Forestry in the Next Farm Bill
Ross W. Gorte
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
April 29, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41213
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared 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 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. 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 be included
in the farm bill. Other 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. 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. Funding to assist landowners to implement
sustainable forestry practice is another issue; while forestry was included for all agriculture
conservation programs in the 2008 farm bill, the previous sole forest-specific assistance program
was not reauthorized. 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
Markets for Carbon Sequestration ......................................................................................... 3
Markets for Other Ecosystem Services .................................................................................. 3
Control of Invasive Species................................................................................................... 4
Improved Wildfire Protection ................................................................................................ 4
Energy Production from Woody Biomass .............................................................................. 4
Forestry Assistance Funding.................................................................................................. 5
Diversified Economies .......................................................................................................... 6

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

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
F 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. §§ 6501-
6591) 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 McSweeney-
McNary 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;

1 Many programs from the 2008 farm bill expire at the end of FY2012. For general information on the next farm bill,
see http://www.crs.gov/Pages/subissue.aspx?cliid=641&parentid=1.
2 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.
3 These three programs—forest management, forestry research, and forestry assistance—have traditionally been the
three principal branches of USDA’s Forest Service.
4 For more information on these programs, see CRS Report RL31065, Forestry Assistance Programs, by Ross W.
Gorte.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

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 subsequently 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 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 marketing carbon sequestration projects; marketing other ecosystem services; controlling
invasive species; increasing wildfire protection; producing energy from woody biomass; funding
forestry assistance programs; and diversifying local economies.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Forestry in the Next Farm Bill

Markets for Carbon Sequestration
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.5 However, legislation to establish
a domestic cap-and-trade system to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases has been introduced and debated in the 111th 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. 6 This could significantly expand carbon markets and raise carbon
prices for forest carbon sequestration activities.
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-as-
usual), 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.7 In addition,
some interests are concerned about the potential impacts of significant carbon markets for farmers
and landowners.8 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.
Markets for Other 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 such a development.9 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

5 See CRS Report RL34560, Forest Carbon Markets: Potential and Drawbacks, by Ross W. Gorte and Jonathan L.
Ramseur.
6 See CRS Report R40994, Agriculture and Forestry Provisions in Climate Legislation in the 111th Congress, by Renée
Johnson; and CRS Report R40236, Estimates of Carbon Mitigation Potential from Agricultural and Forestry Activities,
by Renée Johnson, Jonathan L. Ramseur, and Ross W. Gorte.
7 See CRS Report RS22964, Measuring and Monitoring Carbon in the Agricultural and Forestry Sectors, by Ross W.
Gorte and Renée Johnson.
8 See CRS Report R41086, Potential Implications of a Carbon Offset Program to Farmers and Landowners, by Renée
Johnson et al.
9 See CRS Report RL34042, Provisions Supporting Ecosystem Services Markets in U.S. Farm Bill Legislation, by
Renée Johnson.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Forestry in the Next Farm Bill

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.
Control of Invasive Species
Invasive species—non-native plants and animals that are displacing native ones—are becoming
recognized as a substantial problem.10 In a speech to the Idaho Environmental Forum on January
16, 2004, then-USFS Chief Dale Bosworth identified invasive species as one of the four major
threats to the nation’s forests and rangelands.11 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
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.12 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;13 by state requirements, and possible

10 See CRS Report RL30123, Invasive Non-Native Species: Background and Issues for Congress, by M. Lynne Corn et
al.
11 The other three identified threats were fire and fuels, unmanaged recreation, and loss of open space. See
http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/four-threats.
12 See CRS Report RS21880, Wildfire Protection in the Wildland-Urban Interface, by Ross W. Gorte.
13 See CRS Report R40155, Selected Issues Related to an Expansion of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), by Randy
Schnepf and Brent D. Yacobucci; and CRS Report R41106, Meeting the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Mandate for
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Forestry in the Next Farm Bill

federal standards, for electricity production from renewable sources;14 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,15 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
include duplication and inconsistencies among authorities, definitions, and efforts;16 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.
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. 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 FY2007 (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

(...continued)
Cellulosic Biofuels: Questions and Answers, by Kelsi Bracmort.
14 See CRS Report R40565, Biomass Resources: The Southeastern United States and the Renewable Electricity
Standard Debate, by Richard J. Campbell; and CRS Report RL33812, Climate Change: Action by States to Address
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, by Jonathan L. Ramseur.
15 See CRS Report RL34130, Renewable Energy Programs in the 2008 Farm Bill, by Megan Stubbs.
16 See, for example, CRS Report R40529, Biomass: Comparison of Definitions in Legislation, by Kelsi Bracmort and
Ross W. Gorte.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Forestry in the Next Farm Bill

“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 forestry-
specific assistance program is needed, since a small share of the much larger conservation
programs might provide more forestry assistance funding. The 2008 farm bill included forestry as
an accepted practice for all agriculture conservation programs.
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, 17 or whether to
terminate forestry-related economic assistance programs.

Author Contact Information

Ross W. Gorte

Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
rgorte@crs.loc.gov, 7-7266



17 See CRS Report RL31837, An Overview of USDA Rural Development Programs, by Tadlock Cowan.
Congressional Research Service
6

---