Forest Resource Coordinating Committee Meeting
April 11, 2013
Non-Federal Members Present: Steven Sinclair, Anthony Delfin, Daniel Forster, Tammie Perreault, Mary
Jeanne Packer, Bettina Ring, Leda Chahim, Allan Murray, Bonnie Stine, Doug Rushton, James Houser,
and Thomas DeGomez
Federal Members: Craig Trimm (FSA), Leonard Jordan (NRCS), Jim Hubbard (FS, Committee Chair), and
Frank Boteler (NIFA)
The members present constitute a quorum, as defined by the Charter approved on April 27, 2011.
Staff: Ted Beauvais (Designated Federal Officer) and Maya Solomon (Committee Coordinator)
Welcome and Discussion with Deputy Chief Hubbard:
The agency is going through leadership changes and the Farm Bill has not passed. The Agriculture
Committee has new members and new staffers; we should suggest topics that the Secretary can
forward to them. There are not a lot of communication opportunities to inform what is going on
with natural resources and forestry. There is no one source that people can go through, particularly
relating to forestry policy. We should create a communication tool that can communicate forestry
related policy. This is especially important for the Secretary to communicate to Congress what the
issues are, how are the issues affecting the public, and recommendations on how to solve the issues.
Often Congress is not knowledgeable of issues relating to forestry. The timing for this Committee is
still good and impact still can be made. This is a great opportunity to interact with one another to
create recommendations for the Secretary relating to forestry. The Forest Service can provide any
information we have to help inform policy relating to forestry.
Questions for Deputy Chief Hubbard:
o
If you could wave a magic wand and get three things, what would those three things be?
Wildland Fire suppression, last summer we spent roughly $4 billion and the forecast
predicts the same for this year. Fire cost and where we get the money from is a problem.
In the Forest Service, we have to take money from other program areas within the
agency, which is called fire borrowing. This is not a welcomed approach, because the
money often does not come back to the programs. Last year, Congress replaced the
“borrowed” funds through a continuing resolution. I don’t see the fire funding situation
changing not with the fiscal conservatism of the Congress. Congress does not understand
the effects on other Forest Service programs. With budget cuts, the cost predicted for fire
suppression will bring the agency to its knees.
Where are we with the condition of our nation’s forest, far too many problems with the
infrastructure, and with the markets supporting our nation’s forests. It’s about the value
our nation’s forests provide. There is a discussion to have about the condition, what kind
of attention is needed, and how to provide the attention needed.
o
What is the role of this committee in addressing carbon sequestration, water issues, and
other environmental issues?
1
Even though there is no cap and trade method and the voluntary market has settled,
markets are still important to environmental issues.
o
What kind of leeway do we have in establishing management across land jurisdiction?
You have to look across jurisdictions. Do not get bogged down in the National Forest
System regulations, but it certainly has an impact on the landscape so still consider it.
o
What is the role of this Committee and of state and private forestry in changing
landownership? How can we lessen the impact of the change?
Brett Butler will provide insight on information/suggestions relating to private forest
landowners. The Committee can use the information that Brett provides to develop
recommendations. The other piece is the changing industrial private forest management
and what these changes tell us about dealing with the landscape. Tax policy and
generational shift make a big difference on what happens with the property, it effects
how the land is managed and what gets managed on the land. This is going to be a
tough issue with the multi-values and multi-ownerships. I don’t have the answer, but I
can provide the information and you can provide the answer.
o
How do you feel about the kinds of practices being implemented?
The kinds of practices we are implementing make sense. Now, if you can get the kind of
restoration needed going on the landscapes and making it a priority to make sure we are
reaching those private forest landowners within the landscape, we would be in good
shape.
o
Does USDA have advocacy on passing the Farm Bill and does the department have a
position on crop insurance programs in the FB?
Response from Leonard Jordan (NRCS): There is definitely an advocacy to get a Farm Bill
passed and the advocacy has not let up on the passage of the Farm Bill. Coupling or
decoupling of crop insurance; there has not been a formal position on this subject
matter. We have been asked our opinion and certainly have given information regarding
the subject.
o
Is there an opportunity for the Forest Service to be engaged on the economic and social
benefits to private forestry?
Identify the outcome that you may want on a landscape and what is needed to get there.
