Board of Forestry
Minutes
September 22, 2004
The Board of Forestry met on September 22, 2004, at the Department of Forestry Central Office, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Convene Meeting
The formal Board meeting began at 9:00 a.m. on September 22, 2004. Those present were: Judy Guse-Noritake, Anitra B. Webster, C. Harrell Turner, William T. Carden, McChesney Goodall, R. Easton Loving, Michael G. McGlothlin, E. Lee Showalter, Alpheus L. White, and James Garner and Donna Hoy with the Department of Forestry.
Call to Order
Chairman Turner called the meeting to order.
Ms. Hoy called roll.
Changes and Adoption of Agenda
Chairman Turner asked if there were any changes that needed to be made to the agenda. No changes were made.
Recognition of Guests and Visitors
Mr. Turner welcomed Jim Mooney, Executive Director, Virginia Logger Association to the meeting.
Approval of Minutes
Chairman Turner asked if there were any corrections/deletions to the July 13, 2004 minutes. Hearing none, Chairman Turner asked for a motion that the minutes to be accepted as written. Mr. Showalter made the motion. Ms. Webster seconded. The minutes will stand approved as recorded.
Hearing of Citizens and Delegations
No comments.
Information Items
None
State Forester's Report
Mr. Garner reported that Mr. Garrison has held one meeting with a small group to start the policy process. He has met with Marty Farber, Legislative Services, to discuss various legislative approaches to take for the proposed forest policy. Mr. Garrison should soon have a rough draft to present to the Board members for their review. The Department has an intern that will research forest policies from other states.
Mr. Garner expressed his appreciation to the Board for being so active and supportive of the Department and what they have accomplished during their term.
Action Items
Chairman Turner reported that the SJR75 Focus Group met on Tuesday, September 21, at the Department of Forestry Central Office. Nineteen individuals were invited, and eighteen were in attendance. Based on input heard at the public meetings held around the state, the sub-committee had developed eight draft recommendations for the focus group to consider/discuss. He suggested the Board review/discuss each of the draft recommendations and feedback received from the focus group meeting as a basis to develop recommendations back to the State Legislature. The recommendations were discussed in order of an informal consensus/agreement the focus group expressed about each statement.
Recommendation #8: Provide a full 100% general fund match for the severance taxes collected under the Reforestation of Timberlands Program.
Chairman Turner reported there was no opposition to this recommendation. Mr. Showalter recommended that the Board focus on getting the funds restored and not make recommendations that would require a change in the existing law. Changing the RT program to include land conservation would not be an easy task and would require a legislative change. Mr. Goodall questioned if the program were fully funded, if all the money would be utilized for reforestation. The answer was yes.
The Board will recommend that the RT program be fully funded as it exists now and will also recommend that funding be secured for land conservation easements.
Recommendation #6: Secure funding for DOF to provide six Forest Resource Planners to work with municipalities, planning districts, non-profits, landowner groups, and others to address forest resource issues.
The focus group requested specifics on what will be the responsibilities of the Forest Resource Planners. They did not want these positions to interfere with local county foresters being actively involved with planning commissions, board of supervisors, etc. Mr. Garner stated these Forest Resource Planners will be a resource for field foresters when they have a need. They will be specialists for information when individuals cannot get information anywhere else. Mr. Showalter stated he felt the recommendation should be revised and in place of the word “provide”, use the word “restore”since these positions had previously existed within DOF structure.
Some Board members questioned if six planners were enough. Mr. Garner felt six would be a good place to start. Some felt the Board should recommend one position for each congressional district.
The Board will recommend funding for six forest planners throughout the state. The Department of Forestry will come up with a specific job description for the Forest Resource Planners for the Board’s review/inclusion in the report.
Recommendation #1: Educate landowners on the benefits and incentives available to maintain their land in forestland. This could be accomplished by charging VDACS, DOF, and Virginia Tech Extension with specific roles in educating landowners on these benefits and incentives.
