

FAUNA
Deer and their management were an important issue. It was suggested that the bureau continue to work with the Pennsylvania Game Commission to bring the deer herd in balance with the forest ecosystem. There was support to develop a deer management strategy for state forest land. There were suggestions that the elk herd and turkey management be improved. It was recommended that the bureau develop management guidelines to meet the habitat needs of neo-tropical migrant birds. Re-introduction of large predators was also suggested.

RECREATION
More than 60 percent of the total public comments related to recreation; and about 60 percent of the recreation comments related to OHVs. The main issue relating to OHV was whether off-highway motorized vehicles are appropriate on public lands and if they fit into the bureau's overall mission. The comments did reflect some common ground on this issue. There was agreement that illegal OHV activity is a problem both on and off state forest land. There is general agreement that enforcement efforts must be increased. For the most part people agree that OHVs do cause more impact on the land than other forms of recreation. The OHV user feels that these impacts can be minimized through routine monitoring and aggressive management. Noise is also a major concern especially for those that seek peace and solitude on state forest land. OHV users have indicated sensitivity to these concerns and have acknowledged that noise pollution is an issue. It was suggested that their use be accommodated through zoning. OHV users suggested that many of the problems could be solved by managing conflicts.

ATV users are required to pay a bi-annual registration fee; their concern is that they do not have adequate areas designated for their use. Others feel that just because OHV riders pay a fee does not necessarily mean that more access be developed for their use.

Although OHV users focus was for the development of trails and areas, they did not necessarily want state forest land to be the only focus in this effort. There were suggestions that the bureau look at the big picture. They envisioned a large system with connectors or links that would connect with communities where food and gas is available. It was suggested that approaching the issue in this manner would bolster tourism and benefit local economics. There were comments from those that do not want OHVs on state forest land that acknowledge that there is a need for legal access for OHVs, however, their access should be restricted or more access should be on private lands.

Four-wheel drive enthusiast and Enduro representatives recommended that their use of state forest lands be considered.

Dirt bike riders have voiced a desire for more access to state forest land. They feel that their use should be permitted the same opportunities and follow the same rules, including registration, as other off-road motorized vehicles.

Horse riders and mountain bikers were concerned that their use of state forest land was too restrictive. They would like more access to state forest land and favored shared use with hikers. This was not necessarily a view shared by hikers.

Hang gliders, camp leasees, hunters, campers, canoeists, cross-county skiers, snow shoers, birdwatchers and others commented that they enjoy and appreciate the availability of state forest land for their use. It was also recommended that the bureau make allowances for disabled sportsmen and other disabled users. It was suggested that wildlife feeding regulations be re-evaluated.

There was a desire from all users that the bureau improve its recreational management. It was recommended that the bureau make a conscious effort to manage conflicts among user groups. It was suggested the bureau make an effort to establish as many shared-use trails among compatible uses as possible. Improved trail/facility maintenance and increased public contact/enforcement, especially patrols, were major areas of concern. Several suggestions were made to increase recreational funding. They include the establishment of user fees, grants, retrieval of liquid fuels tax and registration fees.

It was recommended that the public use maps and special use maps be updated more frequently and made available on the Internet. It was also suggested that adequate supplies be available and that a fee could be charged and that all maps be placed on a marketable CD.

Users would like more information made available to them relating to state forest recreation and they would like more effort made to include them in recreational planning.

SILVICULTURE
The response was generally favorable relating to the bureau's silviculture and timber management program. It was felt that the bureau should continue to use science in managing the timber resource on state forest land. The bureau's timber harvest program was recognized as important to the forest products industry and local economies. There were concerns about clearcutting and even-age management. There were recommendations that the bureau eliminate clearcutting and even-age and move toward uneven-age management, which they believe more closely mimics natural processes. It was also recommended that the bureau consider age, species and size in its silviculture program. There were also concerns relating to nesting birds, recreation and other resources. It was recommended that the bureau consider restricting harvesting during certain times of the year and to reduce conflicts with other resources and programs. Harvesting in wild areas, natural areas and old growth was also an area of concern. There were comments that recommended that these areas be off limits to logging while others felt that logging be permitted. There were also suggestions that no more areas be set aside as reserves because doing so would reduce the commercial land base. (i.e., wild areas, natural areas and old growth areas).

Forest regeneration was a concern. It was recommended that the bureau continue to focus on regeneration problems and find solutions, especially in relation to the effects of deer browsing on forest regeneration. There was support to continue the regeneration fund. Comments were favorable relating to deer exclosures, tree shelters and herbicide control of inhibiting vegetation, the tools currently used to ensure regeneration. There were complaints that deer fencing restricts access to state forest land. There were comments that suggested that the bureau use herbicides only when there are no other options available.

Revenue received, as a result of timber harvesting, generated comments that recommended how these funds should be distributed. The return of these revenues to the bureau received both favorable and unfavorable comments. Those that did not favor the return of these revenues felt that the bureau would be encouraged to increase harvests to fund its programs. It was also suggested that some of the revenue received from timber harvests be returned to local forest districts, municipalities and for land acquisition.

It was felt that the administrative processing of timber harvesting contracts and permits should be more expeditious, especially in salvage situations. There were suggestions that logging road specifications be evaluated. There were complaints that some roads are being built to higher specifications than necessary.

A common message throughout the comments was that people want more information relating to good forest management. It was felt that the bureau should use the state forest to demonstrate and educate the public on good forestry practices.

NON-TIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS
It was recommended that the bureau concentrate its efforts on inventory and research in order to determine sustainability.

INFRASTRUCTURE
There was a desire for the bureau to develop or increase access for all users on state forest land. Shared-use was recommended as the preferred policy where compatible users would share trails and facilities. It was also understood that some restrictions on access are needed to manage conflicts and protect the environment. Off-highway vehicles were a controversial issue during the meetings and in the written correspondence. There were comments that access to state forest land for these vehicles should be increased and other comments that recommended that they should not be permitted on state forest land. There were recommendations that OHVs be restricted or zoned to specified areas on state forest land. It was also suggested that other options be explored for OHVs.

The development of recreational facilities was important to some people. Horse riders and snowmobilers would like improved parking and trailheads. There were also recommendations that the leased camp maintenance guidelines be reviewed to conform with current standards and technologies. There were also complaints concerning gated leased camp roads restricting public access.

It was felt the bureau should put a bigger effort in evaluating or assessing trail conditions and that degraded trails should receive remedial care. It was recommended that trail marking and signage be improved.

There were concerns that the bureau’s in-lieu-of-taxes payments are too low and should be increased. The need to acquire land was also important, especially in areas of the state that do not have large state forest land holdings. Comments from individuals in counties where there are currently large state forest land holdings were not as supportive of the bureau acquiring more land. The main reasons that were suggested for acquiring more land were to develop areas for OHVs and other recreation and for unique parcels to be set aside as reserves.

INVENTORY and RESEARCH
It was recommended that the bureau increase its efforts in all areas and establish partnerships.

KUDOS
The bureau received many compliments and positive thoughts on its programs, personnel and actions during the public meetings and in the written correspondence.

NON-STATE FOREST LAND
A significant number of thoughts and ideas not related to State Forest land were recorded. These will be forwarded to the appropriate offices.