Download 20101209-Forest-Roundtable-Minutes

Forest Roundtable – Convened by Vermont Natural Resources Council
Wednesday Dec. 9, 2010 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM
Three Stallions Inn, Randolph, Vermont
Present:
Jamey Fidel, Robert Klein, Hugo Liepmann, Sarah Clark, Colleen Madrid, Meilssa Reichert, Leo
Laferriere, Randy Viens, Tom Vickery, Bill Moulton, Sandy Wilmot, Ann Ingerson, Eric Sorenson,
Leon Whitcomb, Walter Medwid, Jason Benoit, Jeff Smith, Stacy Brown, Ehrhard Frost, Put
Blodgett, Jim Shallow, Rodger Krussman, Hervey Scudder, Nina Otter, Rep. Alison Clarkson,
Marta Ceroni, Ken Gagnon, Susan Hindinger, Steve Sinclair, Laury Saligman, Lisa Sausville, Bob
Perschel and Jake Brown.
Agenda:
Welcome, Introductions, and Update on Roundtable Process
Jamey Fidel wanted to get another meeting in before the New Year. Outlined the agenda.
Conversation with Colleen Madrid on the state of the Green Mountain and Finger Lakes
National Forests
Colleen: Came to Vermont in April to work as Forest Supervisor of Green Mountain (GM) and
Finger Lakes (FL) National Forests. Applied for the job because of the collaborative-nature of the
work demonstrated in Vermont. The Vermont Forest Roundtable is one of the groups she wants to
work with because it has a lot of traction and can push things forward.
Over the last year the GM and FL National Forests did projects with AARA funds—improvements
on snowmobile trails, work with VYCC, etc. VT was the highest spender of AARA money in the
region. Seven Stewardship Contracts---represent timber sales where the profit comes back to the
National Forest to improve watershed conditions, wetlands, replanting, weed removal, etc.
Integrated Resource Projects—In general, seeing less Vermont timber purchasers at auctions and
more from out of state (MA, NY)—might be interesting for the Roundtable. It was surprising. VT
has really high quality hard woods. Revenue is at $6 million from timber sales.
Working on the White River Integrated Resource Project. Going to be working in the Dorset area in
the next 3-6 months as well.
Wildlife crossing work with VNRC—connecting intact forests areas to conserve wildlife crossing
lands.
Film being created about Aldo Leopold. Should premier in big cities, maybe Rutland. Opportunity
for organizations to table at event.
Future of land acquisition for National Forest? We are trying to complete acquisition on several
parcels. Funding, although it has shrunk, is still there to acquire more. Not sure what budget will be
like this next year.
GMNF role to supply biomass? GMNF will be a player, not a big player. Colleen is staying engaged
with the issue by attending meetings and forums. If any opportunity arises, we can plan.
GMNF and Climate Change? We have been slow to get really engaged. Haven’t figured out how to
get our hands around it. It was a discussion at regional meeting. Wisconsin grabbed it and formed a
model. We are now looking to get some of the climate change questions answered. Would like to
look at biological aspects and social aspects of climate change on these forests. A lot of the Long
Trail is underwater, why is that, what does that mean for hikers and wildlife in the area? Department
of Agriculture has also created a scorecard to identify vulnerable areas and develop risk assessments.
The national forests are looking to use this as well.
Wind Projects in the Forest? It is a polarizing issue. Proposed Deerfield Wind Project is proposed.
There are 37 potential sites identified on the GMNF, however, upon further assessment, there are
really only two places that might interest large-scale wind projects.
Rodger: Research underway using nation-wide modeling of affects of climate change on forests based
on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That will be out soon.
Growing the GMNF? Government cannot solicit folks to give land to the National Forest. But they
are looking to acquire more land into the National Forest, particularly because of climate change and
biomass.
Current Use
Put Blodgett: Put gave an overview of status of Current Use Program and he handed out a 2011
legislative session platform from the Current Use Tax Coalition. Last session, the House passed
H.485 quickly, it was modified by the Senate, but the Governor vetoed the bill. Still looking to fill in
the $1.6 million and then some for this year.