Chairman Turner reported the focus group feedback was positive on this recommendation. This may fall into the category of forest resource planners. Ms. Webster stated the focus group mentioned there is a wide sweep of educational needs: elderly, children, urbanite that owns land, lawyers, accountants, general public, planning commissions, local government, etc. A lot of attendees of the focus group did not know about programs/incentives available. An effective mechanism would need to be developed for getting the information to landowners. The Board will have a recommendation for education and specifics needed, targeted audience, what groups will be involved in delivering information, etc. Chairman Turner stated they will recommend that the Department of Forestry serve as a clearing house for the information and will be the lead agency.
Recommendation #5: Create opportunity for conservation easements that are set for a determined period of time (25-50 years with options for renewal). This would encourage additional landowners to protect their property with a conservation easement.
Chairman Turner reported there were varying opinions on this recommendation. Some focus group members said they would not put their land in conservation easements. It was mentioned that perpetuity was a drawback to conservation easements and a lot of individuals will not agree to conservation easements because they are done in perpetuity. Educating landowners on conservation easements, rules, what is available, etc. would be helpful in making an informed decision on their land.
Mr. Goodall did not think the term “conservation easement”should be used in the report relative to any recommendation about this issue. He would recommend using a term like “long term land protection agreement”or “land preservation agreement”, etc. that becomes a long-term contract in which you do not develop your land for a certain fixed term. By signing up for this type of agreement, the landowner would be guaranteed a flat tax rate for a set period of time. If you break the contract, then there will be back taxes and a penalty that will need to be paid. Part of the agreement would be an annual inspection/report. This would be a new program, but there would be merit in using a different name that gives people a full range of options to fit landowner needs. This would provide an additional option between a perpetual easement and yearly land-use.
Mr. Loving recommended that recommendation 3 and 5 be combined. He also stated the comment was made in the focus group meeting that the Board needed to somehow figure out a way to quit putting the tax burden on the landowner, and some how put it into a tax on consumption.
Ms. Guse-Noritake questioned what the appropriate level of financial incentive might be for landowners to agree to a long-term land protection agreement in light of what they now get for a perpetual easement. Mr. Carroll stated he did not feel this recommendation would go forward unless the Board came up with some type of funding mechanism or idea for funding incentives. The Board will include a supporting statement for the concept of perpetual conservation easements, but will use a term indicating short-term instead of perpetuity for a timber and conservation easement, for example, “Forestland Preservation Agreement”.
Recommendation #3: Offer a forestland taxation option similar to the Indiana Classified Forest Program or the State of Georgia program. This would significantly reduce the property tax burden for landowners and ensure that their lands would be properly managed.
This recommendation generated a lot of discussion and comments were varied. Some were opposed to a statewide program that would give up authority by local counties to set the tax rate.
There is inconsistency across the state for land-use taxation. Some counties do not offer land-use taxation. For those that do offer land-use taxation, the rate differs from one county to the next. It was the feeling of the Board that a consistent statewide program on land-use taxation would enhance the preservation of forestland.
Chairman Turner stated the focus group had no consensus on this recommendation and questioned if the Board wanted to pursue it. The Board felt this was important and that a task force needs to be developed to conduct further research on this recommendation. The Board will include a statement in the written report that additional time is needed for further research and will require input from others to complete.
Recommendation #4: Strengthen the current Right to Practice Forestry law. This would limit restrictive local ordinances which act as disincentives to landowners to practice forestry.
Varied comments were given on this recommendation. Some felt it would do more harm than good to open the law back up. It was the feeling of the Board that this recommendation needs to be looked at separately and in more detail than the time-frame for our response now allows. The Board recommends that the current law be studied and more information be provided to them on what specific changes might be needed to allow private landowners to appropriately manage their forestland. The Board will recommend that further study be conducted on this recommendation.
Mr. Garner will send a copy of this section of the Code to all members, along with a copy of the transcript from the relative case in York County.
Recommendation #2: Modify existing inheritance tax structure with caps or limits so that more family owned farm and forestland could be preserved. Improvements in the estate tax laws could reduce fragmentation.
