Results showed that a broadly based stewardship program might be ...... 4) I see greater use of uneven-aged silviculture especially on the smaller, less fertile ...... these "carbon easements" will be provided by private companies whose ...... work or the amount of the accounts payable and the accounts receivable was high.
Proceedings: Symposium on Nonindustrial Private Forests: Learning from the Past, Prospects for the Future Melvin J. Baughman, Editor Nancy Goodman, Editor and Designer Deb Thayer, Cover Design
Published by Extension Special Programs Minnesota Extension Service University of Minnesota 405 Coffey Hall 1 420 Eckles Avenue St. Paul, MN 55108-6068
June 1996
MINNESOTA EXTENSION SERVICE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
Proceedings: Symposium on Nonindustrial Private Forests: Learning from the Past, Prospects for the Future
To order additional copies of these proceedings: Request:
Proceedings, Symposium on Nonindustrial Private Forests
From:
Extension Special Programs Minnesota Extension Service University of Minnesota 405 Coffey Hall 1420 Eckles Avenue St. Paul, MN 55108-6068
Phone:
1-800-367-5363 612-625-2787 612-625-2207
Fax:
Proceedings are available at no charge while the supply lasts. However, Proceedings ordered after Sep. 30, 1996 will he charged a $5.00 shipping and handling fee by Extension Special Programs. To pay the shipping and handling fee, enclose check or money order for $5.00 payable to the University of Minnesota.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, this material is available in alternative formats upon request. Please contact Extension Special Programs at (612) 625-2787.
Printed on recycled paper containing 10% postconsumer waste with agribased inks.
The University of Minnesota, including the Minnesota Extension Service, is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment, without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation.
Table of Contents Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................... Executive Summary of the Symposium ...................................................................................... vi
Melvin J. Baughman General Session Introduction from the Moderator ................................................................................................................ ...... 1
Keith A. Argow Keynote Address: Nonindustrial Private Forests—Learning from the Past, Prospects for the Future .. 3
R. Neil Sampson Private Forest Landowners of the United States, 1994 .............................................................................. 10
Thomas W. Birch Panel Federal Government Perspective ................................................................................................................ 21
Joan Comanor State Forester's Perspective ........................................................................................................................ 24
Stanley F. Hamilton Education Perspective .................................................................................................................................. 28
Larry E. Biles Consulting Foresters' Perspective ............................................................................................................. 34
Robert McColly Forest Products Industry Perspective (no paper available)
Ken Munson Landowner Association Perspective ........................................................................................................... 37
John Marchant Concurrent Sessions Education Current Use Valuation for Agricultural and Forest Land and Timber Harvest Ad Valorem Taxation: A Success Story for Cooperative Extension Service Public Issues and Policy Education in Georgia ... 41 C. W. Dangerfield Jr. and J. E. Gunter Extension Leadership in Issues-Based Programming: A North Carolina Example ................................ 49
Rick A Hamilton and Edwin J. Jones Natural Resource Education and Extension in the Historically Black Universities and Colleges . . . . 54
Peter R. Mount Encouraging NIPF Stewardship Through Demonstration ........................................................................ 58
Dr. Stephen B. Jones and Alison H. Harmon Cross Boundary Management on Nonindustrial Private Forests in Pennsylvania: A Vision for the Future ..................................................................................................................................................... 63
Michael P. Washburn
Extending Forest Management with Volunteers: The Master Woodland Manager Project ................... 69
Richard A. Fletcher and A. Scott Reed Regulation State Forest Practice Regulatory Programs: Current Status and Future Prospects .............................. 82
Paul V. Ellefson, Antony S. Cheng, and Robert J. Moulton Family-Owned Forests in an Era of Regulatory Uncertainty ................................................................. 95
Nels Hanson Local Regulation of Forest Practices in New York State: Implications for NIPF Management . . . . 101 Donald W. Floyd, Janyl E. Kaeser, Craig J. Davis, Valerie A. Luzadis, and Lianjun Mang Landowner Opinions of Water Protection Rules in the Oregon Forest Practices Act ........................ 110
Anne B. Hairston and Paul W. Adams Conservation Easements Conservation Easements: Rewards for Stewardship .............................................................................. 118
Constance Best and Laurie Wayburn Conservation Easements and Forestry: Building Better Partnerships ................................................... 125
Mary Ellen Boelhower and Tammara Van Ryn International Forestry Brazilian Forest Policy and NIPF Land Management in Santa Catarina, Brazil ................................ 137
Sandra S. Hodge Multiple Woodland Management Options: A Private Landowner Woodland Stewardship Program in Ontario ................................................................................................................................................... 145
Geoff Mann, Stewart Hilts, Peter Mitchell, and Ingrid Vanderschot Agroforestry and Sustainable Development: The Case of Mid-eastern Philippines .............................. 153
Edilberto E. Nasayao Monitoring the Costs and Revenues of Nonindustrial Private Forestry in Europe .............................. 173
Dr. Pentti Hyttinen Financial Accounting Model for NIPF ...................................................................................................... 180
Juha Hakkarainen Rapid Rural Appraisal of Nonindustrial Private Forest Initiatives in Colombia ................................ 196
Masatoshi Endo and Jan G. Laannan Landowner Characteristics Factors Influencing Participation in Public Management Assistance Programs ................................... 204
W. L. Mills, Jr., William L. Hoover, Sudha Vasan, Kevin T McNamara, and Venkatarao Nagubadi Changes in Timberland Ownership Characteristics in Georgia ........................................................... 214
David H. Newman, Mary Ellen Aronow, Thomas G. Harris, Jr., and Ginger Macheski Early and Late Adopters of Stewardship Planning ................................................................................. 222
Paul W. Graesser and Dr. Jo Ellen Force Arkansas' NIPF Landowners' Opinions and Attitudes Regarding Management and Use of Forested Property ........................................................................................................................................................ 230
Richard A. Williams, Donald E. Voth, and Carl Hitt
II
Ownership Fragmentation in the Nonindustrial Private Forest Lands of Northern Minnesota Between 1965 and 1990 ............................................................................................................................................. 238
Timothy Fleury and Charles R. Blinn Predicting Adoption-Diffusion Behavior of Opinion-Leading NIPF Landowners ................................ 248
Gerald H. Cross and Champe B. Green Selling Stewardship Within the Community: A Social Marketing Approach ...................................... 255
Stephen H. Broderick, Leslie B. Snyder, and C. Benjamin Tyson Factors Affecting the Decisions of NIPF Owners to Use Assistance Programs ................................... 264
Alfredo B. Lorenzo and Pat Beard Harvesting Nonindustrial Private Forests: Who's in Charge? .............................................................. 276
Andrew F. Egan Taxes The Effects of Federal-State Death and Gift Taxes on the Management of Private Nonindustrial Forest Lands for Selected States ................................................................................................................ 285
Daniel M. Peters, Dr. Harry L. Haney, Jr., and John L. Greene Green IRAs to Improve Forest Care ........................................................................................................ 300
Lester A. DeCoster The Effect of Income Tax Incentives on Cash Flows from Nonindustrial Private Forests ................ 308
John L. Greene US Forest Property Taxation Systems and Their Effects ...................................................................... 318
Sun Joseph Chang Benefits from NIPF Lands Carbon Sequestration on Nonindustrial Private Forest Lands in the US .............................................. 326
Linda S. Heath and Richard A. Birdsey Forestry in the President's Climate Change Action Plan: Year 2000 and Beyond .............................. 334
Robert J. Moulton Evaluating Forest Management Impacts on Profitability, Wood-flow, and Future Stumpage Supplies from Conservation Reserve Program Pine Plantations in Georgia ........................................................ 340
David J. Moorhead and Coleman W. Dangelfield Jr. Cost-sharing Retention, Condition, and Land Use Aspects of Tree Plantings Established Under Federal Forestry Cost-share Programs .................................................................................................................................. 348
W. B. Kurtz, T A. Noweg, R. G. Moulton and R. J. Alig Accomplishments and Program Evaluations of Forestry Financial Assistance Programs ................... 357
Deborah A. Gaddis Technical Assistance Evaluations of Technical Assistance Programs for Nonindustrial Private Forest Landowners ........... 367 Frederick W. Cubbage, Barry D. New, and Robert J. Moulton Forest Stewardship Coached Planning Program Evaluation: A Survey to Determine Outcomes . . . 377 Donald R. Theoe and Arno W. Bergstrom Public, Private, Expert, Layman: Who's Selling Makes a Difference ................................................ 386
Ian A. Munn
iii
Turn-Key and Full Circle Consulting Services ........................................................................................ 394
Ronald D. Snyder Cooperatives and Partnerships The American Forest & Paper Association's Sustainable Forestry Initiative" and Nonindustrial Forest Landowners ...................................................................................................................................... 397
Rick Cantrell Comparing Kentucky Woodland Owners Association Members to the Nonindustrial Private Landowner Population in Kentucky ......................................................................................................... 403
Eric Gracey and Matthew H. Pelkki The Western Upper Peninsula Forest Improvement District ................................................................. 411
Richard W. Bolen Sustainable Management Landowner Attitudes Toward Landscape-Level Management ................................................................. 417
Michael Jacobson, Edwin Jones, and Fred Cubbage Challenges for Ecosystem Management with Virginia NIPF Owners ................................................... 426
Sandra S. Hodge General Session Symposium Summary ................................................................................................................................. 434
A. Scott Reed Poster Abstracts A Piece of the Biodiversity Puzzle: A Comparison of Inventory Methods to Determine Vegetative/ Wildlife Habitat Structure ........................................................................................................................... 439 Assessment of Residual Stand Damage on Three Harvest Methods ...................................................... 440 Challenges and Opportunities Available to Rural Minnesota Communities ......................................... 441 Current Use Valuation for Agricultural and Forest Land and Timber Harvest Ad Valorem Taxation A Success Story for Cooperative Extension Service Public Issues and Policy Education in Georgia . 442 Developing Guidelines to Sustain Wildlife Habitat on Pennsylvania's Nonindustrial Private Forests: A Cooperative Project with the National Audubon Society and the Procter and Gamble Company . 443 Effects of Partial Cutting Practices on Forest Stand Structure in Appalachian Hardwood Forests ... 443 Effects of Timber Harvesting on NIPF Timber Resource Sustainability .............................................. 444 Impacts of Conservation Reserve Program Tree Plantings on Agricultural and Personal Income and Employment in Laurens County, Georgia ................................................................................................. 445 Improving Markets for NIPF Products: Case Studies from Asia ........................................................... 445 Incorporating Ecosystem Management into Forest Stewardship Programs for Washington NIPF Landowners ................................................................................................................................................. 446 Maintaining Long-term Forest Health and Productivity on NIPFs: Implications for Social Scientists 447 National Assessment of Wildlife Management Planning in the Forest Stewardship Program ........... 447 Natural Resource Attitudes in Children's Magazines .............................................................................. 448 NIPF Taxation: Current Status and Recommendations for Change ...................................................... 449 Potential Influences on Private Land Conservation Program Development in Southeast Ohio ........... 450 Projected Stumpage Supplies Influenced by Georgia CRP Pine Plantations ......................................... 450 Significance of Ohio's Forests: Nonindustrial Private Landowners ...................................................... 451 Southeastern Pine Plantations and Wildlife Habitat: Impacts and Opportunities ................................ 451 iv
Executive Summary of the Symposium by Melvin J. Baughman'
The Symposium on Nonindustrial Private Forests: Learning from the Past, Prospects for the Future originated within the Society of American Foresters Working Group on Nonindustrial Private Forests. Its Steering Committee, however, reflected a wide range of stakeholders and interest groups. The purpose for this symposium was to highlight significant research and program evaluations conducted during the last ten years concerning management of nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) lands. This forum offered more than 200 researchers, program administrators, policy makers, and woodland owners the opportunity to share their knowledge, discuss important findings, and recommend future research and program needs regarding NIPF lands. Keynote speaker Neil Sampson described the historical context supporting a public interest in private forestry. If we think of past and current programs as a platform, the supporting beams would be state and federal agencies, universities, and private organizations. Its planks would include a deep respect for private property rights, readily available resource and market data, a reliance on technical assistance to landowners, increasing cooperation between federal and state agencies, and clear communication about forestry concepts and values. Principles by which government programs should be evaluated are: 1) private ownership rights must be respected, protected, and broadly understood across society; 2) government must effectively develop and communicate the resource data, information, and skills needed to manage forests sustainably in the public interest; and 3) government must improve the balance of economic incentives and disincentives facing private landowners. Tom Birch discussed a 1992 national survey of private owners. There are about 9.9 million private forest ownerships and they control about 58 percent of the total forest area of the US, but 73 percent of the timberland. The number of ownerships less than 100 acres and the total area they control increased between 1978 and 1992. More than 90 percent of the private ownerships have fewer than 100 acres of forest land each, and they control 30 percent of the private forest land. About 5 percent of private ownerships have written management plans, but the proportion with written plans increases with the size of ownership. Principal reasons for owning forest land are that it is "part of the farm" or "residence" (nearly 40 percent), "recreation and aesthetic enjoyment" (23 percent), "land investment" (9 percent), and "timber production" (3 percent). Although only 29 percent of the private forest land is owned principally for timber production, 46 percent of the owners with 78 percent of the forest land have harvesting experience; 34 percent say they never intend to harvest, but they hold only 12 percent of the private acreage. NIPF landowners in 1992 were younger, better educated, and had higher income than a decade ago. More are retired or in servicerelated industries; fewer are blue collar workers. Six panelists representing federal government, state government, education, consultants, forest product industry, and landowner associations each described: why NIPF landowners were important to them, programs offered in the past, program success, future involvement with NIPF landowners, cooperation expected with other organizations, and their vision of NIPF management in the future. Looking at their
1
Symposium Steering Committee Chairperson and Extension Specialist-Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, 1530 N. Cleveland Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108. Presented at the Symposium on Nonindustrial Private Forests: Learning from the Past, Prospects for the Future, Washington, DC, February 18-20, 1996. vi
anticipated future involvement in NIPF programs, the Forest Service, within its funding limits, expects to continue synthesizing information about conditions and trends, providing technical assistance, knowledge, and incentives, and represent NIPF landowners in public policy issues. State foresters want to continue forest fire and pest protection programs, encourage landowners to learn about forest management, educate the public about forests and how modern forest practices can provide forest products and a healthy environment, monitor trends in forest conditions, and ensure that decision makers on the ground have maximum discretion to practice sound forestry. The education sector, represented by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, reported that survey after survey has indicated that education is a prerequisite for the wholesale adoption of forest management by NIPF landowners and that unbiased, nonadvocacy, research-based educational programs are here to stay. Consulting foresters plan to continue leading debates on NIPF issues, advocating expansion of extension programs, requiring continuing education for consultants, and supporting tax reform. Landowner associations will always be a cornerstone of forestry in this country, but we need a cultural attitude change among the large number of unidentified forest owners to increase their participation in forest management and to have more influence on public policies and education of the public regarding forestry. Following this introductory panel, the symposium divided into three concurrent sessions with different subjects covered in each. At the end of each day, there were discussions among participants in the concurrent sessions to identify the main points they had learned and additional research needs. The following is a summary of papers presented.
