![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.5in" height="0.9791666666666666in"}

**FORESTRY TITLE**

***Background***

The 1990 farm bill was the first that included a Forestry Title, which
amended the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (CFAA) and
authorized a number of programs intended to address private forest
issues. Not all private forestry programs are dependent upon the farm
bill, and many authorities from previous farm bills are permanent.
Public comments addressed general forestry issues as well as specific
forestry-related farm bill programs.

[Forest Stewardship Program]{.underline}

The Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) was established in the 1990 farm
bill, and provides technical assistance, through State forestry agency
partners, to nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) owners to encourage
active forest management. A primary focus is the development of
comprehensive, multi-resource management plans that help landowners
manage their forests for a variety of products and services. The FSP is
active in 50 States and 6 Territories. Since 1990, the program has
funded more than 225,000 management plans encompassing approximately 25
million acres of NIPF land. This program is the primary vehicle, within
the Forest Service, to provide technical assistance to private forest
landowners. Funding is provided through the annual Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

[Forest Land Enhancement Program]{.underline}

The Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP) was established in the 2002
farm bill to encourage long-term sustainability of nonindustrial private
forests. FLEP replaced the Stewardship Incentives Program and the
Forestry Incentives Program, both of which were repealed by the 2002
farm bill. FLEP provides technical, educational, and cost-share
assistance to promote sustainability of nonindustrial private forests.
FLEP is scheduled to expire in 2007. This program currently is the
primary vehicle, within the Forest Service, to provide cost-share
assistance to private forest landowners.

[Forest Legacy Program and Loss of Forest Land]{.underline}

Ten million acres of private/non-Federal forest land were converted to
development from 1982 to 1997. An estimated 44.2 million acres of
private forests could become available for development between 2000 and
2030. The Forest Legacy Program (FLP) was established in the 1990 farm
bill to help maintain highly important forest areas threatened by
development or other non-forest uses. The focus is on working
forests---those that provide forest products, water, fish and wildlife
habitat, and recreational opportunities. Lands are protected through
conservation easements and fee-simple purchase. The program operates on
the principle of "willing buyer, willing seller." Currently, 46 States
and Territories are in the program, with 4 more in the planning stage.
Since fiscal year 1992, FLP has conserved over 1.1 million acres across
33 States and Territories. This program is the primary vehicle, within
the Forest Service, for addressing loss of forest land. Funding is
provided through the Land and Water Conservation Fund in the annual
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

[Urban and Community Forestry Program]{.underline} (U&CF)

The authority for State Foresters to provide financial and technical
assistance in urban and community forestry is granted in the CFAA. The
CFAA also authorizes the Forest Service to \"conduct, support, and
cooperate\" in research in rural, suburban, and urban areas through
Section 9 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act
of 1974. The UCF establishes self-supporting programs in cities,
suburbs, and towns that can manage the local urban forest resource
through four key program measures: management plans, professional
staffing, ordinances and policies, and advisory organizations. Funding
is provided through the annual Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act.

[Economic Development]{.underline}

The Forest Service helps spur economic development through a wide range
of activities on National Forest System lands, such as recreation and
timber sales, and the agency's utilization of small businesses in local
communities. In addition, the Forest Service has utilized the Economic
Action Programs as authorized by the 1990 farm bill to help rural
communities strengthen and diversify their economies, including over 800
rural communities that have completed community strategic plans aimed at
building skills to address social, environmental, and economic
challenges.

[National Forest System]{.underline}

The national forests are managed for multiple uses as directed by
numerous statutes. These uses include timber, outdoor recreation, range,
watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes.

[Markets for Ecosystem Services]{.underline}

Private-sector markets for environmental goods and services, such as
water purification, erosion control, carbon sequestration or storage,
and wildlife habitat and diversity, are emerging. The Secretary has
established a USDA Market-Based Environmental Stewardship Coordination
Working Group to explore the role of voluntary, market-based mechanisms
in agriculture and forestry, including trading schemes, offset payments,
and private investment.

***General Opinions***

-   Many expressed the need to continue a separate farm bill title for
    forestry-specific programs.

