Background
Forestland plays a critical role in the economic, ecological, and aesthetic health of our country. One-third of the nation’s landscape is forested and 57 percent of these forests are privately owned. Nationally, approximately 262 million forested acres are in the hands of families and individuals, and generates 1.2 million jobs, and $230 billion in annual sales. Clean water and air, a stable climate, and the protection of wildlife and endangered species are all dependent upon the health of our forestland.
For North Carolina, the most recent survey of our forestlands was completed in December 2002 by the U.S. Forest Service. This report revealed that forestland totaled 18.3 million acres, equaling 59 percent of the total land area in the state. About 87 percent of this total acreage is privately owned while public ownership accounts for about 2.4 million acres or 13 percent of our forestland. “Timberland,” the portion of forests available for timber utilization, amounted to 17.7 million acres -- the smallest acreage since North Carolina began surveys in 1938. This was the fourth consecutive survey to record a net decrease in the area of timberland and the decline was one million acres, or a 5 percent decrease from the previous survey of 1990. Urban development and other diversions of timberland accounted for the major decrease. It is estimated that population density will further diminish our timberland as North Carolina’s population is expected to increase 50 percent from the 2000 census, adding four million people to reach more than a total of 12 million in the state. The National Woodland Ownership Survey conducted in 2005 reported that 479,000 family forest owners comprised most of our forestland. However, only 213,000 of these owners had tracts 10 acres or larger and slightly more than 60 percent of family-owned forests in North Carolina comprised acreages of 50 or greater.

Economic Impact
Recent data from North Carolina State University show that “Forest Products” is now the state’s largest manufacturing industry, surpassing textiles. The total annual economic benefit of this industry was estimated at over 272,000 jobs and $30 billion. It was further concluded that if we combine the economic value of all uses of the forests, such as tourism, recreation, Christmas trees, and other products with the manufacturing impact of forest products that the resulting forestry and forest products entity would have the largest economic impact of any similar entity in North Carolina. A key factor in the health of the forest industry is the state’s 17 million plus acres of forests, which provide the raw material for this industry. “Forest” is the dominant land use in North Carolina. But between 1990 and 2002, North Carolina had a net loss of forestland of 1 million acres. Three-quarters of this was due to urbanization. Other dangers to our forestland include insect and disease damage, age-related mortality, loss of markets for forest products, and the lack of professional advice of managing both our public and private forestland.

The Farm Bill
The 2002 Farm Bill has done little to help family forestlands. The cost-share funding for family forest owners has historically varied from slim to none. In the 2002 Farm Bill only a fraction of EQIP funds (less than 2 percent) were allocated to forestry activities. Specifically, the EQIP program in 2002 was intentionally written to exclude many of the EQIP programs and other cost-share activities for forestlands. Only $20 million to $30 million in cost-share funding annually ended up on family forests from 2002 through 2006.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The Conservation and Forestry Titles of the 2007 Farm Bill should seek to do the following:
• Foster economic incentives for owning and actively managing forestland
• Ensure a stable fiber supply from private forests
• Focus programs to deliver results across landscapes
The proposed 2007 Farm Bill, under Title II (Conservation), proposes to consolidate current cost-share programs (Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, Agricultural Management Assistance Program, Forestland Enhancement Program, Ground and Service Water Conservation Program, and the Klamath Basin Program) into a newly-designed Environmental Quality Incentives Program. This approach would simplify and streamline these activities and reduce redundancies, and produce more cost-effective environmental benefits. Unfortunately, if this program is administered according to the 2002-2006 guidelines and administratively administered by NRCS, the proposed 2007 Farm Bill would be a disaster for family tree farms. NRCS intentionally excluded family forests from most of the cost-share programs and administratively consigned FLEP (Forest Land Enhancement Program) limited funding for forestlands. Ultimately, most of these funds were diverted to manage forest fires in the West and the South saw little to no funds from this source. It would appear that about $14 billion annually will be available for the revised EQIP program and it will be important to develop new administrative guidelines for how these funds might be administered in relation to forestry interests.
Specifically, a reasonable percentage (at least 25%) of appropriated dollars into EQIP should be directed to forestry programs that include reforestation and timber stand improvement activities.
Further, the Conservation Security Program (CSP) and the three existing easement programs for working lands need to be modified to specifically define the role of these programs for forestry. A specific percentage (at least 25%) of appropriated dollars should be allocated to forestry and working forestland (note: this should be set as minimum rather than a maximum amount for forestry.)

FORESTRY-TITLE VIII
The new Forestry Title contains four new initiatives. Unfortunately, they appear designed more for western US conditions and issues than to address the needs of the private landowners in the South and the rest of the Nation. Therefore, we recommend that the Forestry Title focus on the following:
1. Cost-Share Assistance - A substantial increase in cost-share assistance to family forest owners is needed to address a variety of forest management goals on private lands. Assistance would promote tree planting, thinning, and other timber stand improvement work, forest health, and development of wildlife habitats.
2. Technical Assistance and Outreach - Increased tools and sufficient funding are needed to assist private forest landowners in making informed decisions about their land. This assistance may be provided through a variety of mechanisms such as state forestry agencies, third party providers, non-governmental organizations, and universities and colleges.
3. Emergency Disaster Relief - Emergency Forest Restoration Program should be established that would provide cost-share assistance to private forest owners for forest resource damaged in a natural disaster. Eligible landowners would be required to have an approved restoration plan and allowed activities might include removal of damaged trees, tree planning, restoration of wildlife habitat, etc.
4. Forest Research - Current levels of public investment in forest-related research are insufficient to advance or even maintain technology essential for conservation and management of private forests. Renewed support and increased funding for both competitive and formula grant forestry research programs are critical to sustain the nation’s private forests. The soaring demand for corn by ethanol refineries will escalate the prices of our domestic and foreign food supplies to politically unacceptable levels. Further, the amount of energy converted from corn to gasoline shows a marginal increase in total energy production (1.3 units of corn to ethanol compared to gasoline). Woody biomass resources show an energy production ratio of approximately 7-8:1. Many of our land-grant colleges and other universities are beginning research programs to investigate the conversion of woody biomass to cellulosic ethanol. The Farm Bill should fund research to land-grant colleges on a comparable level that the Department of Energy is funding private companies in the United States to make ethanol from wood chips, orange peels, corn stalks, and municipal garbage. The energy portion of the Farm Bill should reflect a total amount of economic resources being committed to the conversion of woody biomass resources to alternative energies and insure that forest-related research is provided adequate resources to pursue its developing research programs.