This report briefly describes the Agriculture committees' jurisdiction over forestry, with examples of legislation addressed by the committees. It concludes with a discussion of forestry issues likely to be addressed in the upcoming farm bill

Gorte, Ross W.

UNT Digital Library

1 Jurisdiction over national forests established from the public domain lies with the HouseCommittee on Resources and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of CongressCRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS WebOrder Code RS22329November 22, 2005Forestry in the Farm BillRoss W. GorteSpecialist in Natural Resource PolicyResources, Science, and Industry DivisionSummaryMany programs authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill (P.L. 107-171) will expire at theend of FY2007, and the House and Senate Agriculture Committees are likely to considerlegislation to reauthorize these programs.  General forestry legislation is within thejurisdiction of the Agriculture Committees, and past farm bills have included provisionsaddressing forestry, especially on private lands.  The next farm bill may also includeforestry provisions addressing various issues, such as funding for forestry programs,wildfire protection, invasive species control, economic diversity for forest-dependentcommunities, and markets for ecosystem services.  This report will be updated as eventswarrant.Forestry programs have been addressed in past farm bills and other agriculturelegislation.  The initial federal forestry funds were for a study of western forests in the1877 Agriculture appropriations act, and the Division of Forestry was established in theDepartment of Agriculture (USDA) in 1881.  In 1905, the forest reserves (in theDepartment of the Interior) were transferred to USDA, and a new agency — the ForestService (FS) was created.  Thus, federal forestry has historically been associated withagriculture, and with agriculture legislation.  This report briefly describes the AgricultureCommittees’ jurisdiction over forestry, with examples of legislation addressed by thecommittees.  It concludes with a discussion of forestry issues likely to be addressed in theupcoming farm bill.BackgroundBoth House and Senate Committees on Agriculture have jurisdiction over “forestryin general” and acquired national forests.1  Thus, the committees have been able to exertconsiderable influence over federal forestry activities over the years.  For example, theForest and Rangelands Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA; P.L. 93-378)and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA; P.L. 94-588), which guideForest Service planning and management, were both initially referred to the AgricultureCRS-22 These three programs — forest management, forestry research, and forestry assistance — havetraditionally been the three principal branches of the USDA Forest Service.3 For more information on these programs, see CRS Report RL31065, Forestry AssistancePrograms, by Ross W. Gorte.Committees.  More recently, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148)was referred to and reported by the Agriculture Committees.In addition to forestry on federal lands, the Agriculture Committees have jurisdictionover forestry research and forestry assistance to states and to private landowners.2Forestry research is governed largely by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable ResourcesResearch Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-307), which revised and updated the McSweeney-McNaryAct of 1928.  Forestry assistance is governed largely by the Cooperative ForestryAssistance Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-313), which revised and updated the Clarke-McNary Actof 1924.3  Both laws were referred to and reported by the Agriculture Committees.Recent farm bills have also included forestry provisions, primarily addressing theforestry assistance programs.  The 1990 Farm Bill (the Food, Agriculture, Conservation,and Trade Act of 1990, P.L. 101-624) contained a separate forestry title that:! 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;! amended three existing forestry research programs;! authorized a private, non-profit tree planting foundation; and! created a new FS 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 oneexpiring 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) also contained a separate forestry title.  The House-passed version contained severalprovisions.  The Senate-passed version modified most of these provisions (deleting one),and added more than a dozen additional provisions.  The conference could not resolvemany of the differences, and the conference agreement contained fewer provisions thaneither the House or Senate version.  (Some of the disputed provisions have been enactedsubsequently in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.)Issues for a Future Farm BillReauthorization of the many agriculture programs is a prime reason for the periodicfarm bills, but only two forestry programs have an expiring authority.  The authorizationsfor expenditures under the Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP) and for the Officeof International Forestry expire at the end of FY2007.  All other FS forest managementand planning, research, and assistance programs are permanently authorized, many at“such sums as are necessary.”  This may reduce the pressure to include a forestry title inCRS-34 FS programs have been funded in the annual Interior appropriations acts since 1955.the upcoming farm bill.  Nonetheless, various forestry issues may be raised, such as:funding; wildfire protection; invasive species; economic diversity; and markets for“ecosystem services” that have not traditionally been marketed.Funding.  Federal funding for forestry assistance programs has generally beenrising, but the increase has not been spread equally among the various programs.  Sincethe severe 2000 fire season and the development of the National Fire Plan, funding forcooperative fire programs (assistance to states and volunteer fire departments) has risensubstantially (more than triple pre-2000 funding), and remained at very high levels.Funding for Forest Legacy (acquisition of lands or easements on lands threatened withconversion to non-forest uses) has also risen substantially, from less than $4 million inFY1998 to $60 million or more annually since FY2001 (and a request of $100 million forFY2005).  In contrast, the Administration has proposed terminating funding for theEconomic Action Program (economic assistance to rural, forest-dependent communities),and funding has fallen from a peak of $54 million in FY2001 to less than $20 million inFY2005.The adequacy of funding for private landowner assistance programs has been ofconcern to many.  These programs provide cost-shares to qualified landowners for variousforestry practices that increase tree growth, improve wildlife habitat, protect watersheds(and thus improving water quality), etc.  One of the changes enacted in the 2002 Farm Billwas to replace two programs — the Forestry Incentives Program (FIP) and theStewardship Incentives Program (SIP) — with the new Forest Land EnhancementProgram (FLEP).  Because funding for FIP and SIP was discretionary and stagnant (FIP)or lacking (SIP), FLEP was given mandatory funding of $100 million total through theend of FY2007.  The promise of mandatory spending has, however, not been fulfilled.The FS released $20 million for FLEP in FY2003, and borrowed $50 million of the totalto pay for firefighting in the 2003 fire season.  The FY2004 Interior Appropriations Act4repaid nearly $10 million, leaving a balance of $40 million.  In the FY2005 budgetrequest, the President requested that the remaining funds be cancelled (not released forexpenditure by the FS).  After the release of $5 million for FY2004 and $10 million forFY2005, the balance of FLEP funding was cancelled, pursuant to FS AdministrativeProvisions in P.L. 108-447, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005.  Thus, of the$100 million guaranteed for FLEP in the 2002 Farm Bill, only $35 million will have beenspent, with $40 million borrowed and not repaid, and $25 million cancelled.  Given thishistory, Congress seems likely to revisit the issue of funding for landowner forestryassistance programs in the next farm bill.Wildfire Protection.  The threat of wildfire damages to resources and propertyseems to have increased in recent years.  Attention has focused on high biomass fuellevels, particularly in federal forests, and on structures (especially homes) in or near at-risk forests, a situation known as the wildland-urban interface (WUI; see CRS ReportRS21880, Wildfire Protection in the Wildland-Urban Interface, by Ross W. Gorte).Section 8003 of the 2002 Farm Bill created a new Community and Private Land FireAssistance Program to assist communities and private landowners in planning and otheractivities to protect themselves from wildfires.  The program was authorized at $35million annually through FY2007 and “such sums as are necessary ... thereafter.”   TheCRS-45 The other three identified threats are fire and fuels, unmanaged recreation, and loss of openspace.  See [http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/four-threats], visited on Nov. 21, 2005.FS has included such expenditures as authorized activities in its State Fire AssistanceProgram, and for FY2005, the House Appropriations Committee directed that “$5 millionof the increase [to State Fire Assistance] is provided to fund, on a cost share basis,community wildfire protection plans.” (H.Rept. 108-542, p. 94)  However, Congress hasnot appropriated funds explicitly for this program.Protecting private lands and structures from wildfires seems likely to continue togarner congressional attention, as the threat of wildfire persists.  How to assist privatelandowners and communities, how to combine this assistance with other assistance andincentive programs, and how to fund such assistance seem likely to be a focus of debatesover forestry programs in the next farm bill.Invasive Species.  Invasive species — non-native plants and animals that aredisplacing native ones — are becoming recognized as a substantial problem.  (See CRSReport RL30123, Invasive Non-Native Species: Background and Issues for Congress, byM. Lynne Corn, et al.)  In a speech to the Idaho Environmental Forum in January 2004,FS Chief Dale Bosworth identified invasive species as one of the four major threats to thenation’s forests and rangelands.5  The FS’s Forest Health Management Program hasevolved from a mechanism to survey and control insects and diseases, to a program toaddress all forest pests, including invasive species.  In its FY2004 and FY2005 budgetrequests, the Administration proposed an Emerging Pests and Pathogens Fund to addressrapidly developing problems of invasive species, but the Appropriations Committeesrejected the request both years.  In its deliberations over the next farm bill, Congressmight address the structure and financing of programs to prevent and control invasivespecies on federal, state, and private forests.Economic Diversity.  The economies of many rural communities have evolvedaround the use — finding, extracting, processing, and selling — of natural resources.  Insome of these areas, one resource (e.g., timber, minerals, livestock) has traditionallydominated the local economy, but the economies of such areas can be devastated whenthat resource is depleted or when its markets are depressed (permanently or eventemporarily).  Many communities have sought approaches to diversifying their economies,to mitigate the travails that can occur when a dominant economic sector becomesdepressed.  The National Forest-Dependent Rural Communities Economic DiversificationAct of 1990 was enacted in §§2372-2379 of the 1990 Farm Bill to authorize forestry andeconomic diversification technical assistance to “economically disadvantaged” ruralcommunities.  Funding, under the title Economic Action Program, rose from $14 millionin FY1996 to $54 million in FY2001, but has declined since, and President Bush hasproposed terminating the program in his FY2005 and FY2006 budget requests.  In itsdeliberations over the next farm bill, Congress may consider ways to perpetuate economicassistance programs for traditional wood products-dependent communities, either as acontinued FS program or as part of other USDA rural assistance programs.  (See CRSReport RL31837, An Overview of USDA Rural Development Programs, by TadlockCowan.)CRS-5Markets for “Ecosystem Services.”  Forests provide an broad array ofenvironmental services — clean air and water, wildlife habitats, pleasant scenery, etc. —for which private landowners are generally not compensated, because these services aretypically not bought and sold in a marketplace.  A variety of interests have gathered toexamine the possibilities of finding ways to compensate landowners for continuing toprovide ecosystem services.  This is akin to the “green payments” for farmers whoprovide environmental benefits through their farm management practices.  Such “greenpayments” for forest landowners’ ecosystem services might be discussed in thecongressional deliberations over the next farm bill.

Forestry in the Farm Bill

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs7974/m1/1/high_res_d/RS22329_2005Nov22.pdf

Forestry in the Farm Bill

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNT Digital Library

UNT Digital Library