Current Use Coalition developed in 1980s. Act 200 continued funding for Current Use and the
coalition fizzled. Coalition has now been resurrected. Now have a proposal (passed out).
Jamey Fidel: Next Coalition meeting is next week. Looking to Roundtable to get feedback and get
involved with the platform proposal. Need to come up with a strategy for Current Use.
Rep. Alison Clarkson: Best procedure is for Deb Brighton to get the numbers on revenue from the
proposal. H.485 will be reintroduced unless there is another proposal. Roundtable and Current Use
Coalition need to lead on this one in the legislature, be on the offensive, come with the language for
the legislature. Drafting of bills by the legislative council is happening now. I can take whatever the
Roundtable and Coalition have. I am ready to take the platform and to get it drafted into a bill.
Jamey Fidel: Need to figure out a way to get the program stable so that Current Use is not under the
microscope every year for budget savings.
Looking at Proposal:
1) Broad support last session to increase the Property Transfer Tax. Revenue would go towards
creating digital and electronic administration of the program. After 3 years, once the technology is
up and running, tax revenue goes towards the administrative upkeep of the electronic systems.
2) Land Use Change Tax (LUCT): Tom Vickery can explain how the tax is not very significant for
landowners trying to develop. There is a suggestion to tax development on a sliding scale—short-
term program participants pay a higher penalty. Long-term participants get a lower penalty. This
appeals to the conservation goal of the program and discourages participants who are just “parking”
their land in the program before development begins. There is still some debate about the sliding
scale and whether to use a multiplier of back taxes owed (“roll back), or whether to base it on a
percentage of fair market value of the parcel developed.
3) Allows an “easy out” window of time for landowners to take property out of the program before
the increase of the LUCT is implemented. When people pull land out, they will be paying the fair
market rate and generate revenue for the state.
4) Legislative Study Committee— to address other issues including municipal reimbursement and
how land in the program is assessed.
5) Other aspects of the proposal were reviewed.
Tom Vickery: (Works for VALA) passed out 9-page brief of tax analysis
Long history as a supporter of Current Use. The Farmer Stabilization Contract is a Current Use-like
program set up by towns for farmers. They trust the town (administers the Farm Stabilization
Contact) more than the State (administers the Current Use Program). It has become clear that folks
are putting their land in the program to get a tax benefit rather than for its conservation cause. Need
to make corrections to the Current Use Program because the tax benefits are out of control. Wants
to be part change process and provide tax analysis advise.
There are four very active farms in Stowe and that is what keeps its character and are what make the
town so great and attractive (to tourists as well).
Must stiffen the LUCT penalty. Current Use is not to stop development but to slow it down. There
are people who want to come in and preserve it and there are some who want to come in to develop
it later. Tax rate should be determined on a sliding scale, then you can reward those who are in it for
generations, and stiffen the cost for those who are in it for the short term to avoid taxes. The intent
of the program is for farm and forestland preservation. VALA would like to see problems with the
weak penalty addressed.
Ehrhard Frost: What does it cost to run the program?
Tom Vickery: Not sure, have to collect figure from ANR, Dept of Ag. It does cost $420,000 a year
for the 12 staff-members’ time at Forests, Parks and Recreation.
Alison Clarkson: If we believe in the integrity of the calculation on the Current Use value of a
property, then it has integrity. If we go to a percentage multiplier for budget reasons, then it is easier
to whittle away its integrity.
Tom: Try not to use the term “Roll Back” for calculating the land-use change tax. It reinforces the
false notion that Current Use is a tax benefit program rather than a successful way to allow farmers
and property owners of managed forests to preserve the working landscape.
Lisa: Speaking of language—need to talk that the intent of the program is to keep and expand the
working landscape.
Do we want to adjust the penalty for those who want to develop and those who don’t follow their
forest management plan?
Alison Clarkson: The Current Use program creates jobs as it employs foresters (and mill-workers etc)
and farmers. Make sure messaging includes the fact that it creates employment opportunities. Maybe
the program can be requiring more management mandates.
Ehrhard Frost: I own land in both VT and NH and have the lands enrolled in each states’ Current
Use program. My tax is 3 times lower in NH than in VT. It is necessary to be in the Current Use
programs in both states, the only way I am able to afford to manage those lands.
