Forestry in the Next Farm Bill

Congressional research reportJan 12, 2012

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

name redacted

Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

January 12, 2012

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R41213

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Forestry in the Next Farm Bill

Summary

Forest management generally, as well as forest research and forestry assistance, have long been

within the jurisdictions of the Agriculture Committees. Although most forestry programs are

permanently authorized, forestry has usually been addressed in the periodic farm bills to

reauthorize many agriculture programs. The 2008 farm bill (the Food, Conservation, and Energy

Act of 2008, P.L. 110-246) contained a separate forestry title, with provisions establishing

national priorities for forestry assistance; requiring statewide forest assessments and strategies;

providing competitive funding for certain programs; creating new programs for open space

conservation and for emergency reforestation; reauthorizing four existing programs; and

prohibiting imports of illegally logged wood products, among other provisions. Forestry

provisions were included in other titles as well—the conservation title revised the definition of

conservation actions to include forestry activities for almost all conservation programs; the trade

title required special reporting on softwood lumber imports; the energy title established two

woody biomass energy programs; and the tax title included three provisions altering tax

treatments for forests and landowners.

Additional forestry issues have been suggested by various interests for inclusion in the next farm

bill. Funding is likely to play a central role in the overall farm bill debate. While forestry was

included for almost all agriculture conservation programs in the 2008 farm bill, the previous sole

forest-specific assistance program was not reauthorized. Whether reauthorization of these

programs is necessary or whether additional funds are needed to assist landowners in

implementing sustainable forestry practices are issues for debate. Protecting communities from

wildfire continues to be a priority for some, while controlling invasive species that threaten native

forests is a priority for others. Congress could address programs for these purposes in the next

farm bill. Also, use of woody biomass for renewable energy could be combined with wildfire

protection and invasive species control, and the next farm bill could extend, expand, alter, or add

to the woody biomass energy programs created in the 2008 farm bill and in other legislation.

Ecosystem services—forest values that have not traditionally been sold in markets, such as clean

air and water, wildlife habitats, and scenic beauty—were addressed in the 2008 farm bill, and

Congress could extend, expand, alter, or terminate the existing ecosystem services program.

Protocols—or a direction to establish protocols—for measuring, monitoring, and verifying forest

carbon sequestration projects, which might qualify as offsets under existing or proposed

regulatory schemes (e.g., regional programs or a national cap-and-trade system) or in voluntary

carbon markets, could also be included in the farm bill. Finally, assisting forest-dependent

communities in diversifying their economies has also been debated.

Congressional Research Service

Forestry in the Next Farm Bill

Contents

Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Possible Forestry Issues for a Future Farm Bill ............................................................................... 2

Forestry Assistance Funding...................................................................................................... 3

Control of Invasive Species ....................................................................................................... 3

Improved Wildfire Protection .................................................................................................... 4

Energy Production from Woody Biomass ................................................................................. 4

Markets for Ecosystem Services................................................................................................ 5

Carbon Sequestration Projects ................................................................................................... 5

Diversified Economies .............................................................................................................. 6

Contacts

Author Contact Information............................................................................................................. 6

Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................... 7

Congressional Research Service

Forestry in the Next Farm Bill

ederal forestry historically has been associated with agriculture, and with agriculture

legislation. Forestry programs have been addressed in past farm bills and other agriculture

legislation. This report provides brief background on the House and Senate Agriculture

Committees’ jurisdiction over forestry, with examples of bills addressed by the committees. It

then presents information on some forestry issues that have been debated and might be discussed

during consideration of the next farm bill.1

Background

Both the House and Senate Committees on Agriculture have jurisdiction over “forestry in

general” and acquired national forests.2 Thus, the committees have been able to exert

considerable influence over federal forestry activities over the years. For example, the Forest and

Rangelands Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-378; 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600-1614)

and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-588), which guide U.S. Forest Service

(USFS) planning and management, were both initially referred to the Agriculture Committees.

More recently, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148; 16 U.S.C. §§ 65016591) was referred to and reported by the Agriculture Committees.

In addition to general forestry for national forests, the Agriculture Committees have jurisdiction

over forestry research and forestry assistance to states and to private landowners.3 Forestry

research is governed largely by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of

1978 (P.L. 95-307; 16 U.S.C. §§ 1641-1647), which revised and updated the McSweeneyMcNary Act of 1928. Forestry assistance is governed largely by the Cooperative Forestry

Assistance Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-313; 16 U.S.C. §§ 2101-2111), which revised and updated the

Clarke-McNary Act of 1924.4 Both laws were referred to and reported by the Agriculture

Committees.