Education The Georgia Cooperative Extension Service worked closely with the Georgia Legislature, Department of Revenue, and county governments over a five-year period to conduct educational programs on property taxes. A wide range of educational materials and events were produced for taxpayers, forest landowners, farmers, agencies, legislators, county assessors and commissioners, and others. This policy debate led to changes in the Georgia constitution and subsequent laws and regulations that dramatically changed property taxes on forest land. Tax changes could lead to 5,300 more jobs in the state's timber industry. The North Carolina Extension Forestry Program in cooperation with several other forestry agencies and organizations held three one-day conferences entitled: Conservation and Confiscation: Who Really Owns Your Land? Goals were to I) inform landowners and the general public on the importance of forestry in North Carolina, Clean Water and Endangered Species Acts, timber taxation, forest practices regulations, and government's right to regulate private property; 2) teach participants how public policy is made and how to participate in the process; and 3) give Forest Steward Awards to landowners. Environmental groups were invited as speakers, hut refused to participate. Instead they harassed the organizers through newspaper articles and contacts with state and federal government administrators and elected officials prior to the events. Over 900 people attended and 99 percent rated the programs good to excellent. Some organizations and individuals that were critical of the workshops before they happened, recognized the integrity of the Cooperative Extension Service and now are cooperators on other programs. There is a need for more forest policy education and Extension is in a unique position to present unbiased information based on sound science. Extension programs at Historically Black State Colleges and Universities (referred to as 1890 Schools) have given relatively little attention to natural resource management on minority-owned lands although income from natural resources is very important to these people. Rules governing property transfer are not clearly understood by most minority owners, leading to division of existing tracts among several heirs and creation of uneconomical land units. Premature timber harvest and/or land sale usually results. The 1890 Schools may increase natural resources extension programming aimed at minorities if they had direct access to vii
Renewable Resources Extension Act funds, USDA Extension administrators encouraged them to provide such programming, minority owners and their associations called for such programs, the impacts of existing successful programs were publicized more, and programs for minority landowners were better coordinated among government agencies and nonprofit groups. The influence of a forestry slide program and field tour on landowner attitudes toward timber harvesting was evaluated by Penn State University. Based on objective test scores, participants that had a greater understanding of forest ecology and silviculture were more likely to accept timber harvesting generally, and clearcutting specifically, as forest management tools. Acceptance of clearcutting as a viable forestry tool occurred only after participants toured the demonstration area; the slide program alone was not convincing. Penn State is proposing creation of Cross Boundary Management Organizations (CBMO). Groups of adjoining landowners voluntarily would form an association committed to sustainable management. The group would serve as a forum for landowner interaction, information sharing, joint contract negotiations, visits from experts, and conflict resolution. To evaluate their efficacy, two geographically separated areas would be studied. One area would have a CBMO with an intensive outreach education and technical assistance program whereas the other area would not have such services. Over time they would be compared with regard to planning activities, types of treatments used, and acres affected. Oregon State University developed a Master Woodland Manager program in which selected volunteer landowners received 85 hours of forestry training in return for 85 hours of volunteer service promoting forestry among their peers. Follow-up evaluations showed that volunteers had contributed an average of 57 hours each to volunteer work with most indicating they would continue to offer more help. Each MWM prepared a management plan during the course; 99 percent said it was a good learning experience and 90 percent used the plan to manage their property. Among the clients served by the MWM volunteers, 81 percent were positive to very positive about their service. Similar programs now are operating in at least 14 states.
Regulation Several studies concerning the regulatory climate in the US were summarized. There are 38 states with at least one program regulating forest practices on private forest land. Such programs cover 22 percent of the nation's privately owned timberland. The focus of regulation is usually nonpoint sources of water pollutants. Ten states have comprehensive forest practice regulations to protect forest soils, fisheries, wildlife, water quantity and quality, air quality, recreation, scenic beauty, and at the same time maintain economic viability of timber production. Rules usually include administrative and enforcement procedures and standards for timber harvesting, transportation, reforestation, and sensitive resources. More attention is being given to cumulative effects of forest practices applied by several landowners. In at least 18 states, nonforestry agencies enforce regulations (e.g., water quality, wetlands, erosion, pest control, endangered species) that may pertain to forest land. County or municipal governments also have nearly 400 ordinances of which 70 percent were established since 1980. Forestry communities are faced with choosing between regulation by many units of local government or by a single state agency. The very ecosystems of concern to society can become fragmented by the multiple institutions that society has developed to guide their use and management. The breadth of forestry practices subject to regulation is growing and the exactness of standards presented in laws and rules is becoming sharper. Such rules cannot easily accommodate new forestry information and technologies. There is growing interest in having competing public and private interests collaborate to develop forest practice standards. Recent US Supreme Court rulings have reassessed past rulings that favored uncompensated taking by state regulations. The 10 states with comprehensive forest practice regulations spent more than $27.6 million during 1991 in their regulatory activities. Additional costs also accrue to landowners who may forego income or spend more money to comply with regulations. A five-state review of harvesting operations in the Midwest found that compliance with water quality viii
protection regulations reduced the sales' net revenues by more than 59 percent. A similar study in three southern states found that harvest revenues were reduced by 3 percent. In Washington State the number of timber harvest applications rose as the number of forest practice regulations increased. In a survey of NIPF landowners, more than half said the primary reason for their last harvest and the main reason for their next harvest was regulatory uncertainty. Because of regulatory uncertainty, 60 percent harvested sooner than planned, harvested more than planned, and/or considered converting their land to nonforest uses. Changes in the regulatory climate were accelerating the loss of mature forests contrary to wildlife habitat needs. A Conservation Contract has been proposed to provide stability for landowners and protect fish and wildlife. Landowners could sign a 25-year contract voluntarily and renew it at their option for two additional 25-year periods. They would be obligated to follow current Forest Practice Board rules and would he compensated if future restrictions were imposed or restrictions built into the contract would be relaxed to offset the added costs. They could choose either single-age or multiple-age management and specify their own rotation age. They must reforest within two years, conduct commercial thinnings that also would improve certain types of wildlife habitat, and preserve buffers on fish-bearing streams and wetlands. Landowners could terminate the contract if a family or tree farm emergency arose but then would need to obey rules of the day. Permits for forest practices would be approved by the department of natural resources. This concept is being further debated. During a study of timber harvesting ordinances in New York towns, surveys were sent to four types of local officials regarding their knowledge and attitudes concerning forestry and timber harvesting ordinances. Towns that prohibited timber harvest had a significantly higher average population density than towns that permitted timber harvesting and towns without any harvesting ordinances. Towns that prohibited timber harvest also had the highest incidence of complaints and concerns (e.g., visual and aesthetic impact, soil erosion and sedimentation, damage to public property, impact on water quality, damage to neighboring private property, and noise impact) and they were somewhat less dependent on the forest products industry. Conservation Committee Chairs tended to have a more pro-environmental attitude than any other types of town officials. The more pro-environmental the attitudes, the more likely they were to prefer more stringent regulatory remedies. Town supervisors preferred less stringent remedies than any other officials. Oregon passed new Water Protection Rules in 1994 that defined streamside buffers. Oregon State University later surveyed NIPF landowners, industry foresters, and logging operators that had filed notifications of intent to harvest on property with water. A majority of people in all three groups supported the rules. There was modest support for creating comparable rules for other land uses (agriculture, grazing) in "fairness" to all landowners. When asked to rate methods for government to influence forest practices on private lands, NIPFs preferred compensation and tax credits over cost-sharing, education, technical assistance, and easements. While simplicity in rules is a desirable goal, flexibility was more important to survey respondents. NIPF owners need more training or assistance to better understand options that exist in the rules.
Conservation Easements A conservation easement is a voluntary land-use restriction placed on property by the owner. It generally protects natural values having public benefit, such as open space or fish and wildlife habitat. An easement is granted to a government entity or nonprofit land trust to monitor and enforce through time. An easement reduces a property's appraised value. As compensation for this loss, the landowner may be paid by the easement holder or the landowner may receive an income tax deduction as well as a reduction in the eventual estate tax and possibly property taxes. In recognition for their long-term stewardship of forestland, perhaps NIPF landowners that grant easements should he eligible for red carpet treatment in the forms of ix
simplified regulatory review for compliance with forest practice acts and federal environmental legislation, and priority for cost-sharing and technical assistance. A study to evaluate conservation easements and their approaches to protection included a survey of easement landowners in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont; a survey of easement holders; and field visits to three properties where easement problems were reported. Most easement land is privately owned and 63 percent of the owners are over age 60. Two-thirds of all landowners donated their easement. Over half of all properties have public values (e.g., scenic views, water frontage, recreational features), but such features are not all specifically protected. Forest health was the most often cited land management goal, but wood products and wildlife habitat also were mentioned frequently. Ninety-one percent of all landowners use a professional forester, two-thirds of all easement properties produce income for the landowner, only 15 percent of the owners manage their land differently because of the easement. Conclusions were that conservation easements on working forests should require forest management to he carried out in accordance with broad goals ensuring that long-term management is ecologically sound; easements should require management plans to be prepared by forestry professionals before any forest management is carried out; and forest management should follow "best harvesting practices" as such standards are developed.
International Forestry The state of Santa Catarina in southern Brazil lost three-quarters of its forest cover over the last century through intensive timber harvesting and conversion to agriculture. All three native forest types now are classified as threatened and to protect further loss, no harvest or other alteration is permitted in stands with intermediate and advanced stages of growth. Most forest land is located on small subsistence agricultural parcels in a mosaic pattern. Fuelwood is the primary energy source. Threatened with loss of fuelwood and income from their woodlands, landowners are illegally clearcutting and converting them to agricultural land on which income-generating activities are not restricted. Loggers have also accelerated timber poaching on forest reserves. The Secretary of Agriculture has proposed a massive reforestation program primarily with exotic species, but no funding has yet been approved and reforestation with non-native trees cannot take place on native forests. There are conflicts over forest policy between conservationists that want to protect native forests and the landowners and timber industry that want to have an economic forest industry, possibly based on exotic species. Subsistence farmers are not interested in reforestation, especially when they still can see trees around, and many feel they cannot wait seven years for a forest crop when agriculture produces annual crops. The national forest policy to protect native forests has accelerated loss of the forest and deprived landowners of the use of their woodlands. A private landowner woodland stewardship program is being planned in Ontario, Canada. Landowner focus groups, questionnaires, workshops, and interviews and questionnaires from extension staff indicate the need for a handbook and a Master Steward program. The handbook will begin with a discussion of woodland ecology and getting to know your woodlot, followed by management options: leave-it-alone, reforestation/ biodiversity restoration, nature appreciation, wildlife, recreation, firewood, moderate forestry, and timber management. Master Stewards may he trained through either workshops or a correspondence course. In the Mideastern Philippines where the forestland area is decreasing from destructive timber extraction and resource-exploitive farming, fifty farmers participated in an agroforestry research and development project. Farmers received technical support to develop a farm plan and learn new farming methods. Demonstration farms were instrumental in technology transfer. Logistical support included seeds and seedlings of improved crop varieties, tree planting stock, pesticides, fertilizers, and loans of equipment. Agroforestry practices most applicable on the sites and most acceptable to the farmers were sloping agricultural land technology, multi-story cropping, biointensive gardening, intercropping, use of high-yielding varieties of
x
cash crops, improved fallow, and soil-conserving bench terracing. The benefit-cost ratio of introduced agroforestry practices was 2.36 compared to 1.76 for traditional practices. Privately owned forests account for nearly half of the total forest area in Europe. Most countries offer incentives to farmers who convert agricultural land to forestry, but the amount of incentive needed to convince farmers to make this conversion is unknown. There is little information on the financial returns to forestry, especially as more regulations are passed to alter management practices to increase environmental benefits. Several user groups would benefit from better countrywise and regionwise information on forestry costs and revenues, including forest owners, owner associations, forestry advisors, policy makers, financial institutions, and forestry economics research institutions. Problems in data collection include lack of a complete list of forest landowners from which to select a sample for study, potentially large number of uncooperative owners, validity of information reported by landowners, potential for bias because more profitable owners are more likely to report data than less profitable owners, and the high expense of monitoring each sampling unit (landowner). The author suggested solutions to some of these problems. Financial accounting will give a picture of the overall profitability, financing situation, and asset value of a woodlot. A Finnish study of 64 farms showed that most measurements of general ratio analysis can be calculated and used to analyze the performance of a forestry business; however, in forestry, the distinction between profit (the real result) and cash flow (the liquidity) is more drastic than in many other businesses. Therefore, for optimal everyday planning and decision making, forest owners need information based on both accrual and money flow. Columbia is 46 percent forested. Most reforestation is done by industries taking advantage of tax incentives. The NIPF concept does not exist because of land tenure issues and the culture and policies which have traditionally encouraged clearing forests for agriculture. During a rapid rural appraisal trip, key informant interviews, direct observations, and public records were used to identify problems and successful community forestry projects. Landowners with small- and medium-sized farms were often not interested in reforestation because there was not much perceived personal gain. Regeneration projects were successful where people were tired of the fuelwood shortage and indigenous leaders assumed strong leadership in reforestation and where people received loans for planting trees. Public forest policy should promote local processing of wood to increase its value. More open discussion is needed between forestry project leaders, local people, and environmental groups about when exotic species can be used. Just opposing exotic trees, as environmental groups do, may result in reduced reforestation activities.
Landowner Characteristics Indiana NIPF landowners were surveyed to determine how participants in government programs differed from non-participants. Participants were those that had participated in any of the following: Indiana's Classified Forests, Wildlife Habitat, or Windbreak property tax programs; or any federal cost-share program. Results showed that a broadly based stewardship program might be accepted by as many landowners as can be served by professionals currently available. The largest percentage of landowners were more interested in noncommercial values of their woodland. Only those that had or soon will have timber to sell were interested in timber sales. NIPFs look to district foresters mainly for technical assistance rather than for help with broad-based forest stewardship. Participation is a socialization process involving contact with natural resource professionals and other landowners. Forestry-related organizations meet basic needs for interpersonal relationships, having fun, reinforcing their ideas, and getting additional information on management activities. Funding limitations for public forestry professionals suggest the need to develop networks of landowners who assist their uninvolved peers and to focus assistance on larger landowners.
xi
Results of a survey of new timberland owners in Georgia were compared to a survey of all timberland owners in the state. New timberland owners (NTOs) were wealthier and better educated than the current average timberland owner. NTOs placed a higher value on recreation and hunting opportunities. Many were searching for reliable sources of information to guide their management decisions. NTOs saw timberland as an investment and saw timber, wildlife, and recreation opportunities as primary activities. Although NTOs plan to harvest timber, they have other income and investment options and may hold timber if the stumpage price is lower than the standing timber's value for recreation. NIPF landowners in Idaho were surveyed by mail and landowners with a Forest Stewardship Plan (early adopters) were compared to landowners without such a plan (later adopters). Compared to the early adopters, later adopters tended to be older, less educated, had lower income, owned their forest property longer, and spent less time on their property. Later adopters tended to feel that a Stewardship Plan had limited advantages, was not compatible with their values and beliefs, and was complex. Arkansas' NIPF landowners were studied by a series of focus group interviews and by a mail survey. Preliminary findings from the mail survey indicate that ownership in smaller size classes grew in number of owners and acres since the previous survey and the turnover rate had accelerated. Today's NIPF owners are younger, better educated, and have a higher income than a decade ago. Landowners in the Delta and Southwest regions were interested in growing and selling trees and they used incentive programs to grow trees. Landowners in the Ouachita and Ozark regions preferred grazing and recreation uses. All respondents felt they were land stewards who used their land tempered by environmental sensitivity. They did not want land-use regulations. Major concerns included trespassing, trash dumping, and timber theft. Fragmented ownership can create diseconomies of scale for natural resource management and can interfere with physical and biological processes. To study the rate of ownership fragmentation and its causes in Minnesota, townships in two counties rated "high growth" were compared to townships in two "low growth" counties over a 25-year period. Primary growth indicators included nonfarm income, population, and housing. Ownership fragmentation was occurring, especially in "high growth" counties. Fragmentation was affected by proximity to the Twin Cities, to transportation corridors, and to desirable lakeshore, as well as the proportion of absentee landowners (with second homes). Platted subdivisions generally occurred in areas of intense subdivision activity. Building construction, especially for residences, was frequently associated with subdivision. Increasing ownership fragmentation along with the projected expansion of the wood products industry will further increase harvest pressure on public and private lands and set the stage for land-use conflicts. Virginia woodland owners were recruited to participate in a two and one-half day workshop and then were encouraged to promote forestry and wildlife management to their peers. Some participants were recruited based on recommendations from foresters and extension agents, while others were recruited through mass media. Each participant was rated on the basis of a composite leadership scoring system derived from a literature review of characteristics of opinion leaders. A mail survey developed to measure variables associated with adoption and diffusion of forestry and wildlife activities was sent to all participants 6 months and 18 months following the workshop. There was little difference in accomplishments between the landowners recruited by foresters and extension agents and the accomplishments of landowners recruited through the media based on total hours of volunteer work, number of individuals contacted one-on-one, and number of forest/wildlife practices adopted. After 18 months, cooperators with opinion-leadership scores above the median had more one-on-one contacts and more hours of volunteer work than cooperators below the median. In order to plan a strategy to get more private woodland owners involved in forest stewardship planning in Connecticut's Tidelands region, a questionnaire was sent by mail to all NIPF landowners in the Eightmile
xi
i
River watershed. After completing the questionnaire (pre-test) respondents were offered a video describing the watershed ecosystem, its diminishing resource and habitat quality, and the remedial value of stewardship planning. Two versions of the video were offered with identical video, but different audio tracks. One audio track discussed personal consequences of one's behavior and personal threats that might cause one to act. The other audio track discussed community-wide consequences and threats. Those who viewed the video then completed a post-test. Based on pre-test and post-test results, a strategy for intenders, who plan to permanently protect at least some land from development and/or intend to develop a stewardship plan within five years, must reinforce the notion that stewardship planning enhances benefits they most value: aesthetics, clean water, and the ability of heirs to enjoy their woodland. The strategy must provide a clear action path minimizing time spent to accomplish tasks. A strategy for non-intenders who plan to pass their land on to family but have not done and who show little inclination towards stewardship planning, must convince landowners that the forest functions, values, and benefits important to them are disappearing, that random forest fragmentation and poor forest management practice are the chief culprits, and that without a huge investment of time, they can craft stewardship plans. Television and newspapers should encourage non-intenders to seek information from high credibility sources (Extension and state forestry agency). Educational materials and events need to look and be professional. Messages should be delivered to local forums (e.g., service clubs, neighborhood groups, and interactive field workshops) to foster community action and enforce the notion that one's own land is threatened. A Delphi process and analytical hierarchy process were used to generate and rank NIPF landowner objectives and motivations in Louisiana and to identify characteristics of landowners most likely to use Stewardship Incentive Program (SIP) cost-share funds. The percentage of owners who used SIP increased as ownership size class increased. A high percentage of SIP participants were 40 to 59 years old. Over half of the landowners who used SIP reported timber and wildlife as their primary and secondary objectives. A literature review and small scale survey of Pennsylvania landowners showed that when a forester was involved in a timber sale, there were improvements in harvest quality and landowner satisfaction with the outcome of logging. Landowners can better protect themselves from logging injury liability by hiring reputable loggers, using logging contracts that indemnify the landowner in case of a logging accident, requiring proof of workers' compensation insurance, and not treating the logger as an employee.
Taxes Basic estate planning techniques include having wills for both spouses, taking advantage of the unified tax credit, and using the marital deduction to defer death taxes for the first to die. In addition an estate can be reduced significantly by making tax-free gifts over a period of years that are valued less than the federal and state annual exclusions ($10,000 per year federal exclusion). Federal laws also allow some estates to be valued at their current use rather than their highest and best use to reduce their taxable value. Several stringent requirements must be met to qualify for current use valuation. If a closely-held business comprises more than 35 percent of the adjusted gross estate, then the federal estate tax on the closely-held business portion of the tax can be deferred for five years and then paid in two to ten equal annual payments. To reduce an estate's valuation, a "minority discount" may be given to reflect the original owner's lack of control over an asset or the lack of an asset's marketability. Many federal estate and gift tax saving provisions are not followed by the states, so estate planning must consider both federal and state laws. Green Individual Retirement Accounts (GIRA) were proposed to motivate investment in management of NIPF lands. A GIRA would allow forest owners to accumulate and invest pre-tax funds to be used in the maintenance of their forests under rules similar to those of the 1981 IRA. The GIRA approach has these features: funds would be invested in interest-hearing accounts; money would have to be spent on qualifying forest maintenance activities, such as hiring expert advice, installing erosion control devices, planting trees,
managing wildlife habitat, forest thinning and weeding, etc.; and records would be kept by established financial institutions, as with IRAs. The concept is simple and people already know how to use IRAs. laws need to be changed to permit GIRAs.
Tax
A computer spreadsheet was developed to analyze the effect of proposed tax incentives on cash flows to forest owners, land expectation value, and state and federal tax receipts. The forest was assumed to be a 100-acre even-aged loblolly pine plantation. Owners were assumed to be a married couple filing jointly, who have $40,000 of other income annually, other deductions of $6,550, and no dependent children. Proposed tax incentives that were analyzed included: income averaging over three years, 17 percent flat tax, exclude 35 percent of long-term capital gains from taxable income, exclude 5 percent of capital gains for each year of ownership to a 50 percent maximum, amortize up to $20,000 of reforestation expenses over five years, deduct reforestation expenses in the year they occur, green saving account in which forest owners accumulate pre-tax dollars to pay upcoming management expense, and green IRA in which owners accumulate pre-tax dollars to pay future forest management expenses and provide retirement income. The best performing incentives for private landowners and the government were permitting deduction of reforestation expenses, income averaging, green saving account, and green IRA. Property tax systems in all 50 states can be classified as ad valorem, productivity, site value, or flat tax systems. Under the ad valorem tax, the value of both land and trees form the basis for tax collection. An ad valorem tax is not fiscally neutral, its tax burden is regressive, its revenue stability is questionable, and it's not simple to administer. A forest productivity tax based on either gross or net mean annual revenue is calculated by multiplying the stumpage price by annual growth and dividing by an interest rate. It is fiscally neutral. A gross productivity tax is regressive while a net productivity tax is progressive. Both the gross and net productivity taxes produce revenue stability and administrative simplicity. A site value tax is based on the value of bare land without trees. It is fiscally neutral, regressive, revenue stable, and can be administratively simple, but is not always simple. A flat tax remains the same on any acre of timberland regardless of its value. This tax is fiscally neutral, regressive, revenue stable, and administratively simple.
Benefits from NIPF Lands Over 50 percent of the carbon in forests is contained in soil, 35 percent in trees, 10 percent in the forest floor, and the rest in understory vegetation. About 55 percent of carbon in forest lands is under NIPF ownership, but during the years 1987-2000 NIPFs are estimated to be storing 80 percent of the carbon being stored by all US forests. From 2020-2040, however, NIPFs are expected to emit more carbon through accelerated timber harvesting than they store. If trees are harvested, the harvested carbon is either stored in wood products, accumulated in landfills, burned as s fuel, or released to the atmosphere by decomposition. To accelerate carbon storage, two mitigation options were evaluated: tree planting (mainly pines in the south central region) and increased recycling/waste reduction. Both the tree planting scenario and the recycling/waste reduction scenario stored an average of 4 million metric tons of carbon per year more than the base scenario. But since tree planting eventually leads to harvesting, recycling/waste reduction will
reduce wood demand and allow more carbon storage than tree planting in the long run. IN US Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) outlines actions to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. Five of the 45 actions in the CCAP include forestry: accelerate tree planting
on NIPF land and idle agricultural land, reduce depletion of NIPF forests through improved timber harvesting, increase research on recycling of wood and paper, promote substitution of wood and wood waste for fossil fuels, and increase tree planting and use of light-colored surfaces to reduce energy use for cooling in cities and federal facilities. CCAP tree planting on NIPF land was funded and tree planting was completed at planned levels in fiscal years 1994 and 1995 through the Stewardship Incentive Program. Unfortunately tree planting funds previously available through the Forestry Incentives Program and Agricultural xiv
Conservation program were drastically cut in 1995 and 19%. The net effect of program changes has been a reduction in overall tree planting. It is generally conceded that the US will not achieve its greenhouse gas reduction goals by the year 2,000, but forestry actions have been highly regarded in comparison to other actions taken under CCAP. Annual row crop production is not profitable on soils that qualify for conversion to permanent vegetation under the Conservation Reserve program in Georgia, but is forestry a good financial alternative? Examination of land capability classes indicated that soil losses were reduced from 13.59 tons/acre/year to 1.08 tons/acre/year for Georgia lands enrolled in the CRP. Modeling 20-year pulpwood and 33-year multiple product timber rotations indicated profitable enterprises. The multiple product rotation produced greater wood-flow and better financial returns over a longer planning horizon than the 20-year pulpwood rotation. In addition, 33-year rotations smoothed wood-flows across time and product classes to better meet future fiber and timber demand. The CRP likely represents a long-term addition to Georgia's forest land base as did its predecessor, the Soil Bank program.
Technical Assistance During the 1980s several studies evaluated differences in timber sales with and without technical assistance from a forester. Assisted owners received about 20 percent higher prices per unit of volume than unassisted owners. The price differential was greatest for higher grade and higher value sawtimber . There were slight or no differences in prices received for pulpwood stumpage in thinnings or clearcuts between assisted sales and unassisted sales in Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and Minnesota. Studies in Washington and Florida could not find significant advantages for landowners who received only management plan advice, harvest planning, or market information planning, but no actual timber marking assistance. Forestry assistance consistently led to better residual stand conditions, which should lead to greater future harvest values. On the whole, both assisted and unassisted sales were acceptable with respect to site impacts, soil erosion, and water quality, except that in Montana, assisted sales made far better use of best management practices than unassisted sales. Unfortunately technical assistance probably reaches fewer than 25 percent of the landowners at any given time. NIPF landowners in Washington state have the opportunity to participate in coached planning. They receive over 20 hours of instruction and an on-site visit to their property by one or more natural resource professionals, then develop their own forest stewardship plan. A mail survey was used to compare landowners receiving coached planning assistance to landowners that had plans prepared by a forester. A significantly higher percentage of coached landowners believed they knew enough to make decisions, understood their forest stewardship plan, considered life-long learning as important, and were more highly committed to their plan. A significantly higher percentage of landowners with forester-prepared plans rated their practices as successful or very successful, but this difference may be explained by the fact that coached landowners on average had their plans for a year less than the forester-assisted landowners. Over time this rating difference may not hold up. Who is selling timber can affect profits. A study of North Carolina timber sales was designed to compare financial returns with and without the use of a consultant. Sale data were collected from timber buyers. Consultants increased sale prices an average of 20 percent while consultant fees averaged only 8.5 percent, an average net gain to the landowners of 11.5 percent. Even when landowners used sealed-hid auctions, consultants still generated higher timber sale prices. Consultants benefit landowners in other ways by conducting the sale and saving the landowner's time, supervising the logging operation to ensure compliance with Best Management Practices, and facilitating prompt payment. Timber sale data from North Carolina timber buyers also were used to compare financial returns from timber sales on Forest Service land to sales on NIPF land. Private sales consistently received higher prices, possibly because Forest xv
Service sales had lengthy contracts that imposed many restrictions on loggers. The lesson for NIPF landowners is that timber sale contracts should be no more restrictive than absolutely necessary. Most Iowa landowners manage land for agriculture rather than forestry. A survey of landowners found they were willing to consider planting trees on Conservation Reserve Program land or other land, but were discouraged by the high cost, complexity of learning the skills and acquiring tree planting equipment, and commitment of personal time needed. Based on this knowledge, Geode RC&D developed its Turn-Key and Full Circle management programs. Turn-key is a custom service to help landowners establish tree plantations by accomplishing all of the seeding, tree planting, mowing, herbicide application, and maintenance under a five-year contract. A landowner pays a flat, predetermined rate on a required minimum of ten acres of trees, using a plan reviewed by the District Forester. Since 1988 the Turn-Key program has planted from 214 to 620 acres of trees per year. The Full Circle management program assists landowners by preparing a base map of soil types, forest stand, and other features for $5 per acre. Then a harvest plan and timber stand improvement plan are developed. A commission of 10 percent is charged for the timber sale and some sale funds are appropriated into TSI and tree planting. A flat, hourly fee of $35 is charged on appraisals and other forestry services. This program has increased from 820 acres in 1989 to 5,533 in 1995. Geode has expanded four existing forestry businesses and created seven more vendors with these two programs.
Cooperatives and Partnerships The American Forest & Paper Association's Sustainable Forestry Initiative requires its member companies to practice sustainable forestry to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs by practicing a land stewardship ethic which integrates the reforestation, managing, growing, nurturing, and harvesting of trees for useful products with the conservation of soil, air and water quality, wildlife and fish habitat, and aesthetics. On their own forest lands, AF&PA members are to broaden the practice of sustainable forestry, promptly reforest, protect water quality, enhance wildlife habitat, minimize impacts on visual quality, protect special sites, contribute to biodiversity, improve utilization, and use forest chemicals prudently. AF&PA members also will encourage NIPF landowners who sell timber to reforest following harvest and to use Best Management Practices. In addition they will work to improve the professionalism of loggers by promoting their training and education. Results from a mail survey of Kentucky Woodland Owners Association (KWOA) members were compared to results from a telephone survey of all Kentucky woodland owners. KWOA members were most likely to own forest land for wildlife and timber production, but residency was the most important reason for ownership among the NIPF landowner population. Ninety-six percent of the KWOA members had sought professional advice, but only 11 percent of the Kentucky NIPF landowner population had sought advice. Among both groups, 70 percent had harvested timber in the past, but among KWOA owners a forester or biologist selected the harvest area 37 percent of the time while the Kentucky NIPF landowners only had a forester or biologist select the area 6 percent of the time. A much higher percentage of KWOA members are likely to harvest in the future; while Kentucky NIPF landowners are more likely to not harvest because they want to preserve their forest land. The Western Upper Peninsula Forest Improvement District was authorized by the Michigan Legislature in 1984. A Board of Directors elected by the landowner members oversees District activities and hires staff. The District has seven forest areas, each with a director. The staff has included a Director of Forestry, two field program managers, a log scaler, and office staff. Its main functions are to provide forest management services to members, market forest products harvested on members' lands, and develop industrial sites to utilize members' forest products. The initial and possibly most important member service is an inventory of their property and a forest management plan. Once the plan has been developed, the most common service xvi
Virginia forest landowners were surveyed in 1991 to assist forestry professionals in planning implementation of the Forest Stewardship Program. A recent re-evaluation of that data offers insight into challenges and opportunities for implementing ecosystem management on NIPF lands. The median parcel size was 90 acres but 50 percent of the landowners were older than 60 years. Ownership turnover and ownership fragmentation were increasing. Their main reasons for owning forest land (preserving nature, maintaining scenic beauty, and viewing wildlife) were compatible with ecosystem management and over half had harvested timber so they were not averse to some type of management. On the other hand 46 percent did not seek any professional forestry assistance with their harvest. When landowners were tested on their knowledge about trees and forests, they had a handle on simple characteristics of trees, while they knew less about more detailed tree characteristics and effects of harvesting on selected aspects of forest management. They knew little about complex issues such as shade tolerance, site preference, and effects of harvesting on wildlife and scenic beauty. Larger landowners were more likely to use forestry assistance with a timber sale and to know more about forest management.
xviii
Introduction from the Moderator by Keith A. Argow1
In the next day and a half you are going to hear more about the practice of nonindustrial private forestry than ever has been gathered in one place in the short period of 100 years of forestry in America. The breadth is amazing. There are 52 programs and more than that number of presenters. Why all this attention to nonindustrial private forestry? Because independent woodland owners are today producing more than half of America's wood supply. That is more than all public land management agencies and forest industries combined. In the next day and a half we will hear that the number of small woodland owners is exploding. There are now nearly 10 million of us! Tom Birch of the USDA Forest Service will provide the details from the soon-to-be-released study, "Private Forest Landowners of the US-1994." The nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) is fragmenting at a rate of 2,500 new landowners a week! The implications for sustainable forest management and forestlands as we have known them in the past are enormous. Our keynote address comes from Neil Sampson, a well-known scholar on forest policy and forest health, and until recently the Executive Vice President of American Forests. It is his task to examine the past, identify any lessons we might learn, and suggest some prospects for the future. If past experience is an indicator, he will do that in commonsense terms we can deal with. These two speakers, describing the current situation of nonindustrial private forestry in 1996, will set the stage for a fast-moving panel of speakers from five forces that affect NIPFs. We lead off with the Forest Service, which has had a role from the agency's very beginning. Joan Comanor, Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry, is here to discuss what is going on in these days of tremendous change in federal agencies. All 50 states have a state forestry agency. These state foresters provide our fire protection, are the first line of defense against insect and disease outbreaks, and many have service forestry programs to reach out to individual landowners. Stan Hamilton, the State Forester of Idaho and President of the National Association of State Foresters, will describe these activities including the relatively new Forest Stewardship Initiative. Most active woodland owners know their forestry extension agent, and well they should. Forestry education programs, short courses, and the Master Woodland Owner certification are all examples of the self-help programs provided by the Cooperative Extension Service (now known as the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service). Larry Biles, National Extension Forester, has an update on where these programs aree going and what to expect. It comes as a surprise to some that in some regions of the US more landowners get their detailed forestry advice from private consulting foresters than any other source. There are reasons for this: a consultant is working for the landowners and can spend the additional time it may take to develop understanding with a
1 President, National Woodland Owners Association, 374 Maple Ave. E., Suite 210, Vienna, VA. Presented at the Symposium on Nonindustrial Private Forests: Learning from the Past, Prospects for the Future, Washington, DC, February 18-20, 1996.
landowner and a profitable forestry enterprise. Bob McColly of Pennsylvania, a former President of the Association of Consulting Foresters, will discuss these activities. Finally, last but not least, are the landowners themselves. John Marchant is a retired executive from Kodak and an active Tree Farmer in central New York. Until recently he was the executive director of the New York Forest Owners Association and is also the northeastern vice president of the National Woodland Owners Association. He has some unusual findings to report resulting from a nationwide survey he just completed of the 28 state landowners groups comprising the American Federation of Forest and Woodland Owner Associations. In spite of all these efforts, he finds we are still "preaching to the choir." Will that be good enough for the twenty-first century? After today's luncheon three concurrent programs of four to six presentations each will be offered: 1) Education; 2) Regulation/Conservation Easements; and 3) International Forestry. Tomorrow morning will follow the same format with sessions on: 1) Landowner Characteristics; 2) Taxes, Benefits from NIPF Lands, and Cost-Sharing; and 3) Technical Assistance, Cooperatives and Partnerships, and Sustainable Management. Feel a little torn and overwhelmed? Well, that's why the NIPF Symposium Proceedings is going to be published, and I think each of us is going to want one. Producing half of America's wood supply from 10 million independent forest and woodland owners in a venue of uncertain market forces and sometimes conflicting government policies is a tall order indeed. Let's see if we are up to it!
Keynote Address: Nonindustrial Private ForestsLearning from the Past, Prospects for the Future by R. Neil Sampson1
In 19911 was invited to Hungary as part of a team that worked with the Hungarians to reconstruct their society and economy after a half-century of communist rule. In the course of several visits, I learned a great deal from the marvelous people I met there. One characteristic I came to recognize was the way in which they would tell you about their countryside. You might, for example, admire a particular tree, or a forest stand, or a vista. Your host would launch into a description of it. The difference between an American's description and a Hungarian's was striking. Instead of simply explaining what we were looking at, as an American might, the Hungarian would begin with an historical overview. You might hear of ancient kings, or warriors, or families. Events that happened here, and affected the situation, were recited. By the time you got their view of what you were observing, you also had a better understanding of why it was that way today, and how it came to be. I am going to attempt something today that is similar to that European approach. We are here to consider the future of nonindustrial private forests, and of the public policies, programs, and actions that affect them. We are in a revolutionary political change at the national level. The future may be significantly different from the past if the people seeking radical change succeed. That can be either good or bad. It will depend on several factors, including:
•
How do new proposals fit with the underlying cultural values that drive American land management?
•
Can people understand new approaches and adapt them to their existing situations?
•
Do new proposals encourage private citizens to manage their forestland wisely and sustainably, or do they discourage them?
Approaches that answer those questions in a positive way must emerge from the context of today's nonindustrial forest situation. We seek, over the coming days, to share a common understanding of that situation, and search for a common vision that can move us in positive ways in the future. As we share that common understanding, it is important to consider not just where we are today, but how and why we got here. We need, like the Hungarians, to begin with a historical context that can help us develop shared understandings, which can shape common values. Those common values, then, become a binding agent to help us inform and guide the political revolution. With skill and effort we may guide it in ways that are positive for the future of the nation's nonindustrial forests and for the people whose lives are so broadly affected by the qualities of those forests. Before we begin that historical search, allow me to reinforce one point. There is no such thing as an NIPF "problem." When we begin to use words like "problem," we miscommunicate. When you have a problem,
1 American Forests, 1516 P St NW, Washington, DC 20005. Presented at the Symposium on Nonindustrial Private Forests: Learning from the Past, Prospects for the Future, Washington, DC, February 18-20, 1996.
you look for a solution. If you don't find a satisfying solution, you keep looking for the right answer, or are forced to admit failure. Too often, I fear, that approach has characterized discussions about nonindustrial private forestry. But we don't have a problem. We have a situation. A situation is a complex mixture of advantages and problems, things both good and bad. There is no solution to a situation; there are only changes. Those, too, can be both good and bad. So our goal this week is not to find solutions, but to seek agreement on positive directions for change-change that can make the situation better both for us and for generations to follow. A discussion of the historical context of American land management must begin, it seems, with the nature of the people who came to this new continent, and why they came. The vast majority of those people were leaving a bad situation behind and seeking a better one. The primary goal, for most, was not riches but freedom. And freedom, in almost every instance, included a vision of freedom to own property-land. A place where a person could feel at home and free from the tyranny of the King, or the oppression of the warlord, or the crushing poverty imposed by a land system that did not allow common people to own the land on which they could earn their own livelihoods. We hear much about the many freedoms that are so highly prized in the American experience-freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, of the right to free association-and others. They are all important. I would remind you, however, that equally prized is our freedom to own property. The backlash today against efforts to restrict property rights is not a modern phenomenon. Those attitudes have been a foundation of American values for four centuries and continue to be important today. So we start with Thomas Jefferson's vision of a nation made up of small landholder farmers. I don't think that was so much about growing food as it was about growing good government. Certainly, time and technology have altered the face of that vision as it affects our economic life. But the underlying values-those that have a lot to do with good government-may not have changed much. We will hear this morning about the number of people who own forestland today. Ten million or so, up significantly in recent years. Is this because people think they can get rich on five acres of forest? I doubt it. Not unless they know something I don't. I'd rather think it is because they are seeking a bit of that freedom that drove their ancestors-the primal urge to own and enjoy a piece of property, no matter how small. "I am most fully myself when I am walking in my little patch of woods," my friend Bill Ticknor says. Does he speak for millions of Americans in that observation? I think so. If that is correct, it leads to one plank as we build a platform of historic context. People own forestland because owning a piece of land is an important part of their lives. They may not know it or say it, but that land represents a deep-seated piece of the American dream of which they are a part. Whether or not they produce timber, economic values are seldom their primary motivator. We know that; survey after survey demonstrates it. And when we look at where they came from, we know why. Another deep-seated historical trend is our American concern for the care and keeping of our lands. We call it the conservation movement and, while we can trace its historical roots to the early words of Washington and Jefferson, it only began to flower in the last part of the nineteenth century. While it has many aspects, issues, and organizations today, those early beginnings were largely about forests and their use. The action started in the states. Wisconsin was an early leader, funding studies and incentive programs as early as 1867. Other states followed with incentives to encourage forest protection or tree planting. Arbor Day was launched in Nebraska in 1872. One author comments as follows:
"Prior to 1885 there was no national policy on forestry, no practice of forestry on private or public lands, no professional American foresters, and no American colleges providing forestry training. Forestry in the United States did not begin on Federal lands, but in the states and on private lands." (Zimmerman 1976) The first national citizen's conservation organization-The American Forestry Association-was formed in 1875 by nurserymen, orchardists, and farmers who were concerned with the waste and destruction that accompanied the forest practices of that era. That "people's crusade" to improve forest management was directly credited for shaping many of the early national policies regarding forests, and it has grown steadily over the years. About the same time- 1876-a rider to an appropriations bill (I'll bet you thought the salvage rider to the 1995 appropriations recision was unusual, or a precedent. Not.) authorized the Commissioner of Agriculture to appoint a person to investigate and make a detailed report on what was happening in forestry. These reports continued to bring public and policy attention, and a growing concern, for the fate of the Nation's forests. Another plank in our historic context-information and data about the resource base. No market economy can work without information, and no conservation program can work without it either. So, a basic essential in national effort for conservation, as well as an essential means of helping small landowners understand the situation and the market as well as a large owner, is free and easy access to resource and market information. Government is the only way we know to make that information available to everyone, at equal cost and with equal opportunity. In 1891 the first American to have studied forestry in Europe, Gifford Pinchot, made a deal with George Vanderbilt to put forestry into practice on the Vanderbilt estate near Asheville, North Carolina. Thus was Biltmore created, mainly out of run-down, cutover farms and forests that were in deplorable condition. There Pinchot learned to put his skills into practice, creating America's first demonstration of forest management-on private lands. When Pinchot was named to head USDA's Division of Forestry in 1898, he was dedicated to the idea of changing it from a "bureau of information" that produced only reports into an active, on-the-land participant in practical forest management. And the main target was not federal lands, it was private lands, almost entirely in the hands of farm families. The challenge that drove Pinchot and the emergent Forest Service was to help those owners learn and implement better management on private forests. His annual reports listed the Division's accomplishments in terms of how many owners and acres they had assisted, and how the owners had responded with private investments to improve their own forests. Another plank from history-public programs designed to directly assist landowners by developing solutions adapted to their particular lands, conditions, and situations. Today when National Forest issues dominate the Forest Service agenda, it is interesting to look back and realize that the agency didn't start as a public lands agency at all. By the time the forest reserves were transferred in 1905, almost a decade had gone into serving private forest owners. Every annual report expressed concern about the possibility of a "timber famine" unless improved forest conservation and use could be achieved on those private lands. Remember, this was a time when an emerging industrial economy was constructed mainly from wood and driven largely by wood energy. The idea of a "timber famine" may seem quaint to us after a century of petroleum-driven industrial growth, but it was no insignificant matter when wood still looked like the only game around. So Pinchot's agency worried about a timber famine and about how to reach the private owners who would be so key to future forest conditions and timber supplies. The establishment of the
Forest Service's Office of State and Private Cooperation in 1908 helped focus that aspect of the agency's program. Other programs followed. The Weeks Bill of 1911 is often recognized for authorizing the purchase of the National Forests of the East, but it also created significant new authority for the Forest Service to cooperate with and support state forestry efforts. Much of the early focus was on cooperative fire protection programs, responding in part to the deadly wildfires of 1910. The Clarke-McNary Act of 1924 greatly expanded on that authority, as have many subsequent laws. We don't have time for a full history here, but this is enough, I believe, to shape another plank in our historic context: The public interest in private forest management and sustainable use is among the oldest of America's natural resource concerns, and it began with cooperative public programs aimed at protecting private forest resources from outside damage. Those early foresters also worried about how to communicate effectively with forest owners and, in the process, created many of the terms we use today. Remember, their constituents at the turn of the century were almost all farmers, so terms like crop tree, timber harvest, and tree farming came into being, with the express purpose of convincing farmers that forestland could be valuable if it were managed well. As long as farmers viewed trees and forests as an impediment blocking agricultural development, forest destruction was assured. Only by making forests seem valuable in the eyes of their owners, early foresters reasoned, could those owners be encouraged to invest in the care and management of those lands. Today, we still use many of those terms, even when the vast majority of nonindustrial private forest owners are not farmers, and the terms sometimes evoke criticism for sounding too commodity oriented. Changing the words to better fit the audience and changing values should not, in my view, be seen as breaking faith with the past. Our communications must evolve as fast as our technologies or our cultural values, or become ineffective and outdated. Another plank: The national interest in private forests must be communicated in words, terms, and values adapted to the current audience. There are some things other than outdated terminology in our historical context that we might also want to leave behind as we look to the future. We don't need to dwell on those, but they are worth mentioning so that we can leave them behind intentionally rather than accidentally. Much of the early history was caught up in battles over federal regulation of private forest management and timber harvest. Forest Service proposals to regulate private land management lay at the heart of bitter feelings among the forestry community for many years. The idea has been abandoned today, and those who consider raising it again should study history first. The federal history is also replete with years of battling between agencies for power. Agriculture and Interior have been at odds from the beginning of the federal programs and agencies within USDA have constantly nipped at each other's flanks as programs developed and shifted. There is some virtue in having agencies compete with each other to see who can do the best job, or provide the better service. At a certain level, competition strengthens everyone. Beyond that level, however, it saps energy and destroys the opportunity for positive synergy between agencies of different competencies. Given the shrinking resources facing every federal program today, it seems obvious that most of that old turf competition is best left in the history books, and we must find new ways to create cooperative and supportive program alignments. So far, we have constructed a historical context of the public interest in private forestry that includes several factors. If we described it as a platform, the supporting beams would be state agencies and universities, federal agencies, and private organizations. The planks that tie the beams together would include:
• A deep and abiding respect for the rights of private landowners.
• Resource data and market information, equally available to all. •
A reliance on professional assistance to landowners, often given directly in the field.
•
Increasing cooperation linking federal and state agencies in providing public programs that protect private forests against outside threats.
•
Words and terms to communicate concepts and values that are specifically chosen to be understood and accepted by the clientele.
Out of this context have grown a variety of public program approaches designed to reach private landowners and encourage or assist them in improving the management given to their forests. This is no place to try to enumerate all those programs, or what forces led them to be enacted when they were. I would simply propose that we have learned a great deal about what works and what does not, over this century of trying different approaches. You may not agree with my assessment, but I'll lay it out to trigger your own thinking. It seems to me that government has demonstrated that it can do three things that are both essential and effective in encouraging private landowners to carry out sustainable forest management. If you agree, then perhaps we can use these three principles as basic tests for any new proposals that may emerge in the future.
Principle Number One: Government must maintain a framework within which private ownership rights are respected, protected, and broadly understood across society. We've already discussed the historical context for this, but there are other aspects as well. Economists have theories for why ownership of resources encourages better long-term care and management. History teaches that common-property resources, such as ocean fish, are usually overexploited, and that communist economies provide neither a good life nor a sustained resource base. So we don't need to dwell on this one to prove the point. There are some additional ramifications that should be mentioned, however. One is tenure-the sense that ownership is secure into the future, and that benefits of today's investments can be reaped by future owners. Nobody can guarantee the future, but it is the role of good government to create confidence in the future. Without that confidence, people won't invest the work or money needed for good land management, and that holds doubly true for investments in a forest where benefits are realized over many decades. An often-overlooked side of private rights are the inescapable private responsibilities that must accompany those rights. Ownership is not a license to pillage and burn. It is a call to stewardship. A society that grants and protects the right for people to control natural resources that are essential to the general welfare has every reason to impose a moral obligation on those owners to provide faithful stewardship to those resources and to the public interest. That such a moral obligation exists, and must be met, is commonly understood by responsible citizens and companies alike. Those who ignore or abuse it do so at their own peril, risking the wrath of their fellow citizens, which can be far more painful than a public summons.
Principle Number Two: Government must effectively develop and communicate the resource data, information, and skills needed to manage forests sustainably in the public interest. Much of America's amazing progress in agriculture, forestry, and a host of other areas can be traced directly to past decisions that created publicly supported universities and educational programs, established research facilities, created national resource inventory and data programs, and organized extension and technology transfer programs to get new information and skills into the hands of the people on the land. Instead of creating an elite scientific or managerial corps to oversee a largely ignorant populace, Americans have created a skilled and informed populace. You may need to observe a society that has lacked this institutional support to fully understand the difference it has made. Proposals to reduce or eliminate it are incredibly short-sighted. Public support for research, education, and technology transfer is particularly critical in regard to the public interest aspects of forest management. Where commercial or economic products are the primary target, there is a logical argument for the private economy to develop and transfer technology. But where the longterm public interest is the primary concern, and commercial opportunities are limited or nonexistent, public support is essential. There are several kinds of useful information that public programs can help disseminate. One that is often overlooked is what we might call cultural knowledge. People learn the land where they live and work, and innovators constantly test new ideas. Successes pass down from person to person and generation to generation. This knowledge can be very useful beyond the immediate area where it was generated, and we ignore it at our peril. Many of our on-the-land technical assistance programs may be as useful in transferring cultural knowledge from person to person and place to place as they are in bringing scientific research results to the forest. To the practical manager, science brings insight into why things happen the way they do, and provides a theoretical basis for developing new ideas. We manage forest systems that are enormously complex, and when science can improve our understanding of how these systems work, and what they are likely to do in response to different actions, our ability to develop innovations, and improved methods, is greatly speeded. About the only people I hear talking about no longer needing new science and technology to continue improving forest managers are those who do not-and could not-manage a forest. Most of the real experts I know tend to speak more about what they still do not know than they do about what they think they know. Principle Number Three: Government creates or affects just about all of the economic incentives and disincentives facing private landowners, and it can encourage better management by improving the balance. Forest managers who try to produce timber as an economic commodity face decades of investment and management in order to realize a return. When you borrow money at 8 percent interest to invest in a forest that grows 6 percent a year, you're already stretching economic reality about as far as it can go. If you have to work for 20 years before you see a return, that creates a lot of uncertainty. Many things happen to a forest in 20 years and not all are good. When you pay annual property taxes, then a heavy income tax at harvest, the full weight of the costs and uncertainty may add up to an effective disincentive. Even people who want to do the right thing have a tolerance threshold. Exceed that tolerance, and they abandon the idea.
Government has a role in just about all of this. Federal trade, housing, energy, and monetary policies affect forest product markets. Environmental, labor, safety, and transportation law affect the costs that forest managers face. Federal forests that either produce timber, or don't, may have a major impact on local or regional opportunities for private owners. But it is tax policy that is often cited as the most significant economic disincentive, as well as the most frustrating complexity, by forest owners. Federal tax policies treat every forest owner as though they were a full-time forest business, even though the great majority are not. Standard business or agricultural regulations-designed for a system that produces revenues on a regular basis to match up against annual costs-are force-fit to a family forest that produces costs every year, but revenues only every few years-or once in a lifetime. Federal tax law has no section designed specifically for forestland owners-particularly small forestland owners. As a result, it is ill-suited to millions of people who want to do a good job with their land, but find the existing tax system both confusing and discouraging to their efforts. Surely we can figure out a better tax system than what we see today. Maybe some of the current proposals for simplification will help. I don't know. What I am reasonably certain of, however, is that a tax system that treats forest owners like they were farmers or merchants is not likely to work any better than the existing mess. Forestry is a different enterprise, with different time frames, public interests, and environmental impacts than many other businesses. Public policy, if it wants to encourage good forest management, would be well advised to recognize and respect those differences, and remove the public disincentives to good stewardship. There is a lot more that could be said about each of these three principles, and we will hear a great deal more this week from an outstanding array of speakers and participants. As we consider these important ideas, I would like to leave you with a brief outline of policy directions that might point the way to improve the situation with nonindustrial private forests. That list, I propose, would press for policies that:
•
Strengthen ownership rights and tenure security, with associated private responsibilities for stewardship openly displayed;
•
Honor local differences, acculturation, and solutions designed to specific local conditions;
•
Link public and private cooperative efforts to achieve goals-such as forest protection-that no one can accomplish alone;
•
Develop and disseminate information that is not commercially feasible to produce for a widespread, diverse audience of landowners; and
•
Reduce financial disincentives to good management and improve financial incentives, including tax policies, that reinforce private investment, accomplishment, and savings.
This isn't a magic menu, but it is a start. And it would, I propose, draw strength from the 125 years that Americans have spent learning what works, and what does not, in encouraging private nonindustrial forest owners to manage their forests toward a sustainable future.
References Cited Zimmerman, Eliot. 1976. A historical summary of state and private forestry in the U.S. Forest Service. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service, State & Private Forestry. 120 pp.
Private Forest Landowners of the United States, 1994 by Thomas W. Birch1
The nation's forest resources are vital to the social and economic well-being of our society. Good management of the forest requires a thorough knowledge of the resource base and the factors affecting it. Forest owners are the essential link between the general public and the land. This paper reports on a new study of the forest landowners of the United States that was conducted by the USDA Forest Service's Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) units. The study includes estimates of the number of private forestland ownerships and describes ownership objectives, expected benefits, harvest experience, intention to harvest, and management planning efforts. Another national ownership study was conducted in 1978 (Birch et al. 1982). In this paper I also review trends between the two surveys in light of events that have taken place since 1978. For this study an ownership unit refers to persons and combinations of persons or legal entities, such as corporations, partnerships, clubs, trusts, American Indian tribes, and Native corporations. One person may own several parcels or partial interest in several parcels. An ownership unit controls a parcel or group of parcels of land. Our sample is drawn from the land itself (parcel by parcel), and the owner of record (the apparent owner) is determined. Because individuals who have some control of an amount of land (not exclusively the parcel sampled) responded to the survey, we are sampling ownership units and not owners. Landowners have rights and responsibilities regarding their land. These include the right to purchase more land or sell existing holdings, determine land use, and decide the type and level of investment. These rights function within the limits allowed and imposed by society. Ownership of land fixes responsibility for decision making, establishes a claim on income accruing to land, and determines how wealth in land is distributed (Lewis 1980, Boxley 1977, Wunderlich 1978).
Data Collection The 1992 USDA Forest Service estimate of 736.7 million acres of forest, or 33 percent of the total land area, is essentially unchanged from 1977 (Powell et al. 1993). Forestland, other forest, and related terms are defined in Forest resources of the United States, 1992 (Powell et al. 1993). Of this, private forest landowners hold 423.8 million acres (58 percent). Two-thirds of the nation's forests, or 490 million acres, are classified as timberland. Of this amount, 358 million acres are in private ownership. This study is based on an estimate of 393 million acres of private forestland, which includes essentially all of the private timberland plus samples of "other forest" in Texas, Oklahoma, Oregon, and California. Data obtained for Indian lands in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah also included other forestland. Alaska has 6.2 million acres of private timberland covered by FIA sample locations. The remaining 23.6 million acres of Alaska's private forest do not have ground samples directly associated by ownership, but are owned primarily by the same Native corporations that own most of the state's private timberland. For
1 US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, 100 Matsonford Road, Suite 200, Radnor PA 19087. Presented at the Symposium on Nonindustrial Private Forests: Learning from the Past, Prospects for the Future, Washington, DC, February 18-20, 1996.
estimation purposes, this study includes 9.9 million acres of private forest in Alaska based on responses from owners in that state. In 1977, for comparison, 736.6 million acres of the United States were in forest; of this total 347 million acres were classified as privately owned timberland (USDA Forest Service 1982). The 1978 US study of private forest landowners used an estimate of 333 million acres developed by USDA Economic Research Service, Natural Resource Economics Division, from the National Resources Inventory (NRI) of the USDA Soil Conservation Service. The difference of 14 million acres (4 percent) was attributed to differences in definitions (Birch et al. 1982). It was thought that the proportions from the 1978 study could be applied to the timberland base for resource-planning purposes. The 1978 data were gathered from 11,076 sample locations by the USDA Economic Research Service. The 1994 study was conducted by the FIA projects in cooperation with the National Association of State Foresters and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, in support of the Forest Stewardship Program of the USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry. Questionnaires for the 1994 study were mailed to 23,334 owners of 28,194 privately owned forested sample plots. Sample plot locations were from NRI or FIA plots. Responses from 11,742 ownerships that control 15,697 of these sample plots were included in this study.
Private Forest Owners An estimated 9.9 million private forestland ownership units hold 393 million acres of forest land in the United States. This is a change from the estimate of 7.8 million ownerships with 333 million acres of forestland in 1978 (Figure 1).
In 1978 the North had an estimated 3.3 million private forest-land ownership units with 114 million acres of forest. The 1994 estimate is 3.9 million ownerships with 130 million acres of forest. Forest fragmentation is of particular importance in southern New England (Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island) and other areas with a dense urban population. The South had 3.9 million ownerships with 173 million acres of forestland in 1978. The current estimate is 4.9 million ownerships with 188 million acres of forest. This estimate includes nearly 250,000 ownerships with more than 10 million acres of "other forest" in Texas and Oklahoma that were not included in the 1978 study. In 1978, the West was estimated to have 618,000 owners with 46 million acres of private forest. This did not include estimates of private owners in Alaska or Indian tribal land, including tracts held by Native corporations. The 1994 study estimates 1.03 million owners with 76 million acres of private forestland. The current study includes a sample of pinion juniper land in Oregon and California. There was an increase in ownerships with fewer than 50 acres of forestland in the Rocky Mountain region. The inclusion of Indian land was responsible for the increase in forested acreage. If the additional acreage of private "other forest" in Alaska were added, private acreage in the West would total nearly 95 million acres. The owners are diverse in legal organization, economic circumstances, personal characteristics, ownership objectives, and management experience. About 94 percent of the private ownerships are individuals, collectively holding 59 percent of the privately owned forestland (Figure 2). Corporations hold 27 percent and the remaining 14 percent is held by partnerships, undivided estates, clubs, associations, and Indian tribes.
Figure 2. Distribution of private ownerships by form of ownership, United States, 1978 and 1994. Since 1978 individual ownerships, including joint husband and wife and family ownerships other than family corporations, increased in numbers and in the proportion of private forestland owned. Partnerships decreased both in number of ownership units and in the proportion of private forestland owned. The number of corporations that own forestland decreased while the acreage of forestland owned increased slightly. "Other" ownerships decreased in number since 1978 but the area owned increased. Sport and recreation clubs are an important ownership component in such states as Pennsylvania, New York, and Michigan (Birch and Dennis 1980, Binkley et al. 1980, Birch 1983, Baumgartner and Rudolph 1974). Undivided estates are important in Maine, West Virginia, Kentucky, and other areas of Appalachia (Birch and Powell 1978, Birch and Kingsley 1978, Birch 1986). Indian tribes, including Native corpora-
tions, are a particularly important ownership group in states such as Alaska, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado. The proportions of numbers of owners by ownership type do not differ among regions. The acreage and proportion by ownership type differ with individual and joint ownerships predominating in the North and South. Corporate ownerships control 39 percent of the private acreage in the West. Indian tribes and Native corporations in Alaska are included in the "other" ownerships which have 21 percent of the private forests in the West.
The distribution of ownership by size class has changed since 1978 (Figure 3). Ownerships with fewer than 10 acres of forestland increased from 5.5 million (71 percent) to 5.8 million (59 percent) ownerships. Acreage in this class increased from 11 to 16.6 million acres. Ownerships with 10 to 49 acres of forest increased from 1.2 million in 1978 to 2.8 million in 1994. Acreage in this class increased from 28 to 60 million acres. Both the owners with 50 to 99 acres of forest and the acreage they control increased. The area in ownerships of more than 100 acres supports effective timber management. The proportion of ownerships with written plans increases with size of ownership. If the approximately 627,200 owners with more than 100 acres of forest each worked with professional foresters, nearly 70 percent of the nation's forests could be under management. However, working only with this group would preclude the development of a broad-based supportive constituency (Birch and Pywell 1986).
More than 90 percent of the private ownerships have fewer than 100 acres of forestland each, and they control 30 percent of the private forestland. It is this portion of the resource where concern about fragmentation and rapid turnover is concentrated. While many of these owners do not cite timber harvesting as the primary reason for owning forestland, many have harvested and will harvest trees for sale to forest products companies. The yearly transition to many new forest owners makes essential the use of mass communication, particularly the electronic media (Birch and Pywell 1986). More than 40 percent of the current owners acquired forestland for the first time since 1978; these owners control 24 percent of the private forestland (Figure 4). The group of owners with the largest decrease both in numbers of owners and acreage owned consists of those who first acquired forest between 1970 and 1977.
More than half of the owners in the West first acquired forestland since 1978; in the South, 44 percent of the owners are new since 1978. About 48 percent of the private forest acreage is held by owners who first acquired forestland before 1950. The social and economic characteristics of private forest landowners and their objectives must be considered when developing management programs. As owners age, for example, some may harvest because they need the money for retirement. By contrast, it is believed that "baby boomers" who are well-known for their environmental concerns and high education levels might not harvest because they do not need current income (Marcin and Skog 1984). But the perception that these owners are adverse to cutting trees is not true from this study.
In general, the "new" individual private forest landowner is younger, better educated, and has a higher income than the owner of a decade ago. This study shows an increase in the proportion of retired and "other" owners (Figure 5). The "other" category includes service workers, which coincides with the increase in service related-industries in the economy. The increase in numbers of retired owners and the acreage they hold may be the result of owners who retired in the last decade as well as longer life expectancy. Also there has been a substantial decrease in the number of owners in "blue collar" occupations as well as in acreage they hold.
Owner Objectives Forestlands produce many benefits for their owners, so it is not surprising that landowners express diverse reasons for holding forestland. Many potential benefits from owning forestland are not competitive with each other. Some benefits can be produced with little or no effect on others, and some benefits even increase when another benefit is produced. Nearly forty percent of the private forest landowners believe the primary reason for owning forestland is that it is simply "part of the farm" or "residence" (Figure 6). In general these ownerships hold tracts that are smaller than average-size. Another 8 percent believe that farm or domestic use is the most important reason for owning forestland. Many of these owners consider their woodland as a source of fenceposts, fuelwood, and similar products.
Forest industry owns 43 percent of the forestland owned by those with a written plan. The other 57 percent of the forest area is controlled by more than one-half million nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) owners with some form of written plan.
Nearly 22 percent of the NIPF owners with a written plan stated that they prepared the plan (Figure 10). These owners control 19 percent of the area covered by written plans. This includes some ownerships that employ foresters to prepare their plan. An estimated 11 percent of the NIPF plans were prepared by consultants; this represents 29 percent of the forest acreage covered by written plans. Industrial foresters prepared 4 percent of the plans or 10 percent of the acreage covered by written plans. State service foresters and wildlife biologists have been in the management-plan business for a long time. They wrote 37 percent of the plans for NIPF owners, or 19 percent of the area covered by written plans. Others such as the USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs, USDA Extension Service, and USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service prepared the remaining 27 percent of the plans or 33 percent of the forest area covered by management plans. The totals exceed 100 percent because owners listed more than one agency or person preparing the plans.
Conclusion The extent to which the private forest resources of the United States are needed, managed, and utilized in the future will depend on the complex set of interrelated factors that operated in the past. These factors include trends in the tastes and preferences of the owners of forestland; technological changes in the production, marketing, and utilization of wood products and their substitutes; strength of the American dollar, trade deficits, inflation, and other economic forces; attitudes of forest landowners and other citizenry toward timber management and cutting; and attractiveness of local business climates and living environments to developing industries. Only time will tell how the interaction of these factors works out. For now, watchful monitoring and good stewardship is needed to maintain the productivity of forested ecosystems for future generations.
Literature Cited Baumgartner, D. M. and V. J. Rudolph. 1974. Resource use and management by clubs in Northern Lower Michigan (Stn. Res. Rep. No. 260). East Lansing, MI: Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station. 19 p. Binkley, C., K. Batter, and R. Currie. 1980. The NY: Adirondack Park Agency. 144 p.
Adirondack Region forest products economy. Tech. Rep. Ray Brook,
Birch, T. W. 1983. The forest-land owners of New York (Resour. Bull. NE-78). Radnor, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 80 p. Birch, T. W. 1986. Forest-land owners of Maine, 1982 (Resour. Bull. NE-90). Radnor, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 83 p. Birch, T. W. and D. F. Dennis. 1980. The forest-land owners of Pennsylvania (Resour. Bull. NE-66). Broomall, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Sta. 90 p. Birch, T. W. and N. P. Kingsley. 1978. The forest-land owners of West Virginia (Resour. Bull. NE-58). 76 p. Birch, T. W., D. G. Lewis, and H. F. Kaiser. 1982. The private forest-land owners of Bull. WO-1). Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 64 p.
the United States (Resour.
Birch, T. W. and D. S. Powell. 1978. The forest-land owners of Kentucky (Resour. Bull. NE-57). Broomall, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 101 p. Birch, T. W. and N. A. Pywell. 1986. Communicating with nonindustrial private forest-land owners: Getting programs on target (Res. Pap. NE-RP-593). Broomall, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 11 p. Boxley, R. F. 1977. Land ownership issues in rural America (Publ. ERS 655). Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 8 p. Lewis, J. A. 1980. Land ownership in the United States, 1978 (Agric. Inf. Bull. 435). Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture. 98 p. Marcin, T. C. and K. E. Skog. 1984. Demographic factors influencing future forest resource demands and policy and law. Speeches and papers: International Forest Congress, Aug. 6-7, Quebec, Canada.
p. 279-285. [Meeting sponsored by Canadian Institute of Forestry, Society of American Foresters, Ordre des ingenieures forestiers.de Quebec, and international Union of Societies of Foresters.] Powell, D. S., J. L. Faulkner, D. R. Darr, Z. Zhu, and D. W. MacCleery. 1993. Forest resources of the United States, 1992 (Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-234). Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 132 p. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1982. An analysis of the timber situation in the United States 19522030 (For. Resour. Rep. No. 23). Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 489 p. Widmann, R. H. and T. W. Birch. 1988. The forest-land owners of Vermont-1983 (Resour. Bull. NE102). Broomall, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 89 p. Wunderlich, G. 1978. Facts about US land ownership (Agric. Inf. Bull. 422). Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service. 29 p.
Federal Government Perspective by Joan Comanor1
The USDA Forest Service has had a longstanding interest and role in nonindustrial private forestry. It is a pleasure to be representing the agency at this timely and important session. Each of us participating on this panel discussion were asked to address six items. Our responses are offered from the perspective of the sector of the forestry community that we represent. My responses are from the perspective of the federal agency assigned the national leadership role for forestry and the nation's forests.
Why Are NIPF Landowners Important to the Forest Service? I will answer that question in three ways.
•
First, we have a legal mandate-it's the law. A part of our agency's mission is to provide assistance to NIPF landowners to meet their forest management objectives through voluntary, nonregulatory methods.
•
Second, the health and sustainability of the majority of the nation's forests are in the hands of NIPF landowners. These landowners, as a single category of forest owners, account for slightly more than half of the nation's forest acreage. What they do affects the future of an important component of our landscape.
•
Third, it is in the nation's interest to encourage NIPF landowners to wisely manage their forests because of all the values they provide. NIPF landowners' individual actions, when added together, have major influence on things of national value, such as clean air, clean water, wildlife, aesthetics, jobs, dependable supply of wood products, community well-being, and quality of life.
Because the Forest Service is the federal agency assigned to provide national leadership on behalf of the nation's forests, NIPF landowners are an essential component of our interest.
What Are the NIPF Issues and Corresponding Programs/Services That the Forest Service Has Historically Offered to NIPF Landowners? I am going to modify this question to emphasize an important point; that is, my preferred way to pose this question is to rephrase it from ". . . offered to NIPF landowners?" to ". . . worked with, for, or in behalf of NIPF landowners?" These terms reflect more fully the nature of programs and relationships we have developed with NIPF landowners. Our programs are delivered in partnership with State Foresters. The focus is working with NIPF landowners, not mandating, directing, imposing, etc. We work with them through voluntary, nonregulatory approaches to help them achieve their land management objectives in ways that are environmentally responsible and economically efficient. We work FOR them on issues that can best be resolved at a scale that individual landowners simply cannot address. A good example of this
1 Deputy Chief, State and Private Forestry, USDA Forest Service. Presented at the Symposium on Nonindustrial Private Forests: Learning from the Past, Prospects for the Future, Washington, DC, February 18-20, 1996.
would be our work on identifying, monitoring, and treating forest insects and diseases that affect all forest lands. Working in behalf of NIPF landowners, we participate in national discussions identifying effects of public policies on them (e.g., inherent disincentives in taxation policies). We also ensure full recognition of the vital contributions they and the lands they own provide to our economic, environmental, and community well-being. Our role with NIPF issues is as old as the Forest Service itself, with about 100 years of activities and programs. Over time, this role has evolved to now include synthesis of information about forest conditions and trends; technology transfer; awareness/information/technical assistance; financial assistance or incentives that encourage NIPF landowners to engage in activities that benefit society at large (e.g., tree planting, protecting riparian areas, etc.); and advocacy on behalf of NIPF landowners during public policy considerations.
What Is Your Overall Assessment of the Success of These Programs? An example of a clear success is from one of our assignments early in this century. We fostered the establishment of a forestry organization in each state. Today, we have strong state forestry organizations across the country that provide the direct interface with NIPF landowners for our programs. A more recent example is the Forest Stewardship Program and Stewardship Incentives Program, both established by law in late 1990. More than 100,000 NIPF landowners nationwide have become active participants in developing management plans covering some 10 million acres. We have done a good job in synthesizing information, such as the reports on forest insect and disease conditions and trends, and in working cooperatively with states in conducting suppression activities, such as those to stop the spread of gypsy moths. We have had only "fair" success in getting understanding and support at the national level for the importance of NIPF landowners in addressing national public policy issues. Areas that need strengthening include using a wider array of techniques to increase access by NIPF landowners to knowledge and expertise in forest management (e.g., the electronic information highway, coached/mentored continual learning workshops on forest management, etc).
What Is Your Anticipated Future Involvement in NIPF Issues? This is a timely question and one that those of us in the federal sector are more uncertain than ever about. The national debate on the role of the federal government and the costs to implement that role continues unresolved; our own budget for Fiscal Year 1996 has not been determined even though we are almost halfway through the year. It is clear that with a commitment to achieve a balanced federal budget and with a strong movement to limit the role of the federal government, programs will have to be highly valued and cost-effective to continue. I think that the Forest Service programs for NIPF landowners are responsive to key elements of public values: they are voluntary and nonregulatory; they are delivered in partnership with state and local government and the private sector; they leverage funds from others so costs are shared; they produce results that address public interests (improved forest management, wildlife habitat, etc). At whatever scale of activity our future funding allows, we should continue those activities I identified earlier (synthesizing information about conditions and trends; providing technical assistance and knowledge; providing incentives to achieve desired outcomes; representing NIPF landowners in public policy issues)working for, with, in behalf of.
What Cooperation Is Expected with Other Sectors Represented on the Panel? Cooperation is essential and I think we cooperate well with each other now, although there are clearly opportunities to do more. All of our individual resources and capabilities are limited and, for some, may be
declining. Now, more than ever, we need to work together in innovative and effective ways across the public sector and with the private sector, so that each of us provides "value added" efforts that take us collectively closer to shared goals and objectives.
What Is Your Vision for NIPF Management in the Future? NIPF lands are managed on a sustainable basis and are viewed as a model for stewardship internationally. By sustainable, I mean that they are managed to meet the demands of the present without compromising options of future generations.
.
.
NIPF landowners have a strong commitment to a stewardship ethic.
•
Public policies provide voluntary, nonregulatory approaches and incentives so NIPF landowners can meet their own needs and objectives while providing benefits valued by all of us.
•
A well-trained cadre of professionals in both the public and private sector are readily available to assist NIPF landowners.
•
The public values and understands fully the importance of NIPF lands and their landowners to our environmental, social, and economic well-being.
My last vision element is spoken from a personal perspective, from the heart as one who truly believes in the ideal of public service:
•
The public values the role of public service, and in particular that of my agency, as embodied in the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act in working for, with, and in behalf of NIPF landowners.
State Forester's Perspective by Stanley F. Hamilton1
It is my very great pleasure to be here with you to participate in this timely symposium on nonindustrial private forestry in the United States. It is also my privilege and honor to represent, on your agenda, the State Foresters of all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Northern Marianas Islands, and American Samoa. Several other State Foresters are also here today to participate in this symposium. Let me start by noting the theme of this conference-"Learning from the Past, Prospects for the Future." During the next two days, we will be looking at where nonindustrial private forestry has been and where it will go in the future. This is a national conference and we will look at the national perspective. I and my colleagues, the State Foresters, are here to ensure that there is also a state perspective to the proceedings. Forestry has come a long way in the United States since our ancestors started clearing forests for farms and villages. The principles and practice of good forestry are well established and clearly understood. Research helps us to better understand the ecology and functions of our forests, and the application of new management and harvest technologies helps us harvest forest products with less impact on the land and its longterm productivity. The era of land clearing and forest exploitation, at least in the United States, is generally behind us. Forests are no longer viewed as a barrier to growth and progress. Nor are forests considered a plentiful, and therefore cheap, resource to be exploited without regard for the future of the land. Private ownership of forested land is widespread and widely accepted. The public, in general, understands that forests can be privately owned and still provide public amenities. Society, in general, accepts the tenet that private forest landowners are responsible stewards of the land. The United States is a land of diverse geographic and topographic provinces. With the possible exception of our people, nothing demonstrates that diversity quite as well as our forests. The diversity of the people and the forests was a major factor in the development of forestry agencies and forestry programs in the latter years of the nineteenth century and the early years of this century. Every state examined local issues and needs, and developed forestry organizations that addressed the concerns. The first state forestry associations and state forestry agencies were founded shortly after the first American Forest Congress was held in 1882. Between 1885 and 1900, ten such organizations were created spanning the width and breadth of the country. The first states included Maine, Ohio, Kansas, Colorado, California, and New York. New York has the longest continuous service as a state forestry agency in the United States. Thirteen of the southern states established their agencies during the 1920s. My state, Idaho, created its state forestry agency in 1925.
1 State Forester of Idaho, President, National Association of State Foresters, Hall of the States, 444 North Capitol Street, Suite 540, Washington, DC 20001. Presented at the Symposium on Nonindustrial Private Forests: Learning from the Past, Prospects for the Future, Washington, DC, February 18-20, 1996.
Not all of the original agencies survived. Some states ended their programs and then started again Finally, by 1966, every state had established a state forestry agency. The reasons for creating state forestry agencies were as innovative and varied as the people who created the new organizations: .
Fire control, reforestation, and insect and disease problems were critical activities for the fledgling state forestry agencies. State tree nurseries were a universal part of almost all of the early programs. In the Great Plains, afforestation, windbreak, and shelterbelt establishment were the great motivators. Assistance to private forest landowners was an important part of every agency program from the beginning.
Few, if any, of the reasons for creating the state forestry agencies ever disappeared-the needs and responsibilities were simply too basic and fundamental to the management and protection of the forests to go away. The conditions that resulted in the development of the state forestry agencies also prevailed at the national level. Several actions taken by the federal Congress to address national problems profoundly influenced the development and growth of state forestry programs. For example: The national forest system was founded in 1891. Entire communities sprang up near the newly created forest reserves to use the many goods and products provided by the land. In 1911 the Weeks Law authorized the USDA Forest Service to cooperate with the states. In 1920 a recommendation was made to Congress to appropriate $1,000,000 for cooperation with the States in forest fire protection and forest renewal. In 1924 the Clarke-McNary Act authorized federal-state cooperation efforts in forest fire prevention and control. The federal programs for nonindustrial private forests have continued to evolve and expand-especially the delivery of technical and financial assistance-and such programs continue to be the cornerstone for the management and protection of US forests. In addition, several new areas of emphasis-rural development, urban forestry, and conservation education-have been added to the menu of programs as the challenges facing our forests have grown, and the needs of the people we serve have changed. The state forestry agencies all began as public service agencies and we continue to serve the people of our states in forestry matters. Our foresters work to inform the forest landowner and help them do the right thing. Some states have chosen to adopt regulatory approaches to ensure the use and application of sound forestry practices. Other states have elected to promote the voluntary use of best management practices. Generally, the results are the sameimproved forest management. The Forest Service, and most other federal agencies, have respected state primacy in this respect and given the states great latitude in developing forest management programs tailored to local conditions. Effective use of cooperative agreements and compacts
Education Perspective by Larry E. Biles1
It is indeed a pleasure to be here and address this Symposium on Nonindustrial Private Forests. Let me compliment the symposium organizers and planners for this timely discussion, and the Nonindustrial Private Forestry Working Group of the Society of American Foresters (SAF) for convening this meeting. I believe you have moved the SAF into a new arena, and I applaud you for this insight and commitment. In Bob Tomlinson's letter inviting me to participate he specifically asked that I address six topics. Out of respect for Bob and the symposium organizers I will honor that request. The topics are:
•
Why NIPF landowners are important to your sector.
•
NIPF issues and corresponding programs (services) that your sector has historically offered to NIPF landowners.
•
An overall assessment of the success of these programs.
•
Anticipated future involvement of your sector in addressing NIPF issues.
•
Cooperation expected between your sector and others represented on the panel.
•
Your vision of NIPF management in the future.
Why NIPF Landowners Are Important to My Sector To begin let me note that I will only be focusing on one-half of my sector, namely education via the Cooperative Extension System. The other half, which is Cooperative Research, is a new addition and one that I am just beginning to move into. This responsibility comes as a result of USDA's recent reorganization and, in my opinion, is good. Incidentally, the new agency is the Cooperative, State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). The principal laws for federal, state, and county extension forestry, wood products, fisheries and wildlife, range management, outdoor recreation, and environmental education are the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 and the Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978. For forestry research it's the Hatch Research Act of 1887, the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Act of 1962, and the National Research Initiatives dating back to 1965, but becoming more preeminent in the 1990s. Collectively, CSREES administers approximately $925,000,000 of Cooperative Research and Extension funds. Approximately 96 percent of the appropriated funds are returned to the State Agricultural Experiment Stations and the State Extension Services to address local needs.
1 National Program Leader, Forest Management, USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, Washington, DC. Presented at the Symposium on Nonindustrial Private Forests: Learning from the Past, Prospects for the Future, Washington, DC, February 18-20, 1996.
As mentioned, the Extension function of CSREES and its state and county partners began with the SmithLever Act of 1914. The Smith-Lever Act charged the Extension system to ". . . transmit the application of practical research knowledge to the people of the United States." Included therein was the ". . . giving of instructions and the demonstration of existing or improved practices of technologies in agriculture, home economics, uses of solar energy with respect to agriculture, and subjects related thereto." Moreover, the Smith-Lever Act designated that ". . . applicable technologies be imparted through demonstrations, publications, and otherwise" (Rasmussen 1989). For forestry and the other natural resources this commission has been strengthened over the years through the federal legislative process. Examples are the Clarke-McNary Act of 1924, the Norris-Doxey Act of 1937, and most recently, the Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA) of 1978. The RREA was part of a tripartite segment of legislation fostering a continuum between research, education and technical assistance. Specifically, RREA provided for "... an expanded and comprehensive extension program for forest and rangeland renewable resources."
NIPF Issues and Corresponding Programs (Services) that Extension Has Historically Offered to NIPF Landowners In passing the RREA, Congress found that ". . . Extension programs of the Department of Agriculture and Land Grant Universities provide useful and productive educational programs for private forest and rangeland owners, and that educational programs compliment research and assistance programs of USDA." Moreover, through RREA Congress directed Extension to expand programs pertaining to:
• Forest and range production, • Utilization, • Urban forestry, • Conservation forestry, • Continuing education for resource professionals, and • Serving as a conduit for identifying research needs (Rasmussen 1989). RREA has worked fairly well. Between 1979 and 1994 the number of Extension staff years devoted to Natural Resources more than doubled. The forestry discipline had the largest single increase, 39%, followed by fish and wildlife at 25 percent, and range at 15 percent (USDA 1991). Not only has this program provided the system with additional programming opportunities, but it has also provided the system with entree to the US Congress for programs other than agriculture. Many programs have been developed within the Cooperative Extension System in support of private forest issues. Some of the more visible are:
• • • • • • • • • •
Volunteer Ambassador Programs Ecosystem Management Logger Education Programs (LEAP) Public Issues Education Forest Stewardship Management Leadership Development Estate Planning Landowner Associations Timber Market Reports Best Management Practices
An Overall Assessment of the Success of Extension Programs A synthesis of the state RREA accomplishment reports reveals significant outcomes associated with expanded educational programming. For instance, the last year of record reveals over 6,000 group educational events, and over two million pieces of literature distributed. These efforts produced the following average annual accomplishments on behalf of the nation's nonindustrial private forest ecosystems.
• • • • • • • •
400,000 private nonindustrial forest landowner assists, 21 million acres of improved forest land management, $160 million of increased revenue from forestry and wildlife management practices, 23,000 forest industry worker assists, 1,600 wood processor assists, $48 million in savings through improved forest industry efficiency, 100,000 contact hours of continuing education training for 25,000 natural resource professionals, 50,000 teachers trained in environmental science (Larson et al. 1992).
Anticipated Future Involvement of Extension in Addressing NIPF Issues The future for Extension programming in regards to NIPF issues is quite promising. Survey after survey and study after study reflect that education of forest owners and managers is a prerequisite for the wholesale adoption of forest management practices by NIPF landowners. Bliss' work in the Lake States and the South discovered that education has the ". . . most enduring effect on NIPF forest management" (Bliss et al. 1990). Jones and colleagues at Pennsylvania State University found that education is more highly regarded, and yields more management activities, than cost-share assistance (Jones et al. 1995). Moreover, participants at the 1994 National Conference on Forest Stewardship listed education second only to tax policies as an important influence on landowners' forest management decisions (Baughman 1994). Cubbage, in a study pertaining to public regulations of private forestry, concluded that "... concerted education of foresters, land managers, and operations personnel about Best Management Practices is necessary in all states" (Cubbage 1991). Lastly, and quite significantly, the National Research Council concluded in their report on Forestry Research that the ". . . present extension forestry effort is inadequate to serve current needs, much less future ones." They subsequently recommended that ". . . a strengthened program in forestry research requires a strengthened companion effort in forestry extension and state and private initiatives" (National Research Council Report 1990). In short, there are many compelling reasons for forestry extension, and the state universities are moving to address those needs.
Cooperation Expected Between Extension and Others Represented on the Panel Extension is most thankful for the legislative and fiscal support provided by national, state, and local partners. For several years we have had upwards of a dozen groups testifying on behalf of Extension's federal budget. More importantly, we have been asked to collaborate on special projects with government, nongovernment, and industry groups at the national, state, and local levels. Examples are fiscal and other support from the Forest Service and State Foresters for educational materials in support of Forest Stewardship and the Stewardship Incentive Programs, Ruffed Grouse Society support for the COVERTS programs, Tree Farm System support for the Master Woodland Manager/Master Tree Farmer programs, and American Forest and Paper Association and state forestry association support for educational programming in response to the Sustainable Forestry Initiative. From a client's perspective, we have received high marks for educational programming to NIPF landowners and resource professionals by the Association of Consulting Foresters. Moreover, the principal land-
owner associations, (i.e., Forest Landowner Association, National Woodland Owners Association, and the Tree Farm System), routinely utilize Extension personnel for news articles and other educational materials for their publications. In short, working relationships are generally good and I believe they will become even better.
My Vision for NIPF Management in the Future The future for NIPF land management presents an interesting dichotomy. The magnitude of this dichotomy is reflected in the USDA Forest Service's Resources Planning Act (RPA) and Forest Landowner Survey documents. On one hand there is evidence that there will be increased demands for forestry products and services, with emphasis on the private lands. The demand predictions are:
• • • • • • •
100 percent increase in demand for cold water fishing, 100 percent increase in demand for nonconsumptive wildlife use, 79 percent increase in demand for hardwood roundwood, 50 percent increase in demand for migratory waterfowl hunting, 50 percent increase in demand for warm water fishing, 35 percent increase in demand for softwood roundwood, status quo for big and small game hunting (USDA 1989).
On the other hand there is evidence that America's NIPF landowners are holding lands mostly for aesthetic, investment, and noncommodity values. Moreover, the average size of NIPF ownerships is declining rather sharply. In 1978 the average ownership size was 43 acres. In 1995, it was 33 acres (Birch). This phenomenon tends to restrict management options while simultaneously adding a voluminous list of landowner objectives. With that background and a rather cloudy crystal ball, let me offer some observations and predictions. 1) The long-term future of NIPF management will, more and more, be determined by market forces (domestic and international) with emphasis on the larger and more fertile tracts. 2) The long-term future of NIPF management will be increasingly influenced by a daunting array of regulations, with local regulations becoming the most prevalent. 3)Land ownership objectives will become more and more segregated. To me, that translates to mean that we will find distinct classes of owners; the hobbyist and investors will have objectives much different from the commodity producers. This division will be determined largely by tract size, and will likely have geographic variance. 4)I see greater use of uneven-aged silviculture especially on the smaller, less fertile tracts. I also see management that supports a preponderance of nontimber objectives, and nontraditional forest products on these tracts. 5) Conversely, I see intensified even-aged plantation management on the larger, more fertile tracts. This will, in part, be encouraged by long-term industrial leases. In some cases, management will be in response to niche markets via green certification. In others, the objective will be fast-growing, highquality cellulose or biomass, not logs and lumber. 6)Lastly, I see an increasing role for consultants and industry in NIPF management. That translates to less technical services from public agencies. To offset this movement, I predict the future role for
public agencies to be quality control for vendor and landowner delivered services. Much of this will be in response to an infusion of new regulations.
Conclusions Unbiased, nonadvocacy, research-based educational programs in support of nonindustrial private forest management activities are here to stay. I believe the value of these programs will increase, particularly for those whose learned and experiential roots are less connected to the land and the earth sciences. The source and style of delivery of educational services is much more questionable. While there is strong interest and support for field demonstrations, there is also strong interest in electronic modeling. Moreover, there is strong interest and support for distance education technologies and self-learning technologies. In regards to delivery, I don't believe we have seen the final reorganization of the Department of Agriculture; thus there could be some adjustments in today's Extension delivery system. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing role for the private sector in education. A contemporary case in point is the Sustainable Forestry Initiative. This has strengthened public/private partnerships and, if we can remain objective, could become a model. On a final note let me share with you a message delivered by Bill Ticknor at last fall's National Conference of Extension Foresters in Portsmouth, NH. Bill suggests that the public agencies are inadvertently insulating NIPF landowners from society because they have forgotten for whom they work. He observes a plethora of publicly supported programs for landowners, but we in the public sector don't provide a connection between the users of these programs and the taxpayers. My read on Bill's message was that from a taxpayer's perspective, landowners who utilize public resources (money, public advisors, etc.) have been hired. They are to produce products and services for the good of mankind, but they are accountable to the people who paid them to produce. To illustrate, Bill said that when he takes his daughter to the dentist, he wants the dentist to regard him as the client and his daughter as the patient. I am paying for this service, he says, but I am willing to concede that both the patient and the provider have a stake in the procedure. In other words, we in public forestry are dentists. We are receiving taxpayer resources to provide services to a landowner patient, but we must ensure that the patient's needs are met as well. Hence, it's expected that we encounter a profusion of different, but justifiable, landowner objectives. On another matter, Bill explored the perceived difference in connectivity between NIPF landowners and the forest products and tourism industries. The forest products industry regards NIPF landowners as a supplier of products for their mills, and rewards them, through purchase contracts, for supplying these products. Moreover, the forest industry is sensitive to the impacts of public programs and public policy on sustaining their raw materials, and consequently works to influence programs and policy. Conversely, even though the New Hampshire tourism industry is more reliant on NIPF commodities than the wood products industry, there appears to be little connectivity. Most notably, at least during the time we were there, the commodity was colorful dead leaves. Bill's question to the Extension assembly was, "Does the tourism industry connect their livelihoods to NIPF lands and NIPF programs?" If so, he asked, "Why weren't representatives of the tourism industry included in the list of invited partners?" He went on to say, ". . . the tourism industry is utilizing NIPF commodities to supply their mills, but aren't paying benefits to the producers." He asked, "Have we explained to state tourism industries that we contribute to their well being? Have we asked them to help plan and defend our programs? Have we involved them in discussions about land use taxation, local harvesting ordinances, or critical habitats ... (Ticknor 1995)?"
Similarly, have we worked with outfitters to explain the value of the nonindustrial forest land base to sustaining wildlife and fish populations and navigable streams? Do members of the national Audubon Society understand the relationship between NIPF stewardship and viewable bird populations? In short, have we attempted to connect the purchasers of goods and services (taxpayers) with the producers (landowners) and subsequently the benefactors (tourist workers, outfitters, etc.) who double as taxpayers? My experience suggests probably not. Thus, as a closing suggestion, let me encourage the NIPF Working Group of the Society of American Foresters to consider a sequel to this conference in
the near future that targets another group of partners. References Baughman, M. J. 1994. Proceedings: First national conference on forest stewardship. University of Minnesota, Minnesota Extension Service. St. Paul. 161 pp. Birch, Thomas W. 1995. The private forest-land owners of the United States, 1994 (Review Draft), USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. Bliss, John C. and A. Jeff Martin, 1990. How tree farmers view management incentives. Journal of Forestry 88(8): 23-29. Bliss, John C., Robert T. Brooks, Jr., and Max D. Laursen. 1993. Attitudes in the Tennessee Valley Region toward forest practices and polices. School of Forestry, Auburn University, Auburn, AL. 7 pp. Cubbage, Frederick W. 1991. Public regulations of private forestry. Journal of Forestry 89(12): 31-35. Jones, S. B., A. E. Luloff, and J. C. Finley. 1995. Another look at NIPFs: Facing our myths. Journal of Forestry 93(9): 41-44. Larson, Loren R. II, Larry E. Biles, and Donald E. Nelson. 1992. Extension accomplishments reported for natural resources programming during the fiscal years 1989-1991. USDA Extension Service, Washington, DC. 191 pp. National Research Council. 1990. Forestry research: Mandate for change. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. pp. 54-55. Rasmussen, Wayne D. 1989. Taking the university to the people. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA. pp. 254-260. Ticknor, W. D. 1995. What we learned. Wrap-up comments from the national Extension Foresters Conference, Portsmouth, NH, October 24-27, 1995. Unpublished Report. 9 pp. USDA Extension Service. 1991. Renewable natural resources education-Report to Congress, 1991-1995. Appendix C. USDA Forest Service. 1989. RPA assessment of the forest and rangeland situation in the United States, 1989 (Forest Resources Report No. 26). 72 pp.
Our Vision for NIPF Management in the Future As professional resource managers, we have a vision of NIPF management that includes the good stewardship of healthy forests owned by individuals who have the ability to manage for their objectives first and foremost. To achieve this vision, our current system must change. First, and most importantly, the tax system as it relates to forest and farm land must be drastically changed if we are to obtain and foster continued stewardship of NIPF lands. In no less than five landowners' conferences held as early as 1979 (Atlanta, sponsored by Auburn University) and as late as 1995 (Nebraska City, sponsored by the USDA Forest Service and the NASF), the number one concern of the NIPF owners was the need for tax reform. Landowners have overwhelmingly called for tax reform in regard to inheritance taxes, capital gains, property taxes, and passive loss rules, among others. There is no doubt that this is the single most important issue to NIPF owners today, followed closely by a desire for more education. In our mind, the only solution to stopping the fragmentation of the valuable NIPF base is to eliminate the inheritance tax on forest and farm land. Without reform in this area, the family forest and farm will continue to be liquidated in order to pay Uncle Sam. We must also recognize the rights of private property owners, not just "respect" them, as seems to be the current buzzword. The ACF, in tandem with landowner associations, will continue to play an important role in this battle to maintain the rights granted landowners in the US Constitution. Competition with the free enterprise system by government agencies offering "free" forestry services must stop. Why do we need such services? Why not have free surveyors and lawyers for NIPFs also? Government agencies, in conjunction with universities, should continue to expand their forestry research and education roles. Emphasis should not only be put on educating the NIPF landowners about good forest stewardship, but must also be expanded to include the general public. The public is the ultimate beneficiary -sociologically, environmentally, and economically-of good forest stewardship. They should be made aware of the tools used to implement such stewardship, that is, silvicultural clearcuts, crop tree cuts, prescribed burning, and site preparation, to name a few. We all have a direct responsibility to include elementary and secondary schools and the general public in our education efforts. Finally, we must continue to strive to include the NIPF owners in forums where their interests are being discussed. They are all too often lost in the shuffle. NIPF landowners should and must be included in any discussion that deals with the law, regulations, and stewardship practices that impact on their ownership of land. Their voices should be heard. This is the democratic process and should be followed. There is no doubt that this symposium has been well planned and has good intentions. However, even here it appears that there are very few of the concurrent sessions that are being chaired by actual NIPF owners or their representatives. This reflects the difference of perception between public and private agencies about what constitutes input from the NIPF owners. This must change if their needs, and those of society, are to be met.
Landowner Association Perspective by John Marchant1
This talk was one of six in a panel which was asked to address the following statements:
• Why NIPF landowners are important to this sector. • Programs (services) offered to NIPF landowners. • Assessment of the success of these programs. • Future involvement in addressing NIPF issues. • Cooperation expected with other organizations and agencies. • Our vision of NIPF management in the future. To get a representative perspective for addressing these statements, I mailed a survey to 26 of the more active affiliates of the National Woodland Owners Association, now called the American Federation of Forest and Woodland Owners Associations. Geographically they represented many, but not all, sectors of the country. Twenty-four of the 26 surveys mailed were completed and returned. There was pretty solid response from the northeast, northcentral, and northwest with a few scattered states across the midwest. The answer to question #1 might be covered by the famous "Pogo" line, "We have met the enemy and he is us." To answer some of the remaining questions, responses to the survey will show an NIPF landowner association profile, including the size, age, operational methods, favored programs/services of the average organization for meeting NIPF needs and growth. Growth rate will be considered as one indicator of how well landowner organizations are appealing to and serving the needs of NIPFs in their respective regions and areas. To address Issue #2 the organizations were asked to rank order the seven following programs/services as to their importance in providing value and incentive to NIPF landowners in their states.
• • • • • • •
Annual membership meetings. Periodic magazines and/or newsletters. Educational woodswalks on selected properties. How-to workshops emphasizing stewardship. Lecture programs about: aesthetics, wildlife, recreation, timber growth, harvesting, etc. Free or cost-shared memberships to get acquainted. Information services: books, pamphlets, videos, forestry information databases, etc.
Table 1 shows the results of the ranking process by listing the number of organizations which placed respective programs at a given value level.
1 New York Forest Landowners Association, 45 Cambridge Court, Fairport, NY 14450. Presented at the Symposium on Nonindustrial Private Forests: Learning from the Past, Prospects for the Future, Washington, DC, February 18-20, 1996.
For example, nine associations ranked "Workshops" as priority 3 value; 17 ranked "Magazines/Newsletters" as first priority or 1, while the remaining seven organizations ranked it as priority 2. Not all program categories add up to 24 because not all organizations used every program/service listed. The category "Other" was available in the survey but not used. It is clear that Magazines and Newsletters are the most valued service that the NIPF landowner associations offer their constituents. Frequent contact with landowners seems to be the single most important factor in maintaining their interest and participation with the organization. Annual meetings had the second greatest number of priority 1 and 2 rankings. All other programs/services were reasonably well-used by a number of organizations, with the least being "Cost-shared Memberships" at 13 out of 24. Approaches to better serving NIPFs in the future were concentrated on a more effective mix of the program and service types listed above with a strong emphasis on increasing activity in the general area of legislative positioning for more equitable taxation of forestlands and the resources they produce. The response to the question, "What is your most important accomplishment for better serving the needs of NIPFs?" was overwhelmingly listed as having positively influenced taxation and regulation issues. The second most listed accomplishment was getting programs and services available at a more local level. It is important to realize that many of the accomplishments of these organizations have a far greater outreach than just their immediate membership. Impacting taxation and regulations positively, as one example, is of real benefit to all NIPFs within a particular legislative area. Most of the landowner associations reported cooperative efforts with other organizations and agencies as very important to their success. The USFS, state DNRs or equivalent, Cooperative Extension, NASF, NACF, NWOA, AFA and Tree Farm, AF&PA, RC&Ds, etc., were all mentioned to various degrees as being helpful in the past and needed in the future. There was a common request for help in reaching more of the NIPF community. Many commented that the recent emphasis on a national stewardship image and the associated incentive programs had been beneficial in reaching and influencing a new crop of NIPFs but the consequences of these programs being here today and gone tomorrow could be disastrous. Encouraging people to invest their personal resources to participate in eventual cost-share programs which are then dropped or cut back because of political fickleness leaves deep, permanent scars of distrust if not disdain.
Now let's generate a composite profile of the Landowner Association in this survey for interesting insight. P. The average association contains 807 members, which was based on a total of 18,465 members in 24 organizations. The average association age is 35 years and the median age is 20. Three organizations are over 100 years old which may make the median a more meaningful measure. Seventy percent are financed solely by membership dues, which means they answer to no one but their own constituency and act as an independent voice in their respective forestry communities. Sixty-two percent have a single central organization. In large geographical states, associations like the New York Forest Owners have found real advantages in having regional chapters, which provide the opportunity for closer, more personal contact with NIPFs. Sixty-two percent operate with a mix of volunteer and paid staff; 38 percent are totally volunteer. Because NIPF landowner associations have operated for many years with predominantly volunteers, they should be considered a valuable resource for information on how to effectively use volunteers in natural resource programs-an opportunity long overlooked by many professional agencies and organizations. By taking the total number of members in the survey and dividing by the cumulative number of organization years, the average organization has gained 23 members per year. The range of that growth across 24 individual associations varied from 4 to 157 members per year. This seems a small result for the work required by present tools and methods. Another interesting and disturbing statistic is the attrition or dropout rate of members. Because the question about attrition was not clearly expressed, it was not possible to arrive at a meaningful average for attrition. Since the author is familiar with that statistic for the New York Forest Owners Association (NYFOA) it will be used as an example, hopefully a meaningful one. During the past six-year period, NYFOA grew from approximately 1,100 to 1,800 members and had the benefit of several volunteer leaders who brought considerable management experience from both the public and private sectors. Eight new regional chapters were formed and all the programs and services already discussed were used extensively. The magazine was improved and the organization established excellent working relationships with most of the agencies and organizations throughout the forestry community. In short it was a period when many things of the right seemed to have been done right. So what did all that add up to? NYFOA grew at a rate of 115 members per year, from 1,100 to 1,800 and lost 1,345 in the same six-year period. The organization had to recruit over 200 members a year just to stay even, which meant that it actually recruited about 325 new members a year. Assuming New York State is not a completely unique case, this should be viewed as a very disturbing factor. The one saving grace may be that over that six-year period nearly 2,000 landowners were introduced to the values of managing forestland and the associated stewardship principles. Before finally addressing the question, "How successful were the programs and services landowner associations used to serve NIPF needs?" it's necessary to look at another part of the NIPF picture. Many estimates have been made as to how many NIPFs are active participants in the stewardship movement through a working management plan, members of forestry organizations, advocates for the process, or all the above. It has been done state by state and nationally and the answer always comes out around 5 percent. Keith Argow and others have pointed out that there are about 10 million NIPFs across the country and the number is growing every day. That means there should be 500,000 landowners active nationally in the stewardship process to some degree. I personally doubt that we are anywhere near that number. Even assuming it's correct, that leaves 95 percent of NIPFs uninvolved or unidentified. They never see or hear
or listen to the stewardship side of the story. Most of us involved in interactions with the NIPF community spend all of our resources on that 5 percent of the group which is already converted. We often refer to them as the "choir," and frequently convince ourselves that we really are working with the whole population. We have to stop talking about NIPFs as a homogenous group. We must begin to understand that 95 percent of them are truly UFOs-unidentified forest owners. As the numbers above show, we have all been spectacularly unsuccessful at finding and interesting UFOs in becoming stewards of our most valuable renewable resource. On the other hand we have no trouble at all adding up the resources that could come from 100 percent of all NIPF forestlands in the future. We are already counting on a 20 percent increase in the resources coming from NIPF lands by the year 2020 to meet projected market needs. Unless those lands are much better managed than they are today, I seriously doubt that either the quantity or quality of that valuable resource will meet those projections. Landowner associations and all the other forestry agencies and organizations don't have a chance to meet that goal using the methods and tools we've used to date. We'll only continue to make incremental progress. So what about the future? We have to change our collective thinking about who NIPFs really are and begin targeting that enormous group of unidentified forestland owners. The idea of getting private forestland into sound management, one landowner at a time, through one-on-one contacts, is never going to get us where we need to be. We have to get UFOs interested enough to want to hear our story. Because of the sheer numbers involved, we need to get them to want to find us. We need a cultural attitude change toward forestry in all its flavors and until we do, we are only going to increment our way toward the full potential of the greatest renewable resource on this earth. This is not a new thought by any means, but it is time that we finally do something about it. It is possible to make a cultural change. It has clearly happened with the attitude and support for the overall environment. So where does one start? None of us can do it alone in our respective organizations and agencies. It's going to take some very creative networking into some very deep pockets because we're talking about nothing less than very creative television advertising on a local and national level. One interesting example is going on right now. It's an advertising campaign to raise the value image of a MATERIAL, not a product, a material-plastics. I'm sure you have all seen it. Some people are paying a lot of money up front today to insure the marketability of their specific products tomorrow. We don't need to increase the public's image of the value of wood. But we do need to greatly improve their image of how and where that valuable material (wood) is obtained. We may also get some ideas from the SO roll-out that AF&PA is planning in April 1996, which has a significant TV advertising component. Bob Simpson of the American Tree Farm System has looked into the possibilities of celebrity advertising, which has some very attractive potential. You may recall that some years ago Ralph Waite of "The Waltons" and Eddy Arnold of "Green Acres" each did some pro-forestry spot ads. We should review what impact they had. Because there is so much at stake, we need to take a very serious look at all possible options for reaching UFOs and interesting them in the better management of their forest resources. I'd like to close by stating that I believe NIPF Landowner Associations are doing a fine job. Even though the numbers are small, a substantial percentage of the "choir" is the direct result of their continuing efforts. Serious consideration should be given to holding a three-day workshop for all landowner associations from every state, including a representative from those that don't already have one. After seeing the results of the limited survey discussed here, I'm convinced the exchange of ideas in such a workshop would be invaluable. Consider it seed money with a guaranteed return. Finally, let's never forget that the "choir," which landowner associations are greatly responsible for, will always be a cornerstone in the future of forestry in this country.
Current Use Valuation for Agricultural and Forest Land and Timber Harvest Ad Valorem Taxation A Success Story for Cooperative Extension Service Public Issues and Policy Education in Georgia by C. W. Dangerfield Jr. and J. E. Gunter1 During the late 1980s issues of county ad valorem taxation for agricultural and forest land and growing timber came to the front of public interest. Concern centered on the points of conservation of land in longterm environmentally friendly uses and the continued profitability of agricultural and forest farming through fair and equitable taxation. Georgia House Resolution 836, in 1990, proposed a constitutional amendment (Amendment #3 on the general election ballot) to allow revision of the taxation of rural land and residential transitional property (Table 1). It also proposed to defer the taxation of standing timber until owners sell or cut timber. House Bill 283 (Table 2) and House Bill 66 (Table 3), were enacted as the enabling legislation following passage of Amendment #3. Table 1. Georgia House Resolution 836-1 called for a constitutional amendment question that would allow the Georgia General Assembly to:
• Implement current use assessments for "bona fide conservation use properties" and "bona fide residential transitional properties:"
• • • • •
Define conservation use properties to include agriculture and timber properties, up to 2,000 acres; Define residential transitional properties to include single family, owner-occupied homes, up to five acres; Create a covenant for owners to enter to be eligible for current use assessments; Provide a tax recapture penalty for land under the covenant that undergoes a change in use; Provide that standing timber be assessed only once on the basis of 100 percent of fair market value at the time of sale or harvest. Legislators added "or harvest" to be sure that landowners who harvest their own timber from their own lands, and technically have no "sale," would also be taxed. This is not an "either or" situation;
• Provide that the method of determining conservation use land values include a market component; • Create a temporary supplementation for a county digest that has a net decrease of more than 20 percent due to the new method of timber taxation. Tax officials will only assess timber properties for the supplement. 1 Legislators placed the resolution on the November 1990 ballot as Amendment #3; 62 percent of Georgians voting passed the Amendment.
1 Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 and College of Forest Resources, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762. Presented at the Symposium on Nonindustrial Private Forests: Learning from the Past, Prospects for the Future, Washington, DC, February 18-20, 1996.
Through the expression of taxpayer concern for these ad valorem tax issues, the Georgia Cooperative Extension Service recognized in proposed legislation the need and opportunity to develop a public issues and policy education approach. This program features Extension involvement in the public issues education process beginning with the awareness stage of the voting public for the need for new policy and continuing through formation, implementation, and education of public policy legislation and regulations. At all stages of program development, Extension agents and agricultural/timber producers were kept involved.
Education Program Goals The goals established were sequential as follows: 1)Constitutional Change. Educate the taxpaying public, Extension staff, involved agencies and organizations, county governments, and members of the Georgia Legislature on the issues raised by H.R. 836 and consequences of the proposed Constitutional Amendment #3. 2) Enabling Legislation. After passage of the constitutional change, educate the taxpaying public, Extension staff, involved agencies and organizations, county governments, and members of the Georgia Legislature on the issues addressed by the enabling legislation. Subsequently, the enabling legislation, H.B. 283 followed by a technical corrections bill H.B. 66 (termed Conservation Use Valuation and Timber Taxation) was passed. 3)Georgia Department of Revenue Regulations. After passage of the enabling legislation (H.B. 283) and technical corrections (H.B. 66), educate the taxpaying public, Extension staff, involved agencies and organizations, county governments, and members of the Georgia Legislature on the proper regulatory methodologies needed to accomplish the legislative intent. 4) Producer Implementation. After promulgation of Georgia Department of Revenue regulations, educate the taxpaying public, Extension staff, involved agencies and organizations, county governments, agricultural and forest producers, and members of the Georgia Legislature on the producer-oriented effects of Conservation Use Valuation and Timber Taxation. Teach audiences the proper procedures needed to enter a Conservation Use Covenant and how to comply with timber taxation rules. 5) Taxpayer Effects. Following the first year of the Conservation Use Valuation and Timber Taxation program, educate the taxpaying public, Extension staff, involved agencies and organizations, county governments, agricultural and forest producers, and members of the Georgia Legislature on the effects of the program. Inform audiences of the costs and benefits of the Conservation Use Valuation and Timber Taxation program for taxpayers in general and for agricultural and forest producers in particular. 6) Continued efforts. Across time there will be a need to monitor effects of the Conservation Use and Timber Tax program to assure taxpayers' best interests are met.
Program Structure Audiences Targeted
Audiences for public policy education with Conservation Use Valuation and Timber Taxation include: voters, taxpaying public, Georgia Extension Service faculty, teaching and research faculty, Georgia Forestry Association, Georgia Farm Bureau, Georgia Forestry Commission, Georgia Department of Agriculture, Georgia State Statistician, Georgia Conservancy, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, forest industry, agricultural and forest producers, Georgia Legislature, Georgia Department of Revenue, county governments, Georgia Association of Assessing Officials, and Association of County Commissioners of Georgia. Teaching Methods and Activities
Use of state, area, district, multicounty, and county Extension meeting formats has greatly improved the efficiency of technology transfer. These formats have also made it possible to reach a greater total number of clientele in a shorter time frame as detailed in the section below. Agent Training
Six district Extension agent training meetings were held in 1990 to cover H.R. 836 and Amendment #3. One district Extension agent training meeting was held in 1993 to cover H.B. 283 and H.B. 66. Over 300 county Extension agents were trained in these district meetings. Over 100 telephone calls were received from county agents seeking specific information about the program. Public Meetings Twelve area public meetings were held from 1991 to 1994 to cover H.R. 836 and Amendment #3, H.B. 283 and H.B. 66. More than 1,246 taxpayers attended. Agents were specially invited to attend these updates. Twenty-nine multicounty, producer-oriented Extension education meetings representing over 95 counties, with attendance totaling over 1,921 persons, were held from 1992 to 1995 to provide details of sign-up for conservation use assessment and timber sale reporting. In addition, an estimated 50 County Extension Agents held their own county meetings over the period after receiving training from the extension specialists. An estimated 1,000 persons attended the county-level meetings. State Agency Meetings To implement Conservation Use Valuation and Timber Taxation, over 60 meetings were held with the Department of Revenue, the Georgia Legislature, county government officials, other agency staff, and other statewide organizations. Total attendance exceeded 2,175. Publications/Outreach Use of public television, radio, extension news releases, newsletters, magazine articles, research reports, department bulletins, and extension bulletins has greatly multiplied the efforts of the specialists. In addition, a video and three slide sets have been made available in each of the Extension districts to help county agents hold more effective meetings in their own counties. Specifically, a research report was published to show the projected fiscal impact of changes in the timber tax law on county tax digests. Additionally, four extension bulletins covering Conservation Use and Timber Taxation were published with a combined circulation of over 20,000 copies. Four Department Extension Newsletters were published with circulation in excess of 10,000 copies. Three magazine articles were published in Georgia. In total, 26 publications were written on this topic by the University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service. A for-sale Extension Bulletin was published with printing of 12,000 copies to date. Representatives of the Georgia Farm Bureau Federation, