Online Services | Commonwealth Sites | Help | Governor

Welcome to the Virginia Department Of Forestry

###### DRAFT MINUTES ######

Meeting of the Board Of Trustees of the
Foundation for Virginia's Natural Resources
Advisory Task Force

Minutes

March 28, 2007, 12:00 p.m.
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
Richmond, Virginia

Board of Trustees Members Present

Advisory Group Members Present

Guest

Recorder of the Minutes

Welcome

Mr. Carlton Courter, Director, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, thanked the group for their hard work and welcomed everyone to the DGIF facility.

Chair Gilliam emphasized that the Advisory Task Force meetings are open to all Board members and Advisory Task Force members even if they're not agency representatives.

Chair Gilliam expressed his appreciation to the Advisory Task Force for their progress within the last two months in developing grant criteria and operational procedures, a draft of which will be presented to the Board of Trustees on April 6, 2007.

Chair Gilliam announced that exhibit space has been reserved for FVNR and NAAEE to share at Virginia Environment 2007 at VMI in Lexington on April 10-12, 2007. This will be an opportunity to make contact with philanthropists and develop support for the NAAEE Conference at Virginia Beach in November 2007.

Mr. Richard Louv, author of Last Child in the Woods, will speak at the Opening Session of Environment VA on Wednesday, April 11. There is a charge of $25 for those who wish to attend just for his presentation, and this includes lunch and the break-out session afterwards. Chair Gilliam received 15 complimentary passes for
Mr. Louv's talk, all of which have been given out to interested local people (Mr. Louv's talk is covered with full registration). Ms. Regn announced that, two weeks ago, Mr. Louv and Secretary Bryant held a telephone interview together which received media attention by newspapers and TV stations. This productive exchange has resulted in land conservation now being connected with nature education--getting people outdoors.

Chair Gilliam stated that, even though the organizational part of the Foundation is not complete, it is important to move forward with the following two initiatives:

  1. Partnership with NAAEE
    • Find businesses to sponsor the Conference in Virginia Beach in November.
      • Goal is to help them raise $50,000 within Virginia.
    • Find support for Virginia Environmental Educators to attend the Conference.
      • Goal of 100 teachers at approximately $500/each (6-8 from each river basin in Virginia).
      • A Memorandum of Understanding between FVNR and NAAEE (approved by the Office of the Attorney General) has been written but not yet signed.
  2. Promote Outdoor Classrooms
    • Goal is within 10 years every school in Virginia that wants an outdoor classroom can have it primarily through private sector support.

Chair Gilliam stated that he has been in touch with the Governor's office to make recommendations to fill FVNR BOT vacancies in the Potomac and Blackwater/Chowan river basins and others as Board members resign.

Ann Regn, Facilitator to Develop Criteria and Operational Procedures

Ms. Regn reviewed an email from Jim Garner which contained comments/questions regarding the March 7 Advisory Task Force minutes and draft criteria. Ms. Regn stated that, at the March 7 meeting, the group walked through the steps of developing a catalog of projects and the review process. The group then addressed each issue raised in Mr. Garner's email (see attachment).

Draft Document Review

Ms. Regn expressed appreciation for the help that Carol Heiser (VDGIF) and Suzan Bulbulkaya (CBC) gave her on developing the outline criteria, scoring guidelines and application form.

Ms. Regn led the Advisory Task Force through a review of the Draft Scoring Guidance, and revisions were made. Judges will evaluate projects based on four main areas:

  1. Importance/relevance & applicability of proposal to program goals
  2. Technical and scientific merit of the project
  3. Overall qualifications of the applicant
  4. Project costs

Priority Areas for Funding include 1) watershed-based education and community solutions, 2) outdoor learning areas, and 3) educational needs. Programs under these priorities were reviewed and revised.

Also reviewed and revised were the following:

Chair Gilliam noted that, for FVNR accounting purposes, Ron Jenkins (VDOF Assistant State Forester for Planning, Policy and Budget) should review the funding guidelines; and FVNR should find someone to assist with Trust Fund bookkeeping/accounting as soon as feasible.

Ms. Regn stated that a "score sheet" could also be developed for the four main areas of each project. Efforts have been made to maintain objectivity in the evaluation process.

There was further discussion of project evaluation, acceptance, and funding. Chair Gilliam stated that people might submit projects and a sponsor at the same time, which would still need to be evaluated. FVNR will only support projects that meet the criteria. Discussion followed regarding possibly including project success stories/photos in the catalog.

During the Environment Virginia 2007 Conference, Chair Gilliam hopes to have approved grant criterion, a one-page needs list with cost estimates, and proposed projects available to show businesses and philanthropists. Chair Gilliam stated that he could see the need for a legal specialist, a marketing planner (possibly a college intern), and a budget director for FVNR. Mr. Baxter cautioned not to "get ahead of yourself;" use the brochure for now. The brochure has been revised and reprinted and will be available to Board members at the April 6 meeting and the Environment Virginia Conference. Ms. Brown suggested, to prevent using up brochures, having a simple slip of paper that can be dropped into a jug so that interested people could submit their name, telephone and address if they want further information about FVNR.