Recent farm bills have also included forestry provisions, primarily addressing the forestry

assistance programs. The first to contain a separate forestry title was the 1990 farm bill (the Food,

Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, P.L. 101-624), which:

•

created four new forestry assistance programs;

•

revised two existing forestry assistance programs;

•

amended two forestry assistance programs;

•

revised the administrative provisions for forestry assistance;

•

created five special forestry research programs;

Many programs from the 2008 farm bill expire at the end of FY2012. For general information on the next farm bill,

see CRS Report RS22131, What Is the “Farm Bill”?, by (name redacted) and (name redacted)

Jurisdiction over national forests established from the public domain lies with the House Natural Resources

Committee and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. See each committee’s website for details on its

jurisdiction.

These three programs—forest management, forestry research, and forestry assistance—have traditionally been the

three principal branches of USDA’s Forest Service.

For more information on these programs, see CRS Report RL31065, Forestry Assistance Programs, by (name re

dacted).

Congressional Research Service

Forestry in the Next Farm Bill

•

amended three existing forestry research programs;

•

authorized a private, nonprofit tree planting foundation; and

•

created a new USFS branch: international forestry.

The 1996 farm bill (the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, P.L. 104-127)

included only a few forestry provisions, extending the authorization for the one expiring

assistance program and adding a new funding option within an existing program.

The 2002 farm bill (the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, P.L. 107-171) contained

a separate forestry title. The conference could not resolve many of the differences between the

House and Senate forestry provisions, and thus the conference report contained fewer provisions

than either. (Some of the disputed provisions were enacted one year later in the Healthy Forests

Restoration Act, P.L. 108-148.)

The 2008 farm bill (the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-246) included a

forestry title and several forestry provisions in other titles. The forestry title:

•

established national priorities for private forest management and assistance;

•

required statewide forest assessments and strategies for assistance;

•

provided for competitive funding for certain programs;

•

created new programs for open space conservation and for emergency

reforestation;

•

established a USFS tribal relations program for cultural and heritage cooperation

and a competitive grants program for Hispanic-serving institutions;

•

reauthorized four existing programs;

•

amended the Lacey Act Amendments to prohibit imports of illegally logged

wood products; and

•

modified three national forest boundaries and certain timber contract provisions.

In addition, the 2008 farm bill conservation title revised the definition of conservation actions to

include forestry activities for all conservation programs. The statute required special reporting on

softwood lumber imports, to assure implementation of the 2006 U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber

Agreement. Three provisions altered tax treatments for forests and landowners. Finally, the

energy title of the 2008 farm bill included two new woody biomass energy programs.

Possible Forestry Issues for a Future Farm Bill

Reauthorization of the many agriculture programs is a major reason for the periodic farm bills,

but most forestry programs are permanently authorized. This may reduce the pressure to include a

forestry title in a future farm bill. Nonetheless, interest groups have raised various forestry issues

other than the authorization levels for possible discussion within a farm bill. Possible issues

include funding forestry assistance programs; controlling invasive species; increasing wildfire

protection; producing energy from woody biomass; marketing ecosystem services; supporting

carbon sequestration projects; and diversifying local economies.

Congressional Research Service

Forestry in the Next Farm Bill

Forestry Assistance Funding

Federal funding for forestry assistance programs has generally been rising, but the increase has

not been spread equally among the various programs.5 Funding has risen for cooperative fire

programs (assistance to states and volunteer fire departments) and for Forest Legacy (acquisition

of lands or easements on lands threatened with conversion to non-forest uses). In contrast, the

Economic Action Program (economic assistance to rural, forest-dependent communities) has been

proposed for termination, having fallen from peak funding of $54 million in FY2001 to $5

million or less since FY2008, with no funds in FY2012 (see the “Diversified Economies” section,

below, for more information).

Funding for private landowner assistance programs has been a concern for many. These programs

provided cost-shares to qualified landowners for forestry practices to increase tree growth,

improve wildlife habitat, protect watersheds (thus improving water quality), and more. One of the

changes enacted in the 2002 farm bill was to replace two programs—the Forestry Incentives

Program (FIP) and the Stewardship Incentives Program (SIP)—with the Forest Land

Enhancement Program (FLEP). Because funding for FIP and SIP had been discretionary and

either stagnant (FIP) or absent (SIP), FLEP was given mandatory funding through the

Commodity Credit Corporation of $100 million total through the end of FY2007. However, some

FLEP funds were “borrowed” (temporarily transferred to another account) to pay for firefighting

and were not repaid, and other funding was cancelled; in total, about half of the $100 million

“guaranteed” for FLEP was actually spent on landowner assistance. FLEP was not reauthorized in

the 2008 farm bill, but Congress might revisit the issue of separate funding for forest landowner

assistance programs in the next farm bill. However, some question whether a modest forestryspecific assistance program is needed, since a small share of the much larger conservation

programs might provide more forestry assistance funding. Most farm bill conservation programs

are authorized to receive mandatory funding, which some view as a more consistent annual

funding source compared to discretionary programs funded in the annual appropriations process.

