Order Code RL33917
Forestry in the 2007 Farm Bill
March 14, 2007
Ross W. Gorte
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

---

Forestry in the 2007 Farm Bill
Summary
Many programs authorized in the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171) will expire at
the end of FY2007, and the House and Senate Agriculture Committees are likely to
consider legislation to reauthorize these programs. General forestry legislation is
within the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committees, and past farm bills have
included provisions addressing forestry, especially on private lands. Most federal
forestry programs are permanently authorized, and thus do not require periodic
reauthorization in the farm bill. Nonetheless, the 2002 farm bill reauthorized one
office (international forestry), created a new private landowner cost-share assistance
program (the Forest Land Enhancement Program) replacing two previously existing
programs, and enacted a new Community Fire Protection Program.
A 2007 farm bill may also include forestry provisions addressing various issues.
Funding for forestry programs may be discussed, as recent appropriations have been
inconsistent and mandatory spending for the Forest Land Enhancement Program has
been cancelled. Protecting communities from wildfire continues to be a priority for
some interests, as the program enacted in the 2002 farm bill has not been funded
directly. Controlling invasive species is another forestry issue that might be
addressed in a new farm bill. Funding and programs to assist forest-dependent
communities in diversifying their economies could also be debated in this context,
as funding for existing programs has dwindled. Finally, some interests have
expressed interest in trying to create markets for ecosystem services — the values
produced by forests that have not traditionally been sold in the marketplace.
The Administration’s 2007 proposed farm bill includes a forestry title. It
proposes four new programs: (1) comprehensive statewide forest planning; (2)
competitive landscape-scale forestry grants; (3) a 10-year, $150 million forest wood-
to-energy technology development program; and (4) financial and technical
assistance to communities for acquiring, planning for, and conserving community
forests. The Administration’s proposal does not include a forest landowner financial
assistance program — reauthorizing the Forest Land Enhancement Program, or
creating some new alternative assistance program. Other proposals are likely to be
offered for congressional consideration from many possible sources.

---

Contents
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Forestry Issues for a Farm Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Forestry Assistance Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Wildfire Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Invasive Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Economic Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Markets for “Ecosystem Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The Administration’s 2007 Forestry Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Landowner Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Comprehensive Statewide Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Landscape-Scale Competitive Grant Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Forest Wood for Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Community Forests Working Lands Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

---

Forestry in the 2007 Farm Bill
Forestry programs have been addressed in past farm bills and other agriculture
legislation. The initial federal forestry funds were for a study of western forests in
the 1877 Agriculture appropriations act, and the Division of Forestry was established
in the Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1881. In 1905, the forest reserves (in
the Department of the Interior) were transferred to USDA, and a new agency — the
Forest Service (FS) — was created. Thus, federal forestry has historically been
associated with agriculture, and with agriculture legislation. This report briefly
describes the Agriculture Committees’ jurisdiction over forestry, with examples of
legislation addressed by the committees. It discusses forestry issues likely to be
debated in the upcoming farm bill. It then presents information on the forestry
provisions in the Administration’s proposal for the 2007 farm bill.
Background
Both the House and Senate Committees on Agriculture have jurisdiction over
“forestry in general” and acquired national forests.1 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
(RPA; P.L. 93-378) and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA; P.L.
94-588), which guide Forest Service planning and management, were both initially
referred to the Agriculture 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
jurisdiction over forestry research and forestry assistance to states and to private
landowners.2 Forestry research is governed largely by the Forest and Rangeland
Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-307), which revised and
updated the McSweeney-McNary Act of 1928. Forestry assistance is governed
largely by the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-313), which
revised and updated the Clarke-McNary Act of 1924.3 Both laws were referred to
and reported by the Agriculture Committees.
1 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.
2 These three programs — forest management, forestry research, and forestry assistance —
have traditionally been the three principal branches of the USDA Forest Service.
3 For more information on these programs, see CRS Report RL31065, Forestry Assistance
Programs, by Ross W. Gorte.

---

CRS-2
Recent farm bills have also included forestry provisions, primarily addressing
the forestry 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 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, which was a product of compromise
between the Senate and the House. The House-passed version contained several
provisions. The Senate-passed version modified most of these provisions (deleting
one), and added more than a dozen additional provisions. The conference could not
resolve many of the differences, and the conference agreement contained fewer
provisions than either the House or Senate version. (Some of the disputed provisions
were enacted subsequently in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.)
Forestry Issues for a Farm Bill
Reauthorization of the many agriculture programs is a prime reason for the
periodic farm bills, but only two forestry programs have an expiring authority. The
authorizations for expenditures under the Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP)
and for the Office of International Forestry expire at the end of FY2007. All other
FS programs — forest management and planning, research, and assistance — are
permanently authorized, many at “such sums as are necessary.” This may reduce the
pressure to include a forestry title in upcoming farm bills. Nonetheless, various
forestry issues may be raised, such as forestry assistance funding, wildfire protection,
invasive species, economic diversity, and markets for “ecosystem services” that have
not traditionally been marketed.
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. Since the severe 2000 fire season and the development
of the National Fire Plan, funding for cooperative fire programs (assistance to states
and volunteer fire departments) has risen substantially (more than triple pre-2000
funding), and remained at very high levels. Funding for Forest Legacy (acquisition
of lands or easements on lands threatened with conversion to non-forest uses) has
also risen substantially, from less than $4 million in FY1998 to $60 million or more
annually since FY2001 (and a request of $100 million for FY2005). In contrast, the

---

CRS-3
Administration has proposed terminating funding for the Economic Action Program
(economic assistance to rural, forest-dependent communities), and funding has fallen
from a peak of $54 million in FY2001 to less than $10 million in FY2006.
The adequacy of funding for private landowner assistance programs has been
of concern to many. These programs provide cost-shares to qualified landowners for
various forestry practices that 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 new Forest Land
Enhancement Program (FLEP). Because funding for FIP and SIP had been
discretionary and either stagnant (FIP) or lacking (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 to pay for firefighting
and other funding was cancelled; in total, less than half of the $100 million
“guaranteed” for FLEP will have been spent on landowner assistance. Given this
history, Congress seems likely to revisit the issue of funding for landowner forestry
assistance programs in the next farm bill.
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 structures (especially
homes) in or near at-risk forests, a situation known as the wildland-urban interface
(WUI; see CRS Report RS21880, 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 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 FS has included such expenditures
as authorized activities in its State Fire Assistance Program, and for FY2005, the
House Appropriations Committee directed that “$5 million of 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 has not appropriated
funds explicitly for this program.
Protecting private lands and structures from wildfires seems likely to continue
to garner congressional attention, as the threat of wildfire persists. How to assist
private landowners and communities, how to combine this assistance with other
assistance and incentive programs, and how to fund such assistance seem likely to
be a focus of debates over forestry programs in the next farm bill.
Invasive Species. Invasive species — non-native plants and animals that are
displacing native ones — are becoming recognized as a substantial problem. (See
CRS Report RL30123, Invasive Non-Native Species: Background and Issues for
Congress, by M. Lynne Corn et al.) In a speech to the Idaho Environmental Forum
in January 2004, then-FS Chief Dale Bosworth identified invasive species as one of

---

CRS-4
the four major threats to the nation’s forests and rangelands.4 The FS’s 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. In
its FY2004 and FY2005 budget requests, the Administration proposed an Emerging
Pests and Pathogens Fund to address rapidly developing problems of invasive
species, but the Appropriations Committees rejected the request both years. In its
deliberations over the next farm bill, Congress might address the structure and
financing of programs to prevent and control invasive species on federal, state, and
private forests.
Economic Diversity. 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, but 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 travails 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, under the title Economic
Action Program, rose from $14 million in FY1996 to $54 million in FY2001, but has
declined since, and President Bush has proposed terminating the program in several
budget requests. In its deliberations over the next farm bill, Congress may consider
ways to perpetuate economic assistance programs for traditional wood products-
dependent communities, either as a continued FS program or as part of other USDA
rural assistance programs. (See CRS Report RL31837, An Overview of USDA Rural
Development Programs, by Tadlock Cowan.)
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 gathered to examine the possibilities of finding ways to compensate landowners
for continuing to provide ecosystem services.5 This is akin to the “green payments”
proposals that would reward farmers who provide environmental benefits through
their farm management practices. Such “green payments” for forest landowners’
ecosystem services might be discussed in the congressional deliberations over the
next farm bill.
4 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].
5 American Forests, the Southern Environmental Law Center, and others held a workshop
to discuss landowner compensation for ecosystem services provided in Washington, DC, on
May 18-20, 2005.