Ms. Regn will send draft documents to Ron Jenkins for review by the Office of the Attorney General.

All revised draft documents will be presented to the FVNR Board of Trustees at its Spring meeting on April 6, 2007.

The meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m.

Attachment

NOTE: Tapes of Board of Trustees and Advisory Task Force meetings are on file in the Department of Forestry Central Office.

Comments/Questions from Jim Garner's Email to Ann Regn dated March 27, 2007, regarding March 7 Meeting Minutes and Draft Critieria:

Review by the FVNR Advisory Task Force on March 28, 2007:

3. A. Should the review panel be ONLY state agency personnel? The application review process should include the Board of Trustees (sub-committee), an advisory committee/review panel (reps from state agencies and/or others invited by the Board), and technical support. Consideration should be given to how often applications would be reviewed (quarterly, semi-annually or annually). Modifications to the evaluation process can be made as needed. Only worthy projects should be included in the catalog. Decide percentage of administrative (operating) costs to FVNR; contributions to the administrative costs would promote sustainability.

3.B. One of the checkmark criteria use the term "encourages an opportunity…" I think encourages is somewhat weak and a more firm expectation would be better. (Skipped --See the scoring sheet for stronger language).

3.C. I very much agree with Lee's comment to devote one BOT meeting annually to review the criteria--this is good business and will reflect well to donors and grantees. Recommend annual review of criteria (adopt or amend) by Board of Trustees be held on Fiscal Year basis at summer meeting.

3.D. I don't agree with Ann's suggestion of having someone who would "negotiate" projects. If we develop a good set of criteria then there should be little need for any type of such matters. Is Champion a better word? Board of Trustees will "champion" projects in their own watersheds; "shepherds" in state agencies will assist with technical issues (until FVNR staff acquired).

3.E. I raise the question of Jay's idea of asking each roundtable to submit projects. I think this is a good role and opportunity for them, but as I understand it, not all roundtables are really very active. Roundtables are at different degrees of maturity. Present this "opportunity" to roundtables and let them choose projects. This would be an incentive for them to think strategically and some will respond positively. Good way to develop ideas for the catalog.

3.F. As I have expressed earlier, I really question offering grants to state agencies and universities. If we are to follow the words and intent of the legislation, we should be reaching out to civic, non-profit and citizen groups that will encourage more public involvement. Language in the Code states "…assist in developing and to encourage the nonregulatory conservation programs within the agencies…" and "promote environmental education, pollution prevention, and citizen monitoring by fostering and supporting collaborative efforts among businesses, citizens, communities, local governments, and state agencies." State agency representatives have described projects that need a source of funding. There is also a need for funding of academic research programs at universities.

3.G. I notice a comment that your schedule would be to try to get BOT ok so far before opening for public review. I assume that the grant criteria must be run through the APA process?? The Advisory Task Force is hoping to have approval from the Board of a draft that can be taken out to the public for review (public meeting). **The Office of the Attorney General will be consulted to ensure compliance with the APA process.** Ms. Regn praised Lee Stephens' idea at the March 7 meeting to hold a public event to roll out the program next fall. Mr. Baxter agreed stating that this "coming out party" would give FVNR publicity as well as help Trustees meet people, and the event should be treated festively.

4.A. We have discussed several times the term "environmental education." I know the legislation uses that term and that the intent was to mean broad education to our environment and natural resources. Unfortunately, in some segments, the word is a red flag. I am wondering in our criteria and marketing we would be too far astray if we used "conservation education" in its place. For some of us, it will make the sales pitch a little easier. Advisory Task Force members agreed that, in this changing world, the term "environmental education" is acceptable. Trustees should review the definition included in the draft to be sure conservation education is described adequately. The term "environmental education" is included in the Code.

4.B. "Citizen Monitoring" is another scary term to some segments. I believe it is a good thing and is here to stay, but not all like that thought. What I would suggest in that paragraph is the addition of a sentence to indicate that the monitor's data will be collected and used only by those who have had some qualified training and data collected meets certain standards. I think I recall that DEQ has some type of training/standards already in place. If so, that may be a good place to start. The term "citizen monitoring" is included in the Code. Wording will be added to clarify "quality assured" data collection 1) by trained citizens, 2) resulting in assured data for non-regulatory purposes, and 3) using standard protocols.

4.D. Number 7 seems to be in conflict with number 4. If we are going to allow multiple years for a project, it will not be possible for a complete report the following July. I do think that it would be prudent to ask the recipient for an annual progress report and then a final when the project is complete. Agreed. Will be revised.

Last modified: Friday, 07-Mar-2008 19:13:44 UTC