Seeing the Forests for More Than the Trees

by Senator Patrick Leahy

From my farm in Vermont I look out over the Green Mountains and miles of surrounding forests that encompass the spectrum of forest land in the United States: federal, state and private forests that are used for timber production, recreation and wildlife habitat.

Discussion of national forestry issues tends to focus on the expansive forests of the West that were created out of public domain lands, like the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, the Klamath National Forest in California or the Flathead National Forest in Montana. It is time for Congress to turn more attention to the needs of the Eastern national forests that were created out of private lands under the Weeks Act, state forests that often share borders with our national forests and face similar multiple-use objectives, and the private forests of both large timber corporations and small woodlot owners. Two current bills and how they were developed -- the Northern Forest Stewardship Act, which I have introduced, and the Family Forestland Preservation Act, which Senator Judd Gregg has introduced -- can be protypes for tackling these issues in other regions.

Although a small percentage -- 25 million acres -- of our national forests are in the East, these forests account for the majority of public lands in the region. The Green Mountain National Forest (GMNF) in Vermont is representative of the national forests created from private lands and shares many of the challenges facing these forests. The GMNF was created out of depleted farms and cut-over timber lands of the mountains that form the backbone of the state. While the GMNF comprises only 5 percent of the land base in Vermont, it is some of the only federally owned public land in the region. Within a half-day drive of 70 million people, the forest serves as a primary recreation venue for skiing, hiking, hunting, snowmobiling and fishing.

The unique circumstances surrounding the creation of many of the Eastern national forests, and the urban development and population pressures placed on them, produce some challenges that differentiate them from the Western public domain forests. The relatively small size of the forests compared to the large surrounding population base affects the management, land acquisition and public outreach processes for the forest supervisors. Their forest plans must balance competing needs to minimize the impact of increased visitor use while expanding recreational opportunities; they must manage watersheds to protect numerous municipal water supplies, assure adequate flood control, ensure high water quality and sufficient water quantity for fish and wildlife habitats. The pattern of land ownership within the GMNF also spawns unique issues for the Forest. For example, electric utility restructuring questions give rise to new management concerns about increased air pollution, acid deposition and changes in power company infrastructure and ownership.

Land acquisition in Eastern forests also often has special connotations. As private land becomes public land, the tax base in these forests has shifted dramatically and is not adequately addressed with payments-in-lieu-of-taxes payments. The strong conservation ethic of previous landowners also effects the transition to public land. The small tracts acquired have century-old family ties that the owners want to continue in their connection to the land. Recent trends to acquire lands through conservation easements fosters that bond and brings new parcels into the forest, while also deepening the consultation process for management changes. The Forest Service also must rely more heavily on outside land trusts to hold options on private lands that come onto the market until they are able to obtain federal acquisition funds.

These issues and challenges must be addressed as the GMNF and other Eastern forests begin revision of their forest plans. New tools and authority should be offered to enable forest supervisors to meet diverse demands on the forest with declining resources. The Forest Service is developing joint business ventures and cooperative agreements with both public and private partners to address this situation. It has looked to its neighbors to share in the responsibility and the caretaking of the forests. It has reached out to private enterprises to operate facilities and develop practical business ventures to provide quality recreational opportunities while protecting the forest ecosystem. Congress has the responsibility to approve legislation to facilitate these partnerships.

Outside of the national forests, there is an increasing diversity of state and private forests that are also balancing a variety of interests. The majority of the nation's forest land is under state and private ownership; more than two-thirds is privately owned. As you move east from the Mississippi River, the percentage of private land rises until it reaches 90 percent in Maine. With timber harvests declining on public lands, pressure is building on private forest lands to provide more of the nation's wood supply. But the majority of private lands have no management plans even though most wild land fires and half of the animal species listed as threatened or endangered are there. That is not to say there is not an interest on the part of private forest land owners. Landowners know that there is more to private land ownership than the deed and boundary markers, but they need the technical help and incentives to support their stewardship.