-   Many commenters described the ability of family forests to provide
    social, economic, and ecological benefits, and marketable forest
    products to our economy and the world. Some suggested that in many
    places forestry outweighs agriculture in economic value and said
    that the best thing USDA should do for conservation is to keep
    forests profitable.

-   Some indicated that support for sustainable forestry, through the
    Forestry Title of the farm bill, is important to our national
    economy, global competitiveness, and the maintenance of healthy
    forests and watersheds. Assistance should be provided to family
    forest owners to encourage active management and keep family forest
    lands intact.

-   A few commenters said that timber should be recognized and treated
    as an agricultural commodity, and that both research and timber
    production should be encouraged and that this is not conflicting
    with conservation.

-   Many said that farm bill reauthorization should increase the
    attention and funding levels for forest land and family forest land
    owners.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Some said that forests are an important part of many family
    farms---and that keeping these forests intact and healthy, with a
    balance of farm and forest land, should be a priority of the farm
    bill.

-   Many stated that forest land owners have benefited least from
    distribution of farm program benefits while forest lands provide
    more environmental benefits enjoyed by the general public than any
    other land use. Forestry programs should be delivered by the Forest
    Service, rather than NRCS or other agriculture-focused agencies.

-   A few commenters said that monitoring and evaluation should be
    incorporated into program implementation.

-   Some requested that the farm bill prioritize conservation funding to
    key forested areas and increase funding for programs that benefit
    biological diversity. Do not use a first-come, first-served
    approach. A few suggested that prioritization should happen at a
    State, regional, or local level.

-   A few suggested that a landscape approach be used with forest land
    assistance programs.

-   A few desired integration/coordination among existing, overlapping
    assistance programs.

-   Some would like the farm bill to provide support to help farmers and
    landowners invest in agroforestry (combining agriculture and
    forestry technologies to create more productive, profitable,
    healthy, and sustainable land-use systems).

-   Some supported development and protection of nontimber forest
    products such as medicinal herbs, mushrooms, and pine straw.

-   A few requested expanding cost-share eligibility for key farm bill
    programs that are now only available for forest land that is
    incidental to traditional-agriculture lands.

-   Many said that more than 1 percent of the farm bill funding should
    go to family forest issues, while a few stated that the farm bill
    must include a Forestry Title that should at least double current
    program funds and ensure that these programs receive adequate
    attention.

-   Some supported introducing timber and fiber production to young
    people.

-   A few recommended promoting certified wood products and providing
    cost-share incentives to participate in sustainable forest
    certification programs.

-   Many stated that there is a need for increased incentives and tax
    credits for management of land to control invasive species and favor
    native species.

-   The cooperation between and contributions from the Forest Service
    (FS), Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service
    (CSREES), and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) were
    noted several times.

[Forest Stewardship Program]{.underline}

-   Many stated that the technical assistance provided to family forest
    owners from FSP is important to the future conservation and
    management of our Nation's forests.

-   Many recommended that FSP should be revitalized and funded at a
    higher level.

-   A few indicated that over 10 million family forest owners require
    educational, technical, and financial assistance to achieve and
    maintain healthy functioning forests. The farm bill should continue
    to fund programs that provide these services to family forest
    owners.

-   Some noted that State forestry agencies are the lead in working with
    private forest landowners and municipalities to maintain our forest
    lands---and they require funding through programs like FSP to
    maintain their presence.

[Forest Land Enhancement Program]{.underline}

-   Many stated that FLEP is the only cost-share program currently
    targeted to assist family forest owners. All others were developed
    to assist farmers and ranchers; Environmental Quality Incentives
    Program (EQIP) and Water Quality Incentives Program (WQIP) do not
    work well for forest landowners.

-   Many stated that FLEP should be reauthorized in the 2007 farm bill
    and should be funded through the Forest Service.

-   Many suggested that the farm bill needs to include viable cost-share
    incentives for private forest land management to generate societal
    benefits through a full suite of ecosystem services.

-   Many said that past farm bills have not adequately recognized the
    importance of family forest owners to national resource management
    and conservation objectives.