---

CRS-5
The Administration’s 2007 Forestry Proposal
The Administration’s 2007 farm bill proposes four new forestry programs: (1)
comprehensive statewide forest planning; (2) competitive landscape-scale forestry
grants; (3) a 10-year, $150 million forest wood-to-energy technology development
program; and (4) financial and technical assistance to communities for acquiring,
planning for, and conserving community forests. The Administration’s proposal did
not include reauthorizing FLEP, or creating an new landowner assistance program.
Landowner Assistance. USDA has provided assistance to private forest
landowners for more than a century, since before the FS was established. The current
financial assistance program is the Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP). This
program replaced the Forestry Incentives Program (FIP, created in the Cooperative
Forestry Assistance Act of 1978) and the Stewardship Incentives Program (SIP,
created in the 1990 farm bill). FLEP was enacted in the 2002 farm bill with
mandatory funding of $100 million over the six-year life of the law. The promise of
mandatory spending, however, has not been fulfilled. The FS released $20.0 million
for FLEP in FY2003, and borrowed $50 million of the total to pay for firefighting in
the 2003 fire season. The FY2004 Interior appropriations act6 repaid nearly $9.9
million, leaving a balance of $39.9 million. In the FY2005 budget request, the
President requested that the remaining funds be cancelled (not released for
expenditure by the FS). The balance of FLEP funding was cancelled, pursuant to FS
Administrative Provisions in P.L. 108-447, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of
2005, and the borrowed funds were not repaid. Budget authority (prior to
cancellation) was $9.2 million for FY2004, $15.0 million for FY2005, and $5.4
million for FY2006.7 Of the $100 million “guaranteed” for FLEP in the 2002 farm
bill, only $49.5 million will have been spent, with $40.1 million borrowed and not
repaid, and $10.4 million cancelled. The Administration is proposing to neither
renew FLEP nor replace it with an alternative private forest landowner financial
assistance program. It is unclear whether this lack of private landowner assistance
reflects a conclusion that past programs have been ineffective.
Comprehensive Statewide Planning. The Administration is proposing
a new program of financial and technical assistance to state forestry agencies to
develop and implement Statewide Forest Resource Assessments and Plans to address
the increasing public demand for forest products and amenities, pressure on
landowners to convert forests to other uses, and risk from wildfire. It is unclear
whether a national direction for statewide forest planning provide the flexibility to
address such diverse forests as those in Iowa and those in Florida. The proposal also
raises the question of whether the various state forestry organizations are unable or
unwilling to undertake statewide forest planning without federal direction and
oversight. Whether statewide forest planning, together with other forestry farm bill
proposals, would be more effective at providing for the growth in demand for forest
products and amenities than a direct landowner assistance program, such as FLEP,
is unknown. Finally, funding for this new planning effort is uncertain, when the
6 FS programs have been funded in the annual Interior appropriations acts since 1955.
7 Personal communication with Joe Norrell, USDA Forest Service, Office of Program and
Budget, Washington, DC, on Oct. 27, 2006.

---

CRS-6
Administration is proposing to cut FY2008 forest stewardship funding (for financial
and technical assistance to states) by 41%.
Landscape-Scale Competitive Grant Program. The Administration’s
proposal includes a new landscape-scale forestry competitive grant program “to
develop innovative solutions that address local forest management issues; develop
local nontraditional forest product markets; and stimulate local economies through
creation of value-added forest product industries.” The Administration identifies as
significant problems the aging of family forest landowners and the potential
fragmentation of forests over the next two decades. Thus, the proposal would create
a program that “would ensure a comprehensive, coordinated approach to forest
management and would ensure collaboration across ownership and jurisdictional
boundaries.” However, many aspects of the proposal are unclear, such as:
! how “landscapes” would be defined for the grants;
! the proportion of the landowners or lands that would need to be
involved for a landscape to be eligible for a grant;
! whether landowners, including governmental entities, could be
coerced into cooperating;
! why the program is related to landscapes and landowners, since the
goal is to foster nontraditional markets and value-added industries;
and
! how the landscape grant proposals would be assessed and compared;
that is, what criteria would be used to make the grants competitive.
Forest Wood for Energy. The Administration is proposing a new 10-year,
$150 million wood-to-energy program to accelerate development and use of new
technologies to use the substantial amounts of low-grade woody biomass that degrade
forest health and exacerbate wildfire risks and are of little commercial value. The
proposal does not identify the program goals, and does not describe whether the focus
would be on converting woody biomass to cellulosic ethanol or burning woody
biomass to produce electricity. While the proposal seems to emphasize technological
solutions, other factors — capital costs, infrastructure, collection and hauling
opportunities, etc. — might be critical for improved utilization of low-value woody
biomass for energy. It is unclear whether this proposal, or other programs, could
address these other factors.
Community Forests Working Lands Program. The Administration’s
2007 farm bill proposes a community forests working lands program to provide
communities with the financial assistance to acquire and conserve forests and the
technical assistance to plan for the use and conservation of those forests. This
program would particularly address the problem of producing goods and services
from forests at the urban fringe. However, it is unclear how this proposed program
differs from the existing Forest Legacy Program. The proposal also does not address
the question of the federal role and responsibility in funding and otherwise assisting
communities in acquiring and conserving local forestlands. Finally, some might
question whether the proposed community forests program, and the proposed
competitive landscape-scale grant program (discussed above) move away from
private forestland ownership and individual decision-making toward communal
forest ownership and management.

---