Eventually need to look at how we assess not just managed lands, but fair market lands too. Current
Use is a band-aid to a poor tax system. Eventually need to reassess the root-problem, which is the
whole tax system.
Alison Clarkson: The Blue Ribbon Tax Commission just made changes to how we assess property
value and tax it. Additional changes would have to come way down the road at this point.
Tom Vickery: The driver for the tax rate of land is the Current Use program. Current Use driving up
the whole property value of towns—the CLA.
Jim Shallow: It is important to have a long-term discussion. I recently saw a map that showed a huge
amount of VT covered by land under state management standards, and that is thanks to the Current
Use Program. We need to talk about how the future of our forests need to be managed in Vermont.
Current Use is fundamentally a program the keep the working landscape viable.
Jamey Fidel: This discussion will continue. We will have the opportunity testify as organizations in the
legislature, but we need to move on. The Coalition will meet December 20, 9-1 in VAST basement.
Everyone is invited to join in.
Roundtable Updates
Landowner Summit: Jamey Fidel and Lisa Sausville
Passed out draft Agenda of Summit. Summit about keeping forests in long-term ownership with
family other partners.
Logistics
Place: Lake Morey Inn--best price and setting.
When: Saturday April 30--get the second homeowners coming back from winter. Good opportunity
to get generations together. There is also a biomass summit at UVM over April 28-30.
Keynotes possibilities: Catherine Mater –does a lot of work in keeping forestland in multigenerational ownership. Working with Blue Cross Blue Shield for landowners to get a reduced rate
on insurance premiums for increasing carbon sequestration through good management of their land.
There is an expense for her air fair.
Peter Forbes—inspirational, broader-level inspiration. Would present as a donation to Vermont.
Ideally like to get both. Catherine brings fresh blood and talk is focused. Speech at the beginning of
the day makes the case for Peter who is more inspirational. Maybe have Peter as keynote and
Catherine as lunchtime speaker? Maybe have them go back to back—Peter go first. Catherine is
dynamic and knows how to give a speech. She should also lead a workshop. She also has a grant for
outreach so maybe she can pay for some of her travel with that as well.
Need to get folks warmed up to thinking about passing on land after death—the opening
welcome/keynote and landowner panel may help with this in the morning.
Failure stories and success stories should be part of panel—can learn a lot from failures.
The afternoon workshops are planned to be technical/practical, expert-led that present options to
actually gather all the resources/tools needed to pass land on.
Target invitees: Invitation to go out to all the Roundtable organization lists. Advertising in Northern
Woodlands Magazine. Property Valuation and Review puts a mailing out to enrollees in the Current
Use program. We may be able to include a paragraph with date, website for more information,
registration in their mailing. Get it out in as many different locations as possible. Town conservation
commissions may be able to target property owners and encourage them to go to the summit.
Maybe put an ad on local TV channels. Pitch a story to UVM’s Cross the Fence, VPR, WDEV etc.
Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation Update
Sarah Clark—Commissioner of Forest, Parks and Recreation since March. She was previously the
finance administer for the department. Her term will end in January as the new administration
comes in.
Challenges for Change—Forest, Parks & Rec is a “charter unit” for the state to look for adjustments
that allow savings. The department has become more efficient because of budget cuts. The
department is unique in that it can rely on the sale of timber from state land to finance the program.
They are not stepping outside the scope of the management plans to bring in more revenue from
timber sales. $500,000 of timber sales will supply the budget this year.
Have had meetings with new administration to look at budget going ahead.
Plum Creek— 56,000 acres were kicked out of Current Use program because they cut contrary to
their forest management plan. They filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Forests, Parks, and
Recreation and she decided to uphold the adverse inspection report. They are now appealing to
Superior Court. Since they are in the appeal process, currently still enrolled in the program. They still
have a management plan, and even if it is decided that the land is out of the Current Use program,
the lean is still on the property so it must be monitored to make sure they comply with the
management plan.
Deb Markowitz is the new Secretary of ANR. She Extends thanks to the hard work of the Forest
Roundtable.
Currently updating and amending Acceptable Management Practices for Maintaining Water Quality
on Logging Jobs in Vermont (AMPs). Roundtable will have opportunity for input and an update
presentation flagged for a future Roundtable meeting presentation.
ATVs—The department did receive two proposals requesting access for ATVs in two Wildlife
Management Areas from VASA. Applications currently being reviewed for completeness.
Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation (accompanying PowerPoint Presentation)
Sandy Wilmot—Forest Health Specialist, VT Dept of Frosts, Parks and Recreation. PowerPoint
Presentation.
Alan Betts collected data to develop trend graphs shown in presentation.
Climate Trends in Vermont: 1960-Present. Upwards shift in summer and winter temperature—
varies a lot year to year.
Growing Season—last freeze date is getting later and first freeze date is getting earlier. The growing
season is getting longer. The last spring freeze is coming 2.3 days/decade earlier. The first fall freeze
is coming 1.6 days/decade later—winter is shorter.
Pond Freezing—earlier melts of Still’s Pond and Joe’s Pond. Freezing has come about 4 days later,
Ice-out has come about 3 earlier.
Lilac Flowering and leaf-out—earlier in the spring.
4 days /decade earlier for flowering and leaf out.
Adapting to Climate Change
There are things we can do now, a dialogue is important. Where is climate change going to affect
our planning strategies?
Maple Syrup production: Tim Perkins at the Proctor Maple Research Center tracked sugaring season
dates. It is now starting 8 days later and ends 11 days earlier since 40 years ago. Could sugar makers
tap earlier and get the same amount of sap? Yes. Adjust timing of tapping. This is an example of
management adaptation to climate change.
Comparing climate change stressor to forestry-relevant practices. Disturbance, Invasive species,
latitudinal shifts, seasonal temperature and precipitation changes—need to keep a focus on how to
manage differently based on a warming climate.
What are the logical changes that are happening, how to adapt planning. Activities going on in
Vermont planning for climate change: Adaptation concept paper---identifies where we would need
to focus on the impacts of climate change—natural resources and infrastructure. A variety of
groups—ANR, Dept of Ag, Towns, etc. need to figure out how to implement the steps needed.
Need leadership to carry out priorities, could be a focus of next administration. There are plans from
other states—NH MA, ME we can look towards for climate change planning. Vermont is behind.
The predictions for winter changes are more certain than change predicted during the summer. But
include: increase in the number of hot days, increased flooding and heavy rainstorms…Uncertain
water availability, more frequent short-term droughts.
Forests play a large part in the Governor’s Commission on Climate Change plan.
The emissions output over 1990-2008 for wood-generated electricity and heating increased
slightly—inverse of fossil fuel prices.
Total annual forest sequestration is –9.63 MMtCO2e/yr.
30% of the carbon in soils is released with the harvesting of timber.
Forest Carbon Goal—depend on forested acres, sustainable management, wood product income
and storage, biomass income and cycling.
Size of trees—as diameter of a tree increased, the amount of carbon it can store increases drastically-the relationship between tree diameter and carbon storage is not linear.
Hardwood stands tend to have higher carbon storage than soft woods, however, the soils of
softwood stands store more carbon than hardwoods.
Acreage enrolled in the Current Use program has increased by 56,000 per year since 1980.
ANR’s new climate change website has a lot of information and reports.
Ski industry, cold water streams, high elevation spruce/fir forest, maple syrup industry are most
vulnerable areas to the affects of climate change.
Ski industry—feel like they need to make snow to be viable. Also looking at summer activities to
stay alive.
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative—is alive and used for energy efficiency projects through Dept
of Public Service.
One goal of the Governor’s Commission on Climate Change Report is to reduce the rate of
conversation of forest land 50% by 202l. We need an action plan. The economic downturn came
right after the publication of the report, so there has not been funding to push steps outlined in the
report active.
Biomass Report:
Jamey Fidel: Today is an opportunity to provide input to the Biomass Energy Development Working
Group (BioE Group) on the draft interim report. The authorizing legislation specifies that the BioE
Group shall solicit feedback from the Forest Roundtable.
Jamey offered an overview of the report and explained that the BioE group was given specific areas
to address according to the authorizing legislation. Generally, there are two categories of questions
the legislature is asking the BioE Group to explore:
1)
2)
Incentives and policies to promote the sustainable use of biomass for energy production,
and
Recommendations for maintaining forest health.
Some issues, such as air quality, are beyond the specific scope of the legislation, even though they
may be relevant/important issues. There are three subcommittees of the Bio-E Group looking at
development, forest health, and modeling/wood supply.
Steve Sinclair: NEFA is going to do modeling across a four state area. Robert Turner will do it. We’ll
have capacity with this model to run it ourselves.
Jamey Fidel: A new BERC/State of Vermont wood supply model will provide input into the
discussion, and the BioE Group believes we should be considering updated wood supply numbers.
BioE Group has been basing its work on a moderate scenario for wood supply availability based on
new FIA data, i.e. not an aggressive harvesting scenario, and not the most conservative harvesting
scenario.
Jamey Fidel: In the report, the group focuses on three areas for biomass energy development:
commercial/industrial thermal; electrical generation, and wood pellet manufacturing. Jamey
explained the breakdown among the categories and noted that firewood use is not represented.
Jim Shallow: Are these additive numbers to what we are harvesting now? In other words, what is the
magnitude of increase for harvesting?
There was not a readily available answer to Jim’s question. The group had a general discussion about
the percentage of wood that would be harvested in the report and the amount that is currently being
harvested based on figures from Steve Sinclair. Jamey flagged this as an issue that may need to be
explained in the report.
Ehrhard Frost: One way to look at it is to think about what loss we’ve had in pulp markets, and see if
this could fill the void.
Jim Shallow: I’m just trying to understand, are we talking about some historic increase or are we just
going back to the 1980s when we had more mills? Are we just trying to make up for lost markets, or
does it push it too far, and would homeowners start paying more for firewood? As a layperson, I’m
trying to evaluate what this means.
Ehrhard Frost: It’s a doubling roughly of what’s coming out now (Others around the table offered it
may be more like 30 percent)
Stacy Brown: Generally, it’s believed plants have a 30-50 mile zone of harvesting, so impacts in those
areas could be more concentrated.
Jamey Fidel: (Back to the report.) In the section of the report that addresses forest health, there are
proposed forest guidelines for woody retention for all harvesting. That’s one way the group is trying
to address forest health. There was a discussion on voluntary versus mandatory guidelines.
Sandy Wilmot: On page 24, A-1 of the report (recommended guidelines) it implies that you only have
to implement AMPs in certain cases. Suggest removing the words “as necessary.”
Jamey Fidel: In regards to forest health, the BioE Group thinks there should be a model procurement
standard that would even the playing field for new facilities, potentially including pellet, electricity,
and thermal application. Where to draw the line needs to be determined.
Jamey read through the questions and answers related to procurement standards and the issues that
are still left to be addressed, including the interplay with a state energy plan, carbon accounting,
siting, and monitoring, etc.
Jamey: We need your feedback.
Ann Ingerson: How would the state go about prioritizing uses – first come first serve? Would there be
any way to tell Pownal and Fairhaven folks, “we have to save the wood for x use?” Is this type of
rationing a legitimate state policy? How does the state prioritize? Is there a mechanism for
prioritization?
Jamey Fidel: This could be answered in the context of a statewide energy plan. Another potential
option is the legislature may be asked to impose a moratorium on biomass plants. This was
mentioned at the public hearing. Rather than giving you a specific answer now, though, the best
thing we can do is collect your input for discussion at the next Bio-E Group meeting.
Eric Sorenson: I like idea of having some standards. The voluntary guidelines mostly address retaining
woody biomass. Certain specific items aren’t covered in the guidelines: sensitive wildlife habitats,
rare species, and rare and natural communities are not covered. And I think the state has to think
about how to deal with connectivity, not just deer yards. According to the current review through
the procurement standards, we just look at deer yards and threatened and endangered species.
Broader standards may be a more efficient way to deal with that.
Ehrhard Frost: The question is, who will enforce these standards?
Jim Shallow: Is there some way to compensate the state for the cost of sending the wildlife biologist
to look at the site. Should there be a fund to support that?