-   There is a general indication that many private forest owners cannot
    afford to manage their land without cost-share assistance.

-   A few suggested that FLEP can address wildland fire and insect and
    disease occurrence in the Nation's forests, and can be tailored to
    States' needs.

-   Some indicated that with adequate funding, FLEP is good for the
    environment and the economy and allows landowners to improve their
    timber, but when it is underfunded, the program is a failure and
    will lead to increased development pressure.

-   A few requested that FLEP funds not be diverted to other uses such
    as fire.

[Forest Legacy Program and Loss of Forest Land]{.underline}

-   Many stated that private forest land owners face increasing
    development pressures (some explicitly cited the Forest Service
    "Forests on the Edge" publication) and a global forest products
    industry, making the management of forests difficult as a long-term
    stewardship commitment. The 2007 farm bill should address these
    problems with programs and tax incentives through the USDA Forest
    Service.

-   Many commented that FLP is an effective tool to help States conserve
    private forests; it has been instrumental in addressing development
    pressures on family-owned forests.

-   Many requested an increase in program funding to better address the
    demand for long-term easement programs on working lands such as FLP.

-   Some felt that the farm bill should fund conservation programs like
    FLP and the proposed Suburban and Community Forestry and Open Space
    Program to help communities and other qualified nongovernmental
    organizations acquire and manage community and municipal forest
    lands to meet public needs.

-   Some suggested that FLP might be useful in the creation of markets
    for ecosystem services as it could provide long-term assurance of
    protection of enrolled lands to those investing.

-   A few stated that FLP could be adapted to address a variety of land
    conservation needs, such as protection of smaller parcels of private
    forest land around rapidly developing urban centers or protection of
    larger parcels of private forest in more remote settings.

-   A few suggested that FLP be authorized at \$300 million to cover
    existing demand.

[Urban and Community Forestry Program]{.underline}

-   General support was expressed for technical assistance for urban
    forests. The U&CF Program deserves continued/enhanced investment; it
    is essential to many local programs and funding should be available
    to smaller communities.

-   General support was expressed for community forests as an important
    component of urban areas. Urban tree cover improves air and water
    quality, reduces heating and cooling costs, provides better quality
    of life, and promotes greater public interest and commitment to
    natural resource stewardship. Urban tree cover needs to be
    maintained and expanded with sustained Federal funding. A higher
    quality of life in urban areas will decrease development pressure.

-   Some stated that U&CF is one of the Forest Service's best programs
    because it reaches the grassroots, has a dedicated research
    component, and leverages substantial non-federal investment through
    a match.

-   Some stated that State forest agencies require continued funding
    through the U&CF Program.

-   Some requested more research on issues pertaining to urban forests,
    including successfully raising trees in urban areas and economic,
    environmental, and public health benefits of urban forests.

[Economic Development]{.underline}

-   Many expressed support for community-based forestry, which includes
    crops for floral, gourmet, and medical markets.

-   General support was given for continuation and expansion of Economic
    Action Programs as a means of providing assistance to
    forest-dependent rural communities to help them become
    self-sufficient.

-   Many felt that forestry is a critical component of many rural
    community economies and the farm bill should support retention and
    development of local forest-based business, small-scale sawmills in
    particular, so that forest products can be produced locally and
    efficiently and the land base can be restored.

-   A few suggested considering a forest industry capacity building
    program within the farm bill, using grants and tax incentives to
    stimulate mill retrofits and new manufacturing capacity for both
    sawlogs and small-diameter products.

-   Some recommended that the 2007 farm bill should authorize continued
    support and funding for the USDA Forest Service Forest Products
    Laboratory and the Technology Marketing Unit.

-   A few stated that the farm bill should support forestry cooperatives
    to assist communities with market development, production, and
    distribution.

[National Forest System]{.underline}

-   Some felt that the USDA Forest Service should be making better, more
    practical use of our national forests.

-   A few thought that the Forest Service should recognize that
    communities around national forest lands depend upon a steady and
    viable level of timber harvesting.

