, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 1–12 | Cite as

The impact of tax and reforestation incentives on net returns from pocosin development for sil viculture

  • Leon E. Danielson
  • Rick A. Hamilton


Federal and state reforestation cost-share and income tax programs increase the economic incentives to grow timber, including production on pocosin wetlands that must be cleared and drained before planting. Elimination of the capital gains exclusion by the 1986 Tax Reform Act is estimated to reduce by 26 percent the rate of return to clearing and draining pocosin wetlands for timber production. The simulated loss of reforestation cost-share would reduce the rate of return by about 16 percent, while loss of investment tax credit and cost amortization tax incentives would reduce the rate of return by 20 percent. Removing all three programs simultaneously is estimated to reduce the rate of return by 48 percent. Several other factors influence the rate of return, including the amount of marketable timber on the tract at the time of clearing, the cost of ditching and draining, the productivity of the land, timber prices, and the marginal tax rate of the producer.

Key words

wetland pocosin forestry economic return 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Danielson, L. E. 1981. The rural real estate market in North Carolina. Economics Information Report No. EIR66. Department of Economics and Business, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  2. Danielson, L. E., L. K. Ganu, and R. E. Noffsinger. 1988. Economic incentives to clear and drain pocosin wetlands. p. 791–800. In W. L. Lyke and T. J. Hoban (eds.) Proceedings, Symposium on Coastal Water Resources, American Water Resources Association.Google Scholar
  3. Dolman, J. D. and S. W. Buol. 1967. A study of organic soils (Histosols) in the tidewater region of North Carolina. Technical Bulletin. No. 181. North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  4. Gunter, J. E. and H. L. Haney. 1984. Essentials of forestry investment analysis. Gunter-Haney Publishers, Oregon State University Bookstores, Corvalis, OR, USA.Google Scholar
  5. Hafley, W. L., W. D. Smith, and M. A. Buford. 1982. A new yield model for unthinned loblolly pine plantations. Technical Report No. 1. North Carolina State University Bio-economic Modeling Project, Southern Forest Research Center, Raleigh, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  6. Hamilton, R. A. and W. D. Eickhoff. 1981. Forestry. Tarheel Economist, Department of Economics and Business, North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Holley, D. L. 1979. DISCO: A microcomputer program to analyze forestry investments. School of Forest Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  8. Resbrudt, C. D. and P. V. Ellefson. 1983. An economic evaluation of the 1979 Forestry Incentives Program. Station Bulletin 550-1983. Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Richardson, C. J. 1983. Pocosins: Vanishing wastelands or valuable wetlands? Bioscience 33:626–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Row, C., F. H. Kaiser and J. Sessions. 1981. Discount rate for long-term Forest Service investments. Journal of Forestry 79:369–376.Google Scholar
  11. Schumacher, F. X. and T. S. Coile. 1960. Growth and yields of natural stands of southem pines. T. S. Coile, Inc., Durham, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Sharitz, R. R. and J. W. Gibbons. 1982. The ecology of southeastern shrub bogs (pocosins) and Carolina bays: a community profile. FWS/OBS-82/04, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services, Washington, D.C., USA.Google Scholar
  13. Siegel, W. C. 1984. How to report 1983 timber transactions on your federal income tax return. Forest Farmer. 43:14–15.Google Scholar
  14. Siegel, W. C. 1986. Implications of the 1986 Federal Tax Reform Act for forestry. Presented at the Economics, Policy and Law Working Group Session, Society of American Foresters Annual Convention, Birmingham, AL, USA.Google Scholar
  15. Sikes, R. 1973. Testimony. p. 4–14. In Hearings before Subcommittee on Forestry and Commercial Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives. May 21–24. Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  16. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Policy Analysis. 1988. The Impact of Federal Programs on Wetlands, Volume I: The Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain and the Prairie Pothole Region. A Report to Congress by the Secretary of the Interior. Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Wetland Scientists 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leon E. Danielson
    • 1
  • Rick A. Hamilton
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Economics and BusinessNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleigh
  2. 2.Extension Forest ResourcesNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleigh

Personalised recommendations