The 2008 farm bill included forestry as an accepted practice for almost all agriculture

conservation programs.6

Control of Invasive Species

Invasive species—non-native plants and animals that are displacing native ones—are becoming

recognized as a substantial problem.7 According to the USFS National Strategy and

Implementation Plan for Invasive Species Management, invasive species as one of the four major

threats to the nation’s forests and rangelands.8 The USFS Forest Health Management Program has

evolved from a mechanism to survey and control insects and diseases to a program to address all

forest pests, including invasive species. Programs to address rapidly developing problems of

Funding for USFS programs, including forestry assistance, is contained in the annual Interior, Environment, and

Related Agencies appropriations acts.

See CRS Report R42093, Agricultural Conservation and the Next Farm Bill, by (name redacted).

See CRS Report RL30123, Invasive Non-Native Species: Background and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted) et

al.

The other three identified threats are fire and fuels, unmanaged recreation, and loss of open space. See

http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/four-threats and U.S. Forest Service, National Strategy and Implementation Plan for

Invasive Species Management, FS-805, Washington, DC, October 2004, http://www.fs.fed.us/invasivespecies/

documents/Final_National_Strategy_100804.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Forestry in the Next Farm Bill

invasive species have been proposed, but not enacted or funded. In its deliberations over a future

farm bill, Congress could address the structure and financing of programs to prevent and control

invasive species in federal, state, and private forests. Congress could also choose, implicitly or

explicitly, to have the agencies address invasive species through existing programs.

Improved Wildfire Protection

The threat of wildfire damages to resources and property seems to have increased in recent years.

Attention has focused on high biomass fuel levels (particularly in federal forests) and on homes in

or near at-risk forests, an area known as the wildland-urban interface.9 The 2002 farm bill

(§ 8003) created a new Community and Private Land Fire Assistance Program to assist

communities and private landowners in planning and other activities to protect themselves from

wildfires. The program was authorized at $35 million annually through FY2007 and “such sums

as are necessary ... thereafter.” The USFS has included such expenditures as authorized activities

in its State Fire Assistance Program. However, Congress has not appropriated funds explicitly for

this program.

Despite being a state and not a federal responsibility, protecting private lands and structures from

wildfires continues to garner congressional attention, as the threat of wildfire persists. Whether

and how to assist private landowners and communities, to combine this assistance with other

assistance and incentive programs, and to fund such assistance could be debated in the farm bill

context or in other legislative settings, such as the annual appropriations bills, or not at all.

Energy Production from Woody Biomass

Interest in producing energy from woody biomass and other renewable sources derives from both

demand and supply interests. Demand is driven by the need to produce renewable transportation

fuels, such as ethanol, to meet the renewable fuel standard;10 by state requirements, and possible

federal standards, for electricity production from renewable sources;11 and by the general interest

in, and possible legislation for, reducing greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., cap-and-trade

legislation). Supply interests are driven by concerns over hazardous wildlife fuels and invasive

species—the removal of both provides biomass that could be converted into renewable energy

rather than disposed of in ways that contribute their carbon to the atmosphere.

Numerous programs exist to induce or assist energy production from biomass. Some were created

in the 2008 farm bill,12 including two directed specifically at woody biomass. Others have been

created under authorities such as § 210 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and § 203

of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148). Concerns over these programs

See CRS Report RS21880, Wildfire Protection in the Wildland-Urban Interface, by (name redacted).

See CRS Report R40155, Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): Overview and Issues, by (name redacted) and (name red

acted); and CRS Report R41106,

Meeting the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Mandate for Cellulosic Biofuels:

Questions and Answers, by (name redacted).

See CRS Report R40565, Biomass Resources: The Southeastern United States and the Renewable Electricity

Standard Debate, by (name redacted); and CRS Report RL33812,

Climate Change: Action by States to Address

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, by (name redacted).

See CRS Report R41985, Renewable Energy Programs and the Farm Bill: Status and Issues, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Forestry in the Next Farm Bill

include duplication and inconsistencies among authorities, definitions, and efforts;13 and the

potential diversion of wood waste from existing markets (e.g., for pulp and paper, particleboard,

and other products that use wood fiber) to energy production, rather than increasing sustainable

and beneficial removals of biomass from the forests. Congress might examine and modify

existing programs to be more consistent and efficient in encouraging sustainable and beneficial

use of biomass to produce renewable energy. Some, concerned about incentives or “subsidies” for

renewable energy, might seek to constrain or terminate programs that could shift biomass from

current beneficial uses to energy production.

Markets for Ecosystem Services

Forests provide a broad array of environmental services—clean air and water, wildlife habitats,

pleasant scenery, and more—for which private landowners are generally not compensated,

because these services are typically not bought and sold in a marketplace. A variety of interests

have examined the possibility of finding ways to compensate landowners for continuing to

provide ecosystem services. One means would be to develop such markets, and the 2008 farm bill

included a provision (§ 2709) to facilitate this development.14 A new farm bill might extend,

expand, alter, or terminate the 2008 provision. Alternatively, some propose federal “green

payments” to directly reward farmers and other landowners who provide environmental benefits

through their land management practices. Others suggest that farmers should simply be required

to provide such public benefits, while still others assert that the environmental benefits farmland

can provide are too modest to warrant compensation. Green payments or market development for

forest and other landowners’ ecosystem services might be discussed in Congress’s deliberations

on a future farm bill.

Carbon Sequestration Projects

The potential for forest landowners to sell the carbon sequestered by their forests and forestry

projects has attracted substantial attention. While voluntary markets for forest carbon projects

exist, they are relatively small and carbon prices are quite low.15 Legislation to establish a

domestic cap-and-trade system to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases

was introduced and debated in the 111th Congress, but no similar action has been taken in the

112th Congress. Most of these legislative proposals exclude agriculture and forestry from the

regulated sectors required to reduce emissions, and allow those regulated sectors to buy carbon

sequestered by offset projects in the unregulated agriculture and forestry sectors.16 This could

significantly expand carbon markets and raise carbon prices for forest carbon sequestration

activities.

See, for example, CRS Report R40529, Biomass: Comparison of Definitions in Legislation Through the 111th

Congress, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

See CRS Report RL34042, Provisions Supporting Ecosystem Services Markets in U.S. Farm Bill Legislation, by

(name redacted).

See CRS Report RL34560, Forest Carbon Markets: Potential and Drawbacks, by (name redacted) and (name redact

ed).

See CRS Report R40994, Agriculture and Forestry Provisions in Climate Legislation in the 111th Congress, by

(name redacted); and CRS Report R40236,Estimates of Carbon Mitigation Potential from Agricultural and Forestry

Activities, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Forestry in the Next Farm Bill

There are various concerns about the nature and structure of carbon offsets. Some relate to carbon

markets generally—concerns about additionality (ensuring that projects go beyond business-asusual), verification (proof that carbon is sequestered), and more. Such concerns have particular

implications for forestry. For example, projects need to be additional—beyond legal requirements

and business as usual—to qualify as offsets; thus reforestation following timber harvests, in states

that require reforestation, would not qualify as a carbon offset. Verification—measuring and

monitoring carbon sequestration—can be a particular challenge for forestry.17 In addition, some

interests are concerned about the potential impacts of significant carbon markets for farmers and

landowners.18 These several concerns, as well as the possibly substantial benefits, might lead

Congress to consider the nature and structure of carbon offsets in a future farm bill. Alternatively,

Congress might choose to address provisions and protocols for agriculture and forestry carbon

offsets in other legislative vehicles or not at all.

Diversified Economies

The economies of many rural communities have evolved around the use—finding, extracting,

processing, and selling—of natural resources. In some of these areas, one resource (e.g., timber,

minerals, livestock) has traditionally dominated the local economy, and the economies of such

areas can be devastated when that resource is depleted or when its markets are depressed

(permanently or even temporarily). Many communities have sought approaches to diversifying

their economies, to mitigate the economic and social disruption that can occur when a dominant

economic sector is depressed. The National Forest-Dependent Rural Communities Economic

Diversification Act of 1990 was enacted in §§ 2372-2379 of the 1990 farm bill to authorize

forestry and economic diversification technical assistance to “economically disadvantaged” rural

communities. Funding for such assistance, provided under the Economic Action Program, rose

from $14 million in FY1996 to $54 million in FY2001, but has declined since, and has been

proposed to be terminated in several budget requests from the Bush and Obama Administrations.

In its future farm bill deliberations, Congress might consider whether and how to perpetuate

economic assistance programs for traditional wood products-dependent communities, either as a

continued USFS program or as part of other USDA rural assistance programs,19 or whether to

terminate forestry-related economic assistance programs.

Author Contact Information

(name redacted)

Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

See CRS Report RS22964, Measuring and Monitoring Carbon in the Agricultural and Forestry Sectors, by (name re

dacted) and (name redacted).

See CRS Report R41086, Potential Implications of a Carbon Offset Program to Farmers and Landowners, by (name

redacted) et al.

See CRS Report RL31837, An Overview of USDA Rural Development Programs, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Forestry in the Next Farm Bill

Acknowledgments

This report was originally written by Ross Gorte, retired CRS Specialist in Natural Resources Policy.

Congressional Research Service

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.