Katie Hoover and Anne A. Riddle assembled this important CRS report (24 November 2021): U.S. Forest Ownership and Management: Background and Issues for Congress'.
I have to admit I just scanned the ToC and have not read the report. I had hoped there would be a discussion of the importance and role of forests in providing water. I did note that 'water' is at the end of the third line in the summary, but later on we're cautioned that the report won't present an in-depth discussion of that issue. Water has its own bullet on page 7. The report can't be all things to all people.
Download CRS_Report_USForestOwnership_Mgmt_Issues_Congree_24Nov2021
Summary
The 765 million acres of forests across the United States provide many social, economic, and ecological resources and uses. A forest’s health—generally, the status of its ecological integrity and functioning—influences its ability to provide resources and uses, including air and water resources, fish and wildlife habitat, opportunities for recreation and cultural use, timber resources, and more. As a result, Congress may be interested in the health and management of the nation’s forest resources. The potential scope of congressional involvement in U.S. forest resources varies, based primarily on ownership; Congress has a direct role in the management of forests owned by the federal government but a more indirect role regarding forests in nonfederal ownership.
As of 2017, the federal government managed 238 million acres (31%) of U.S. forests; the rest were in nonfederal (private, state, or local) ownership. Private forest owners can be classified as corporate or noncorporate, and noncorporate forest owners can be further classified as family, tribal, and other. Private noncorporate forests account for approximately 38% of U.S. forest area (272 million acres), and corporate forests account for 20% (156 million acres). State and local governments manage 84 million acres (11%) of U.S. forestland. The distribution of forest ownership varies regionally: most of the forests in the eastern United States are privately owned, whereas most forests in the western regions are publicly owned. Nationwide, more privately owned forests than publicly owned forests contain timberlands, a subset of forestland capable of producing crops of industrial wood.
The resources and uses that a forest provides can be complementary or competing. As such, forest management and use are perennially complex, often contentious issues. Forest owners may manage forests—intervene in their processes and composition—to promote desired objectives, which vary; there is no single management objective across all U.S. forests or ownerships. Private forest owners have nearly complete discretion over which management objectives to pursue. Conversely, public forest management decisions are stipulated by laws and regulations, including requirements for transparency in the decisionmaking process and opportunities for the public to comment on and challenge decisions. Most forest owners manage their lands for multiple objectives, often with a primary objective. For example, some owners manage their forests principally for timber production, undertaking specific management activities to promote productivity and timber growth. Most federal forests are managed for a balance of multiple of uses, with no single or primary use as a principal management objective. Because forests may be managed for different objectives, methods for measuring and assessing forest outcomes vary considerably.
U.S. forest resources are heterogeneous, as are the biophysical conditions in forests and the management objectives, constraints, and capabilities of forest owners. Biophysical characteristics (e.g., climate) determine a forest’s baseline potential to support different tree species, growth, and productivity. Other factors, such as exposure to disturbances (e.g., hurricanes, wildfires, pest infestations), can further affect forest conditions. Management choices can influence or mediate the effects of some—but not all—biophysical factors and disturbances (e.g., by choosing which species to grow or whether to treat pest infestations). The measurable outcomes for any given forest—such as timber production, forest health, or other metrics—result from the merging of biophysical factors, disturbances, and management decisions. However, forest conditions may produce resources and outcomes in ways that specific management activities, regardless of ownership, cannot mitigate or overcome. For example, though forest management activities may focus on preventing, treating, or facilitating recovery from various forest health stressors, the extent to which management practices can demonstrably improve health conditions is difficult to assess. Although it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions regarding forest outcomes by ownership class, some distinct ownership trends exist. For example, the South produces the most timber of any region; because most forests in the South are privately owned, little of that timber production originates from public forests.
Congress’s interest in the nation’s forest resources is multifold. Across all ownerships, Congress may be interested in the capacity of the nation’s forests to survive and recover from disturbance events and to adapt to changing climatic conditions. Congress also may be interested in mitigating risks associated with adverse health conditions and otherwise ensuring forests continue to provide benefits to surrounding communities. Issues for Congress may include whether and how to address those interests and concerns, regardless of ownership. Congress also may have ownership-specific interests, such as federal forest management or the federal government’s role in providing assistance for nonfederal forests. In addition, Congress has expressed interest in understanding the extent, if any, to which nonfederal forests have better forest management and forest health outcomes relative to federally managed forests.
Let's jump to...
Issues for Congress
Because forests provide many public benefits, Congress may have multifold interests in the nation’s forest resources. Across all ownerships, Congress may be interested in the ecological, economic, and social benefits that U.S. forests provide to the nation generally and to surrounding communities specifically. To promote these benefits, Congress may be interested in maintaining or improving the ecological health and functioning of the nation’s forests, as well as in enhancing their capacity to survive and recover from disturbance events and adapt to changing climatic conditions. Similarly, Congress may be interested in preventing, treating, or facilitating recovery from various forest health stressors to reduce risk to people and timber resources or to promote other forest values. Congress also may be interested in improving or maintaining forests’ economic and social benefits to communities and industries by enhancing certain forest resources or supporting certain forest uses.To address these interests, one issue for Congress may be whether the baseline understanding of the nation’s forest resources and conditions is sufficient. Congress may want to consider whether the level of federal investment in forest inventorying, monitoring, and research across U.S. forests is sufficient, too high, or too low; accordingly, Congress may choose to alter the amount or type of federal resources invested in those activities.
Another issue for Congress may be the federal government’s role in addressing forest management and health concerns or mitigating forest risks. Congress may want to consider whether the level of federal investment in forest management generally is appropriate and may adjust federal resources accordingly. This could involve changes to the levels of federal funding, staffing, or other resources for either federal or nonfederal forest management, or both. Congress also may be interested in forest health or management issues by specific ownership class. For example, Congress may be specifically interested in issues related to management of federal forests. Congress also may be interested in federal authorities for assisting nonfederal forest owners, such as whether these authorities cover desired issues or account for desired ownership categories. These ownership-specific issues are discussed in more depth in other CRS products.
Another issue for Congress may be whether and how to address forest risks that span multiple ownership boundaries. For example, Congress may want to consider expanding or facilitating cross-boundary forest management activities. This could be through authorizing and/or incentivizing a variety of federal and nonfederal partnerships and collaborations. In contrast, Congress may want to restrict those activities, for example, to target more specific concerns or areas.
Very worthwhile, indeed.
Enjoy!
“For in the true nature of things, if we rightly consider, every green tree is far more glorious than if it were made of gold and silver.” - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Comments