[Markets for Ecosystem Services]{.underline}

-   Many commenters noted that important public benefits, or ecosystem
    services, including wildlife habitat, water quality, recreation,
    open space, and carbon sequestration, are secured through the
    management of private forest lands. The farm bill should quantify
    the value of these environmental services.

-   Many stated that landowners are not able to provide ecosystem
    services (or restore their land) without assistance. They should be
    compensated for ecosystem services through financial incentives
    and/or tax incentives that offset the opportunity costs of forgoing
    development.

-   Some recommended that the farm bill shift from commodity-based
    subsidies to stewardship-based incentives and payments for the
    provision of environmental services.

-   Some supported creation of a market-based approach to conservation
    of family forests, allowing public and private investment.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A few said that farm policy should set standards for carbon
    sequestration.

***Detailed Suggestions***

-   Private forest lands should be monitored to protect our environment
    and to prevent poor harvesting practices that abound in our rural
    areas.

-   The 2007 farm bill should provide for a more equitable distribution
    of funds to benefit limited-resource ranchers, farmers, and family
    forest owners.

-   Use upcoming farm bill reauthorization to help conserve threatened
    forests and farmlands in the New York-New Jersey Highlands and to
    assist private landowners with stewardship of these lands.

-   The Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Farm
    Service Agency, and State Foresters need to coordinate and work
    together to address private forest land management needs and issues.

-   Research and extension across natural resource disciplines needs
    increased cooperation and partnership among the USDA research
    entities, universities and colleges, and other public and private
    sources.

-   Develop tiered incentives for forest landowners, so that the level
    of assistance increases with an increased level of restoration and
    sustainable management.

-   Support retention and enhancement of the Reforestation Nurseries and
    Genetic Resources program.

-   Support retention and enhancement of the Conservation Education
    program.

-   A program similar to stewardship contracting, but focused on private
    lands, would be beneficial.

-   Country-of-origin labels should be implemented as intended in the
    2002 farm bill and should be expanded to include forest products.

-   The 2007 farm bill should support the collaborative efforts of
    Federal, State, and private partners established to protect and
    enhance the high-quality native rainforest communities in Hawaii.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The 2007 farm bill should have a forest landowner cost-share program
    available that is also available for counties and local governments.

-   The 2007 farm bill should include funding for management in the
    longleaf pine habitat area, including prescribed fire.

-   The greatest unintended consequence of all forest subsidy policies
    and programs is sending the wrong message that intentional forest
    management is not worth investing in unless the Government helps to
    pay for it.

-   The 2007 farm bill should allow forest landowners to participate
    unilaterally in existing and developing carbon programs and be
    competitive in the world market. All forest lands should adhere to
    standards of certification such as the International Organization
    for Standardization (ISO) 14001, the Forest Stewardship Council, and
    the Sustainable Forestry Initiative.

-   Allow the tree farmer to cut his or her wood without restrictions
    but encourage the replanting and reforestation of the land.

-   Fund research for forest products to replace oil and other imports.

-   The farm bill should encourage working forests under sustainable
    management. "Marketing of forestry is not in step with the reality
    of environmental protection and resource production."

-   The farm bill should address both the cost-share and incentive needs
    of those already practicing forest management as well as the
    educational and technical assistance needs of those not currently
    managing their forest land.

-   Forest land is 25 percent of the land use and it should receive 25
    percent of the farm bill funding.

-   Develop workforce training and certification programs that focus on
    restoration and meet the needs of private forest lands.

-   Require that forest workers be paid prevailing wages by anyone
    receiving farm bill funds.

-   Support retention and enhancement of Cooperative Lands Forest Health
    Protection.

-   Assistance should be given to develop business plans (up to \$5,000)
    and then to help implement the plans. In turn, landowners should
    sell the development rights for a 10-year period, or permanently, at
    the discretion of the landowner.

-   Achieve greater conservation on private lands through the
    Conservation Title, not the Forestry Title.

-   Funding for forestry research has historically been left out of past
    farm bills.

[Forest Stewardship Program]{.underline}

-   Improve incentives for adaptive management of forest lands to
    promote natural processes and native ecosystems.

-   The FSP should place more emphasis on the private marketplace and
    investment in fiber crop and value-added product processing.

