Forest Conservation Campaign Roundtable

Forest Conservation Roundtable

December 7, 2006 Meeting Summary

Page 1 of 4

Parcelization and Forest Fragmentation Roundtable

Convened by the Vermont Natural Resources Council

December 7, 2006

Meeting Summary

Meeting Participants: Putnam Blodgett, Michelle Boomhower, Jake Brown, Paul Caustello, Darby Bradley, Cindy Cook (Facilitator), Jad Daley, Jamey Fidel, Ehrhard Frost, Karen Horn, Bill Keeton, Tom Kennedy, Leo Laferriere, Jane Lazorchak, Lynn Levine, Hugo Liepmann, Thom McEvoy, David Paganelli, Ethan Parke, Carl Powden, John Roe, Lisa Sausville, and Peter Upton, and Jonathan Wood.

Recommendations re Estate Planning

Thom McEvoy of the UVM Extension Service discussed his program of sessions to educate landowners regarding estate planning. He noted that many people are hesitant to discuss planning, because it means confronting their own mortality.

Thom noted that some people are uncomfortable with easements because they don’t understand them, and appraisers often do not know how to appraise land with easements. Leo commented that listers don’t have much latitude in appraising land; they must follow state policy. A change in state policy may be needed. John noted that Massachusetts has a good easement taxation policy.

Thom proposed that the state revise its tax policy so that land with permanent conservation easements is exempted from property taxes, and that the difference in income to the state be made up by increasing the income tax. Bill suggested that the state consider taxing residents and non-residents differently. Karen noted that resident and non-resident tax rates vary significantly from town to town, and that 70 to 80% of property taxes go to education.

Process for Developing Roundtable Recommendations

Participants discussed the Roundtable’s report. It was agreed that a problem statement that describes the current situation is needed to give the reader an understanding of the issues involved. Jamey will work on developing a draft of this statement.

The timing of the report was discussed. Some felt that it is important to get a draft report to the legislature in January. Others suggested that the issues require further discussion, and that getting a report to the legislature by Cross Over would be more realistic.

The group agreed that they would work on a preliminary draft report including a problem statement and overview of the issues for January, and that participants will work on developing a final report by Cross Over.

Paul commented that the recommendations should be redrafted so that they focus clearly on parcelization and forest fragmentation. The recommendations should be concise, direct, and implementable.

Discussion of Draft Recommendations

Property Valuation and Taxation

The pros and cons of increasing the penalties for withdrawing from the Use Value Program were discussed. While increased penalties would serve as an incentive to stay in the program, Jonathan noted the when any significant changes are made to the program, everyone enrolled has the opportunity to opt out without penalty.

Lisa suggested “grandfathering” the penalty rate for current enrollees, and increasing the rate for new enrollees. The group felt that this proposal merits serious consideration.

The group also suggested making the Current Use program administration more efficient. Enrollment in the program is increasing steadily, and it is not likely that the legislature will approve new positions to help w/ program administration. One such measure is to change the inspection requirement. Jonathan has other recommendations regarding program administration that he will forward to Jamey and the Roundtable.

With respect to recommendation #3, the Property Valuation and Review Office and the League of Cities and Towns already provide education to listers. It was noted that the AMP’s are already required by Current Use (#4).

Because Current Use is a primary tool for preventing parcelization, it was suggested that increasing the categories of use value options in the program, such as enrolling land for wildlife, ecological protection or open space, could help expand enrollment. Jonathan and others actively oppose this recommendation, on the grounds that Current Use is primarily a tool for preserving working forests. Jonathan mentioned that he has not seen a need to bring more ecological protection considerations into the program.

Several consulting foresters responded that they have many clients who would like to manage their property specifically for wildlife and other management considerations beyond just timber harvesting. It was suggested that Current Use landowners be given more latitude in managing their land, especially w/ respect to stream buffers that reflect current management practices, old growth forests and wildlife habitat and corridors. Dave articulated some of the challenges in providing for “no cut” stream buffers. Some suggested that the program include a “no management” option. This type of option could be included within the existing parameters of the program by expanding the definition of non-productive forestland to include important ecological features.