Marta Ceroni: Need to address ecosystem services, hydrological, etc. and the economics and
feasibility of conserving ecosystem services. Landowners do not see this as an economic
opportunity.
Bob Perschel: Regarding the efficiency question it matters what question you ask in the first place. If
your goal is to address climate change, then an across the board 50% efficiency standard makes
sense. If your goal is to create jobs, than a lower efficiency standard would be more helpful.
Regarding site considerations, the Forest Guild model harvesting guidelines looks at addressing Eric
Sorenson’s concerns by including more specifics on sensitive areas, etc.
BMPs are followed approximately 80% of the time – is this good enough? Biomass guidelines will
not be required by a law like the Clean Water Act, which has a relationship to some of the
implementation of voluntary guidelines for water quality.
Jeff Smith: Need to consider economic impact. Is the material going to be worth enough so that the
loggers and foresters can ensure that the standards are met? When there is plenty of money, people
can take time to be sure standards are met. But today there is marginal profit. It’s going to be
important that this chip or roundwood has enough value so you can achieve all the things in woods
you want to achieve.
Leo Laferriere: We need to keep this in mind that biomass projects will be mostly driven by the
private sector. Stability will be critical for investors. They will be sensitive to that. Investor is going
to look for level playing field with respect to regulation.
Hervey Scudder: The best possible use for biomass is in thermal application. I sit on the VT System
Planning Committee. We are talking about biomass – thermal application is the area where it’s most
efficient. For us to look at biomass in our own silo without integrating it into the whole business of
delivering thermal energy will defeat our effectiveness. If we expect to build a strong biomass
industry, we may have to put a floor on the price for fossil fuels. If natural gas prices are set at a low
price, biomass will have challenges. There is talk of Vermont Gas moving into Middlebury. The
Marcellus Shale gas potential is going to be a big factor. We have allowed ourselves to be come too
dependent on national energy policies. Electricity has a model of regional integration already; but to
think that biomass is unique on its own takes it out of context.
Put Blodgett: Biofuel (ethanol) research shows that a lot of energy goes in per unit of energy coming
out. Is there a net gain? What about biomass, pellets? Do we know if it is energy efficient?
Stacy Brown: I support the approach of having a model procurement standard. Do we know what
other states have looked at as far as procurement standards? We need regional coordination. Is this
feasible?
Steve Sinclair: NEFA as a regional group is conducting a literature research and will examine if there is
an opportunity to come up with consensus for a baseline procurement standard. I wouldn’t hold
your breath. To come up with regional standards will be a monumental task.
Bob Perschel: Coming up with a regional standard is a possibility, but it will be tough. From our
understanding (Forest Guild), states across the region are not that far off, even though targets may
be hard to agree upon. Need to demonstrate that guidelines can be implemented. We have a grant to
demonstrate and promote the Forest Guild Northeast guidelines, published in June. We will take
them into the field and measure their success. We need to demonstrate they can be done. I hope
that as we move through that process, we will be helpful in your process Jamey. No reason why each
of the states in the region can’t adopt guidelines.
Steve Sinclair: Any idea of who would enforce or monitor?
Ehrhard Frost: Ryegate and Burlington are charged with having foresters on staff to ensure
compliance. Maybe there is a fund that is set aside for enforcement and monitoring.
Leo Laferriere: Private sector will have to factor that into the cost of doing business. That could tilt
the table. We also need to factor in pubic money, in the form of tax incentives, and the continuance
or discontinuance of those incentives.
Stacy Brown: If there were standards, it could expedite permitting. It could also open more supply
because landowners who are uncertain about the effects of the harvesting on their land would be
more comfortable knowing there are standards being applied.
Jamey: Thanked the Roundtable participants for their input. Please send any additional comments to
Chris Bray and the BioE Group.
Jamey: Suggestions for possible topics for next meeting?
Current Use update; Report back on the Final Interim Bio-E report; Status report on Landowner
Summit; what is the plan for slowing forestland conversion; Invite new agency
heads/commissioners. AMPs.
Group decided February likely for next meeting.
Tomorrow is the Working Lands Summit in the State House.