The comment was made that little of this was due to inheritance taxes assessed by the State of Virginia and that most of the burden was imposed by the federal inheritance tax, which is acknowledged to be a disincentive for individuals to keep the land in forest. Ms. Guse-Noritake suggested that in addition to any state level recommendation, the Board should consider contacting federal legislators with a strong statement about the Board’s position on federal inheritance tax. Dr. White stated that the Board needed facts on state and federal taxes before writing a statement. Mr. Showalter agreed the Board needed more facts about state and federal taxes. He also agreed that a statement should be made on the impacts of current state and federal inheritance taxes being a disincentive for families keeping forested land in forest and in the family.
Recommendation #7: Enhance markets for forest products by creating a favorable business environment for globally competitive forest based industries.
Chairman Turner stated the focus group was confused with this recommendation. This recommendation would seek to help to keep industry from moving off shore. Virginia has a favorable climate for industry to establish/keep their business in Virginia.
Mr. Loving pointed out that several individuals in the focus group mentioned the issue of sustainability. He stated that if this country can demonstrate our forest products are produced by using sustainable forest practices, in the context of U. S. environmental laws, relative to those of other countries, then it would give this country a marketing advantage.
Ms. Webster suggested that the Board start off with marketing issues in the report and build from there. Chairman Turner thought a statement identifying the value of the forest products industry in Virginia should be included. It should not be written as a recommendation, but as a statement stating we need to do all we can to keep forest products industry in the state because it does have a direct bearing on forest products. A strong statement on the value of forest products to Virginia needs to be made to Senator Ticer and the General Assembly members so they will understand the economic and environmental importance of this issue. A statement also needs to be included that indicates Virginia is increasingly competing with a global market, while trying to maintain sustainability of the forests and preserve what we have and that the forest industry is needed to accomplish that. Mr. McGlothlin recommended that a range of products be listed: environmental benefits, fuel aspect, etc.
Chairman Turner asked if there were other comments/recommendations that the Board would like to see included in the report. The following comments were made:
Ms. Guse-Noritake stated she felt the report should include a recommendation for a full-time Policy/Analyst position for the Department of Forestry to help answer questions on issues that were discussed, particularly those that are going to be deferred for further study.
Chairman Turner reported that the suggested changes of the recommendations will go back to the sub-committee for redrafting. Once the sub-committee meets, the redraft of the recommendations will be sent to all Board members.
Committee Liaison Report
Mr. Mooney reported that the Loggers Association will hold their annual meeting in Lynchburg on October 15 and 16. He reported a very good response to the legislator’s reception.
Other Business
The Board members expressed their appreciation to Mr. Garner for his years of service to the Commonwealth, his leadership of the Department of Forestry, and his help with Board matters. The Board presented Mr. Garner with a wooden bowl.
Scheduling of Next Meeting
The next Board of Forestry meeting will be held November 5, 9:00 a.m., in
the Department of Forestry Central Office Board Room. This meeting will focus
on a discussion of what will be included in the final draft of the SJR 75 report.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chairman Turner made a motion that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting was officially adjourned at 12:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Donna Hoy
Recording Secretary
c: Board Members
Dr. J. Michael Kelly
Mr. J. R. Bush, VFPA
Mr. Paul Howe, VFA
Mr. Cliff Rexrode, ACF
Mr. Steve Brooks, Virginia Forest Watch
Ms. Ann Duff, Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation
Mr. Jim Mooney, Virginia Loggers Association
Mr. Gerald Gray, Virginia Forest Watch
Ms. Donna Pugh-Johnson, Virginia Agribusiness Council
Ms. Martha Moore, Virginia Farm Bureau Federation
Mr. Roger Sherman, MeadWestvaco Corporation
Ms. Staci Henshaw, Auditor of Public Accounts
Mr. Charles F. Finley, Jr., Forest Landowners Association
NOTE: Tapes of Board meetings are on file in the Office of the State Forester.
Last modified: Friday, 07-Mar-2008 19:13:23 UTC