Taxes on land gains from timber sales are currently not collect systematically. It was suggested that mills collect tax ID numbers to ensure that these taxes are paid. (#8)

It was suggested that Current Use benefits be decreased, with the resulting savings going toward purchasing conservation easements. Again, it was noted that an opt-out period is required whenever any significant changes are made to the Current Use Program.

The issue of decoupling education funding and property taxation is a very complex one that deserves it’s own white paper (#9). The group agreed that it needs time for additional discussion of property tax issues.

Planning

The planning group recommends that the state undertake a comprehensive, cohesive, long-term planning program that is coordinated on the local, regional and state levels. Ecosystem goods and services flowing from land (e.g. water quality benefits) should be addressed.

Jonathan noted that the existing Vermont Forest Resources Plan (available from the Department of Forests and Parks) should be used as a starting point. Carl noted the need to prioritize forested areas for conservation. Jad noted that the Forest Legacy Program conducted an assessment of need.

Jad indicated that there is federal money available to develop a state forest plan that identifies critical resource areas.

Bill suggested using resource land designation as a conservation tool. In other states, designated resource lands are taxed at a lower rate than other land. Lynn commented that the town of Dummerston is using this tool.

Several people commented that resource identification should be specific enough to be useful to planners, but probably should not identify specific parcels, as this would lead to significant resistance.

Michelle commented that the ancient roads analyses will factor into the discussion re parcelization.

Valuation of Ecosystem Services & Protection of Forests in Perpetuity

Jad commented that the Adirondack Park has been working on quantifying other ecosystem services including water quality.

Bill commented that that state could promote carbon markets and facilitate the development of carbon cooperatives that are accessible to small landowners.

Ehrhard commented that the over-arching issue is how do we instill people with a visceral connection with the land. Leo suggested adding language to the draft recommendations regarding fostering a stewardship ethic.

People suggested deleting reference to specific organizations in draft recommendation #3, and that #4 may not be realistic. Carl noted that the VT Housing Conservation Board does not have a forest conservation mandate, but that this could be added, and that we need non-regulatory mechanisms for preserving forest land. 4(i)(i) are compatible. Jamey suggested that a new VHCB forest preservation program be created and funded by an increase in the property transfer tax. Carl responded that the existing VHCB programs are currently under-funded.

Jad commented that he hopes to create a new political will to preserve forest lands. He noted that helping towns manage their town-owned forests is a way to increase public understanding of forest benefits.

Jane described the landowner incentive program that is funded by US Fish and Wildlife to develop easements to protect at risk species.

Sustainability of Forest Industry

People commented that it’s difficult to affect the industry in one state when the economy has become global.

Dave commented that landowners should be encouraged to grow quality forest products –especially hardwood, so that they maximize their income from the land over the long run. Jonathan responded that for this to work, and for industry to invest in high-cost infrastructure (like veneer mills), industry needs assurances that there will be a supply of timber over the long term. Currently, both state and federal timber production has been decreasing.

Vermont has quality hardwood products, the potential for green labeling, and the cachet of “Made in Vermont”. Paul commented that the state is actively marketing Vermont timber products.

Several people commented that draft recommendation #7 may set up unrealistic expectations, and is simply not possible. Michelle suggested deleting #6, in light of the dire state of transportation funding. Jonathan responded that current weight limits on the interstate are a significant issue, and lead to trucks using state roads, rather than the interstate.

Jad commented that the regional greenhouse gas initiative is a significant source of funds—over $250 million. He also suggested thast surcharges on water bills could be used to fund watershed management.

Drafting Committee

The following people volunteered to help with drafting the Roundtable’s recommendations:

Jonathan, Tax Policy and Industry Sustainability

Michelle, Planning

Tom Kennedy, Planning

Bill, Planning

Carl, Industry Sustainability

Jad, Conservation and Stewardship

Hugo, Editing

Leo, Editing