-   Many forest landowners need technical assistance more than they need
    financial assistance.

-   Continue to support the Spatial Analysis Project of FSP.

[Forest Land Enhancement Program]{.underline}

-   Direct the USDA Forest Service to expand enrollment efforts in FLEP
    to more accurately reflect need, priority, and geographical
    distribution.

-   Allow FLEP to provide cost-share for the legal, survey, and
    assessment costs of making donations or bargain sales of land or
    conservation easements for land protection.

[Forest Legacy Program and Loss of Forest Land]{.underline}

-   Conservation bonds are a form of low-interest loan that could help
    to reduce the cost of capital for communities that want to acquire
    forest lands. Legislation authorizing the use of such bonds has been
    proposed in Congress as well as at the State level.

-   Complete a study to explore conservation and environmental issues
    related to the sale, fragmentation, and conversion of private
    forests, particularly industrial forest lands.

[Urban and Community Forestry Program]{.underline}

-   U&CF should be funded at a total of \$62 million by 2010, with
    specific breakdowns identified by the commenter for four focus
    areas: technical and financial assistance to communities;
    catastrophic events; urban forest health inventory; and Urban Tree
    Canopy Enhancement focus projects. Funding should be increased for
    research and development on urban forests to \$24 million per year
    by 2015.

-   Increase funding for U&CF. "In Roanoke, 1 acre of steep land with
    tree cover removes 41 pounds of ozone from the air per year and it
    would cost \$781 each year to handle the storm water runoff if that
    acre of forest was destroyed."

-   The Forest Service, working with the universities, has made
    significant contributions to urban and community forestry.

-   Research urban forestry impacts on air and water quality, and model
    grants to community forestry programs on the CSREES-Sustainable
    Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program to unite multiple
    resources and include the talent of consulting foresters.

[Economic Development]{.underline}

-   The USDA Forest Service and the Pacific Basin Agricultural Research
    Center should work together on timber issues; they have had a
    history of performance in that area.

-   Make permanent the Interior appropriations language "Funds
    appropriated to the Forest Service shall be available for
    interactions with and providing technical assistance to rural
    communities for sustainable rural development purposes."

-   The farm bill should support tribes in their efforts to produce
    timber.

-   The Fuels for Schools projects are a good example of a successful
    program that utilizes renewable resources.

-   Support should be provided to nonprofit organizations to work on
    sustainable forestry and forest-based community economic
    development.

-   Discretionary funds should be provided at the State level for
    economic and marketing programs, instead of earmarks.

-   Farm bill discussions to promote the retention and sustainable
    management of forests should consider policies that enhance market
    opportunities, expand access to foreign and domestic markets, and
    explore innovations for developing marketplace potential for a wide
    range of multiple-use purposes.

[National Forest System]{.underline}

-   Government lands should be sold to reduce the national debt.

-   The Forest Service should be mandated to reclaim at least 50 percent
    of every burn over 100 acres.

-   "One of the best and most cost-effective tools that the Forest
    Service has in its arsenal in meeting the vegetation management
    challenges it faces is the permitted livestock grazing program. The
    collaborative and cooperative approach is being pioneered in the
    Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest through the Martin Basin rangeland
    project Environmental Impact Statement. Support this positive and
    collaborative approach to the administration of livestock grazing on
    National Forest System lands."

-   The EQIP pilot project on the Tonto National Forest should be
    expanded.

-   National forests require active and, in some cases, aggressive
    management to keep them healthy; adaptive grazing management is one
    important aspect of this management.

[Markets for Ecosystem Services]{.underline}

-   The U.S. Government, not the landowner, should get credit for
    increased carbon sequestration resulting from its programs.

-   Entering into the Kyoto Agreement and similar carbon sequestration
    markets would allow landowners to obtain carbon credits in existing
    markets by planting and managing trees.

-   Amend the Federal tax code to provide an income tax credit to
    "eligible landowners, certified by the U.S. Forest Service as
    managing their lands to the highest stewardship sustainable
    standards."

-   Development of markets for ecosystem services should address
    landscape-level management across ownership boundaries.