My aim in working on these issues has been to strengthen and develop new tools to assist state and private landowners conserve their forests, provide public benefits and derive good incomes from their land. We have made progress in Congress in promoting voluntary stewardship on private lands. The Forest Stewardship technical and cost-share programs are the foundation of landowner assistance efforts, developing multi-resource management plans for more than 14 million acres of non-industrial private forests. The Forest Legacy program extends incentives to private landowners to manage their forest lands for a range of economic, environmental, and social benefits. The Legacy program authorizes state block grants for purchase of conservation easements on private lands to minimize conversion of forests to other uses. Since 1993, when the Forest Legacy program was enacted, more than 50,000 acres have been conserved in eight states. This program is saving the government money. Although these lands are valued above $23 million, the federal-share of the purchase funds is only $13 million.

But at current funding levels and under existing authority, these programs are not enough to meet the challenges facing state and private landowners. More is needed to ensure sustainable economic development in forest-dependent communities. To meet the increasing demand for these programs, a funding level of at least $160 million is needed. We need more research and analysis of forest resources on state and private land and a closer look at the impact of changing ownership patterns on local economies. Expanded authority to assist landowners to address water quality and stream restoration is also necessary.

Addressing the changing values and increasing demand for forest resources in these communities will require steps to promote efficient use, reuse and marketing of wood products, encourage entrepreneurial approaches to sustainable development and diversify the forest uses beyond timber production. The Forest Service's Economic Action Programs and Rural Development through Forestry begin to satisfy this need, but greater congressional attention is necessary.

Congress should build upon these existing efforts that promote federal, state and local cooperation for the future of our forests. Similar initiatives enacted through the 1985, 1990 and 1996 farm bills to help farmers in stewardship of their land have changed both the federal attitude towards the potential for resource conservation on private agricultural lands and the perspective of farmers on how they can balance production with sustainable management. Similar attention and resources need to be focused on private forest lands. The National Research Council is scheduled to release a study this spring looking at resources, ownership and existing public programs and to recommend for future steps to address state and private forestry conditions. I will be looking closely at that study to initiate new federal legislation.

The cornerstone of my philosophy in creating incentives for conservation on private lands are the recommendations put forth by the Northern Forest Lands Council. The formation of the Council, the process it followed in generating public participation and consensus across four states, and now the implementation of those recommendations through state actions and federal legislation should serve as a model for resolving forestry issues.

This month I re-introduced the Northern Forest Stewardship Act, S.546, which passed the Senate in the 104th Congress, and Senator Gregg introduced the Family Forestland Preservation Act, S.552. Together, these measures embody the conservation ethic of the 1990's: non-regulatory incentives and support to realize community-based goals for sustainable economic and environmental prosperity. Both bills emphasize the rights and responsibilities of landowners, reinforce the primacy of the state, and protect the traditions of the region. We counter today's tax disincentives that discourage landowners from maintaining their lands as forest by offering an estate tax alternative for heirs who choose to maintain the property as forest land for 25 years. Moving ahead with the Council's work, we will pursue enhanced forest management, land protection that supports the recreational and wildlife needs of the region, integrated research and decision-making, and increased productivity in traditional industries and new compatible industries. Through these bills we hope to promote sustainable development and protect the ecological integrity of the biological resources across the landscape.

This bipartisan legislation that Senator Gregg and I have introduced with other Northern Forest senators is founded on extensive research, open discussion, consensus decisions and visionary problem-solving by the people who have a stake in the future of the forest. Legislation rarely embodies such a thorough effort by so diverse a constituency. Our goal was to accurately reflect the recommendations of the Northern Forest communities, envisioned in the final report of the Northern Forest Lands Council.

The Council process was initiated to avoid the conflicts that have divided communities in some regions of our country, conflicts that have often been fueled by misinformation, politics and short-term economic gain. Over the past five years, Northern Forest communities have made a dedicated effort to develop a shared vision for their future. They have worked hard to arrive at a consensus and our job is to insure that their efforts are rewarded.

Through the success and the hard work of the Council, we are beginning to answer questions about the future of the Northern Forest. A model has been forged that can be used in meeting the conservation challenges not only in the Northeast, but in other regions.