Many of the programs and resources cannot reach everyone. We certainly can include
those who want to be included, which is why the agency is focusing on priority areas.
Response from Paul Ries (Forest Service Employee): People have recognition of the
importance of farming, but not so much the benefits of forestry. There is no recognition
of forestry benefits provided among the public. The economic and social impacts small
family forest have on their communities are not clearly communicated.
As far as the Forest Service role, the Secretary is really committed to getting USDA
agencies to work together. We help to create markets and opportunities within woody
2
biomass. The Forest Service has been working with Rural Development who provides
markets for wood and has an economic impact on small communities. This fiscal
environment is calling for cost effective solutions to our challenge. There is an
opportunity for forestry to show what can be done in the economic environment.
This year the President included a budget line item for collaborative restoration of $20
million. This is an opportunity to implement solutions to some of the problems that
Congress can pick up. There are opportunities for us to create the right equation for
landowners, whether it’s ecosystem services, tax incentives, etc.
Committee Business (How the Committee will operate):
Does the Committee want to select a non-federal Co-Chair/Vice Lead? The role of the non-federal cochair/vice lead is to assist with providing or submitting recommendations to the Secretary of
Agriculture, presenting the recommendations to the Chief and the Undersecretary, serve as the liaison
between the Undersecretary and the Committee, and establish working groups to complete committee
task. The Committee elected to table this discussion until tomorrow morning.
How will decisions be made? The Committee will make decisions based on consensus, which means
decisions will be something everyone can live with.
How will working groups and sub-committees be established? The co-chair and chair will work together
to determine if a work group or sub-committee is needed based on the topic and the amount of work to
be accomplished. All working group and sub-committee materials will need to be presented to the full
Committee for a decision, which will then be transmitted into a recommendation that is presented to
the Secretary.
How will documents be shared between Committee members? The Committee will share documents
needed to develop recommendations, share working documents, and other materials via Dropbox.
Postings to the Committee Dropbox will be controlled by the Committee Coordinator. He or she will also
send out messages to the Committee when items have been placed in the Dropbox periodically.
How often would the committee like to meet? The Committee would like to meet monthly via
teleconference or webinar and twice a year face-to face (every six months). (Action item for staff: Check
with OGC on the feasibility of the Committee meeting monthly.).
National Woodland Owners Survey Presentation by Brett Butler:
Latest Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA) data shows an increase in forest land across America. FIA visited
west Texas which was the contributor to the increase. The 2011 data is still preliminary. What is new
from 2006? (Please see Brett Butler’s PowerPoint)
Questions for Brett:
o
When will the results be published and will the results include regional summaries?
Tables will be published by the end of the year and the actual publication will be done
middle of next year, which will also include Regional summaries.
o
State Forestry employees on slide 35, does that include Cooperative Extension?
3
The survey reference all state employees, it does not differentiate between the different
types of State agencies.
o
Are there things that the Committee can do to ensure this research continues?
The Forest Service has an agreement with the University of Massachusetts, which
provides soft funding for some of the temporary employees doing the research.
o
What is the disconnect between the number of plans and the number of plans being
implemented? The survey does not ask that information to be able to answer that
question.
o
Would the landowners be participating in the Forest Stewardship Program if they didn’t
have to? Communication issues prevent informing landowners from knowing that
landowners can generate funds from their property.
o
Forests are about people not necessarily about the trees. How do we promote the social
values around forest and communicate the benefits around the social values of the
people owning the land?
Ownership types don’t really vary by regions. Landowners are managing land for the
reasons noted on slide29.
o
What did you consider in terms of tax programs? Property taxes were considered in this
survey.
o
What additional resources are needed for your staff and what can the Committee do to
help? The surveys are sent to landowners based on FIA plot data and the National
Woodland Owners Survey looks for ways to augment the survey through different states.
The survey received at least 50% response.
Doug Rushton from the Conservation Districts suggested utilizing Conservation Districts
to issue the surveys to landowners.
Competitive Grants-Jaelith Hall-Rivera
According to the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act, the committee is responsible for providing advice
and input on competitive grant processes. Each region has their own competitive process that includes
States and Forest Service employees in the selection process.
o
How is the money divided between regions? $7 mil west, $6.9 south, $5 mil north. Why
is it divided that way? (Jaelith has to get the answer)
Steve Sinclair: In the Northeastern Area State Foresters have to approve the proposals, but they also
welcome partners to submit proposals for redesign. In many cases, the money is going to local partners
not necessarily going to the State.
4
This process has shown that the Forest Service is committed to putting money in the right places for the
right reasons, which has bought the agency a lot of incredibility on the Hill by showing we are able to do
something different. We are also constantly trying to improve the process.
If Congress creates the Collaborative Landscape Restoration budget line item then a pot of funds just for
competitive projects will be available, instead of funds coming from other program areas.
Competitive process does create difficulties for partners because of the uncertainty of the funding and
the uncertainty of if the partner will receive funding.
Are Tribes included in the process? It really undercuts the partners to complete and prepare the
applications by not opening up. The reason why we go through the State agencies is because of
Cooperative Forest Assistance Act establishes a statutory relationship between State and Private
Forestry and the States.
State Fire Assistance is part of redesign. However, State Fire Assistance does have another competitive
process in the West.
The hardest part of redesign is matching the funds with the projects. Redesign is comprised of funding
from several different programs and the projects have to fit the laws that establish the programs for the
projects to be funded.
The State forester’s regional websites may have some information on the competitive processes in their
respective regions.
Rita Hite- Farm Bill update
Where are things right now? Congress in the deficit deal passed an extension on some of the
conservation programs through 2014 and others through September of this year.
Senate is moving quicker than the House. The Senate will mark –up before the end of the session, which
will probably take place the week of May 6. This timeline will probably not be met.
House is planning to start with the Bill they started marking-up last year. In the conservation title,
Forestry faired very well. The Conservation Stewardship Program had caps that restricted the number of
acres that could be enrolled in the program lifted. Funding level caps were proposed for Cooperative
Forestry Programs, the caps were set well above historic funding levels for each of the programs. The
House has not mentioned any timeframe that they are working within. A Farm Bill passing this year is
not foreseen. Congress will probably punt again before passing another bill.
The Forest in the Farm Bill Coalition is working on the energy titles to ensure renewable energy
initiatives are being included in the Energy Bill. The Coalition is also working on some invasive species
issues as well. The House Bill removed the Community Wood Energy Program and the Senate reduced it.
The forestry products are being left out of bio-based products that are sold in stores. Renewable energy
loans programs are not being used.
Questions for Rita:
o
Is wood in green building material and LEED certification included in the energy
programs? USDA took a stand to promote buildings that use wood and accepted other
building criteria that used wood products. Other agencies have not jumped on board
5
with this, which makes it hard to push into Bills or other programs if it’s not widely
supported by other agencies.
o
Any discussions to expand the scope of NRCS into communities? There are other
authorities and other agencies that focus on communities that wouldn’t require taking
money from NRCS or expanding NRCS’s role in communities.
o
Are there opportunities to improve control burning programs, such as incentives and
technical assistance to promote prescribe burning? EQIP and WHIP do provide some of
that. However, the programs need to set priorities that align with issue.
o
What can this committee do to support some of the programs in the Farm Bill? We are
pretty well positioned on the Hill. This committee could do a really good service by
bringing all of USDA agencies into the mix. This committee could help set priorities and
goals for private forest in the U.S.
Relationships within the States really drive the outcome of the numbers and the performance of
programs within the State. The agencies have strategic plans that would have goals, but would not have
numbers. As those plans work their way into budget and annual direction it links to numbers. Consider
developing priorities within the USDA that partners can assist in achieving.
Joint Forestry Team- Ted Beauvais
The Joint Forestry Team is not at statutory committee, it is a team established by leaders of the
partnering agencies/organizations that focus on forestry and conservation related programs. The
barriers were identified that included programs not being implemented to full capability because of the
lack of communication between agencies. The Joint Forestry Team is more down in the weeds, more onthe-ground focused than the FRCC. The team would like to stay connected to the FRCC, realizing they
are independent (see letter submitted by the Joint Forestry Team). The work of the JFT could
compliment the FRCC and not duplicate efforts.
---- END OF FIRST DAY ----
6
April 12, 2012
Non-Federal Members Present: Steven Sinclair, Anthony Delfin, Daniel Forster, Tammie Perreault, Mary
Jeanne Packer (by phone), Bettina Ring, Leda Chahim, Allan Murray, Bonnie Stine, Doug Rushton, James
Houser, and Thomas DeGomez.
Federal Members: Craig Trimm (FSA), Rich Simms (NRCS), Jim Hubbard (FS, Committee Chair)), and
Frank Boteler (NIFA)
The members present constitute a quorum, as defined by the Charter approved on April 27, 2011.
Staff: Ted Beauvais (Designated Federal Officer) and Maya Solomon (Committee Coordinator)
(Insert Clean Water presentation)
Questions for John Barnwell:
o
What do you estimate the total cost of this case is? There was certainly a lot of concern about
how much this permitting process would cost. The case probably cost more than $1 million. EPA
didn’t go looking for this case; they are looking for the most practical solution to this problem.
They were under the impression that this program was working well.
o
What was the vote in this case? The ruling was seven to one, one justice recused himself.
o
Have you heard the new EPA administrator being any different from the previous administrator?
It’s a little too early at this point to tell what her agenda is.
Committee Business (continued from yesterday):
Non-federal committee chair nomination: Federal members should be able to vote on the co-chair. The
committee suggests that the non-industrial private forest landowners should fulfill the role of co-chair,
since the committee is geared to NIPF landowners. The NIPF members will meet via teleconference to
decide who would be best suited to fill the role. Action item for staff: Maya will arrange a call for the
NIPFs and the Forestry Consultant to discuss. The NIPFs will report back to the full committee who the cochair will be.
This committee will not address specific projects that would compromise relationships that would raise
ethical questions.
Meetings:
The next in-person meeting will be held on October 17-18, 2013.
The committee would like to have monthly teleconferences, beginning on June 20, 2013, from 12-1
(eastern).Action item for staff: Maya work on publishing the Federal Register Notice to get the monthly
calls established for the third Thursday of each month.
Next Steps: The committee members were asked what they would like the Committee to accomplish.
7
Tammie: The next six months will be a good time for this group to make an impact on the unpassed
Farm Bill and the financial climate of the country. This group could make an impact on budgets funding
forest resources and conservation.
I would also like the Committee to develop big picture goals that could be sustain through 2025 and
through different administrations that include NIPF lands and tribal lands. Create a single long -term
vision that all partners and entities can buy into. How do we want to sustain the nation’s forest?
Sustaining in the current condition is not viable. We need to make a conscious effort to make positive
changes that sustain private forest land.
Daniel Forster: From the wildlife perspective, we see more than just timber management we see
wildlife. We have a lot of money going into timber, but what is behind it is wildlife. We need programs
that don’t look at cross purposes, but form programs that encourage more collaboration to focus on
improving management of lands and high level organized coordination of programs. There is a wide
variation between priorities at a higher level and what priorities are translated on the ground. This
committee can help with the wildfire budget, because it’s unproductive to take from other programs to
fund fire, then we should develop a plan that will have an impact.
Doug Rushton: Conservation District’s goal is to get conservation on the ground. They are interested in
property taxes, improving the delivery system to get money to the ground to make an impact, policies
that hinder delivery on the ground, and the general management issues of forestry like insects and
disease. There is no one from Rural Development and would like to hear more from NRCS about how
they can engage more on the ground.
Alan Murray: Would like the Committee to think about issues pertaining to forest health. Appropriations
are not the only answer; the retention of markets and the health of markets are also the key to healthy
forest. We need to work across all boundaries, because forests extend across those boundaries.
Education and mis-education of landowners and industry are the problem; we need to communicate
what’s going on to landowners.
James Houser: Former Agriculture Secretaries were very frustrated by congressional opposition to
closing offices and impeding efficiency. There are a lot of hurdles and political issues to consolidating
USDA offices. Cost benefit analysis were developed on proposed FSA and NRCS offices to close and
public meeting were held in those areas to give the public an opportunity to vent their concerns. It
depends on where you are in the country that determines how many people are available to provide
service. With funding and technology changes, many FSA offices are a one person operation, which
should be avoided. The best model probably would be to have USDA Service Centers that house FSA,
NRCS, and Rural Development together. The underlining question is how to best service the landowner.
Response from a member of the public Mark Truax, National Association of Conservation Districts:
NACD and NRCS completed the “Field Office of the Future Project” last year. The exercise required each
State to assess their current operations. The assessment included developing a plan to change district
lines, office closures or openings, and how the changes would impact there delivery to landowners. The
reports have been completed and may be available upon request.
Rich Simms: Doing things online would be great. NRCS is always in conversation with OMB on how to do
better. Any recommendations that the committee can provide in regards to merging online processes
would be helpful.
8
Tammie Perrault (in response to Rich): How to integrate older landowners who are not interested in
being on internet? There is great value to human contact, so everything does not have to be electronic
and we should be able to communicate with them in way that they are comfortable.
Jim Hubbard: How are we going to get to an end product today? The presentation that sticks out is the
redesign presentation and the three priorities from the process to help guide the committee work.
Those priorities were codified in the Farm Bill and those are the charges of the committee.
Bettina Ring: There is an opportunity to look at State Forest Action Plans and State Wildlife Action Plans
to address issues and priorities. Sustainability is an issue and how do we communicate with landowners
who are not using internet. Continue to talk about the issues and addressing those according to the
priorities.
Leda Chahim: The big piece that is missing is the relationship with landowners. The committee can
address adding some consistency in the tools that are offered to the landowners and eliminate the miseducation related to the range of programs.
Mary Jeanne Packer: Enhancing public access and engaging the public with trees and forest through
consistent communication, if not consistent programs.
Frank Boteler: Restructuring the Forest Service wildfire budgets to help with the budgeting issues
surrounding wildfire.
Thomas DeGomez: We can’t continue to finance landowners to thin their forest in the West. In this
economic climate, the federal government just can’t do it. Most of the landowners we work with are not
well educated regarding forest management. Landowners are buying into the management, but they
don’t want to spend any money because it’s a recreation property. How do we solve the problem? The
big part of the problem, in the southwest, is that industry is not willing to service the areas because they
are unsure of the supply. They are afraid that if they build a plant that needs a certain volume from
National Forests that regulations will shut the forest down, which hinders the investment.
Alan Murray: Explore methods to generate income to help sustain the landscape. Explore USDA policies
that impede conserving working landscapes. Define and recommend actions and policies that maximize
land management that improve ecological and land management and create markets that sustain
communities.
BCAP was extended by authority only, which did not receive any extended appropriations.
Craig Trimm: Communication gaps between customers, how to we address this gap? A lot of this
communication gets back to the local level and how they communicate with customers, especially in
areas where offices are closing. This is an ongoing issue. We, as public servants, need to figure this out
and use our partners to get the word out.
Mary Jeanne Packer: Intergenerational transfer and tax incentives in maintaining private forest in
current ownership.
Rich Simms: Safe Harbor recently partnered with NRCS for the benefit of forest landowners. This group
can provide recommendations on how we can work together to achieve. Data sharing is important. We
can all benefit from sharing geo-reference data to better improve program delivery.
9
Developing 2012-2013 Workplan
Questions to help guide the discussion: How do we want to go about identifying priorities to guide our
work, who will work on what is identified, and the timing to complete the task? Action item for staff:
develop a table of outlining the priorities and assignments.
What issues should be included for agenda consideration? (The group voted on the top three topics
during the break. The vote tallies are indicated next to the topics.)
Agency program alignment and delivery systems realign Farm Bill (and broader USDA programs
to meet the three national priorities. (6 votes)
Landscape scale programs that aligns with Forest Management program and include the Forest
Action Plans and State wildlife Action Plans. (7 votes)
Forest markets and new tools to help incentivize the right markets (and size of the market) to
help sustain forest industry and forest management. (3 votes)
Delivery system and how to organize and incorporate technology across agencies and other
organizations (6 votes)
Climate Change, forest conditions will help us redefine healthy forests, invasive species, fire,
and ecosystem services (4 votes)
Fragmentation, intergenerational transfer and tax issues (4 votes)
Connecting people to Forest, access to programs for small forest landowners, doing a better job
with people through messaging, diversity (Urban and Community Forestry), and youth education
(4 votes)
Performance measures to determine the impact being made
Relationships with landowner alignment and reaching the unengaged landowner and
underserved constituents (1vote)
Budget, utilizing funding from the forest to manage it
Prioritizing the list
The three topics to address first:
Alignment and delivery systems
Forest Condition, Threats to Forest Health, Climate Change, Invasive Species
Landscape Scale Conservation and Management
Landscape scale conservation and management (approaches for forest condition solutions
across boundaries/ Farm Bill Programs/ Forest Action Plans-Wildlife Action Plans):
o
o
Three issues with landscape scale conservation:
1. It’s needed for the sustainability and management of natural resources
2. It’s difficult to understand and to implement
3. There are pockets of successful examples of where it’s going on.
There are opportunities to look at things in a broader way through State Forest Action
Plans and State Wildlife Action Plans; pair these documents to identify common
10
o
o
priorities, set our priorities, and then identify what USDA program can address the
priorities.
How can we incentivize large numbers of forest owners? Priorities need to be set as to
where we will work and how we will use the action plans to guide us, then fit programs
together to address the priority areas. Performance measures also need to be created
to track our progress.
 The committee would like more information on collaborative landscape projects
underway. Examples of varies projects will be researched and provided to the
committee at a later meeting or as information becomes available.
Case studies can assist in addressing this landscape issue. The
Committee would like case studies on the following:
o Driftless Study
o The Nature Conservancy studies
o Fire Learning Network
o Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Projects
o White Mountain Apache case
o Forest Stewardship multi-owner planning
o What things do we pay attention to?
How can we use the Forest Stewardship Program to reach more people on the
landscape? Consulting Foresters and landowners are needed in this effort, as they can
assist with developing a template approach for the Forest Stewardship Program. The
program needs to provide common services across a landscape so there is access to the
experts and technical services. Possibly having a peer network is interesting and a
valuable concept that can assist with avoiding issues relating to government assistance.
A working group can identify programs that address forest conditions and landscape scale conservation,
and then identify gaps, confusion, etc., to make the topics more focused on the FRCC needs. (Working
group members need to be identified)
Action Item for staff: Invite Dave Cleaves to the next FRCC meeting to provide information on climate
change. The presentation should include how adaptation is being presented and federal programs, also
invite someone from an external partner to discuss climate change.
It would help to know from Dave what the agencies are doing regarding climate change (strategic plan)
to help with identifying what needs to improve. Who is the Federal lead on climate change? Has there
been policy proposed by the Forest Service on climate change? Policy has been created for the National
Forest and how they address adaptation is based on a score card.
There is a report from the USDA Office of the Chief Economist that addresses climate change. What is the
national climate change policy? The forest has the most impact on climate and the forest will be the
most impacted by climate change.
Action Item for staff: Also invite Rich Guldin of the Forest Service to provide significant findings from the
latest inventory and analysis of U.S. forests Both Rich and Dave can give information about climate
change and forest adaptations, both have written information that the committee can read on these
11
topics. Action Item for staff: Provide the link to the Forest Service Climate Change Website. The
committee would like invasive species information by region, broken down by information relating to
tree health and what is related to forest health. Both Dave and Rich can share what type of programs
could help in this area.
The overall approach is to have Dave and Rich discuss forest trends and the overall status of climate
change, and then address some specific risk. We can find folks who can address fire and endangered
species and have folks who can share some success stories. Ask the presenters how they think the
information they presented affects private forest landowners. Define small versus large landowners.
Action item for staff: Share the documents from the Joint Forestry Team i.e. workplan and other
information addressing JFT priorities
The committee will address alignment and delivery at a later meeting.
Suggest developing working groups that will flesh out the topics and develop some questions that are
geared to the issues that are of the Committee’s interest. Then the Committee could ask additional
questions to guide their recommendations.
The Next FRCC Meeting:
The next meeting will be a 90 minute webinar on June 20th with Dave and Rich to share information
relating to landscape scale conservation and management. Each presenter will have 20 minutes to
discuss their topic. The committee will discuss the topic more on the July call; along with more
discussion about what type of landscape scale case studies are available. We could invite people who
were involved in the cases to share lessons learned with the committee.
Closing comments:
Sharing contact information of all the members
Arrange a conference call with NIPF and forestry consultant and work out who will be the co-chair
12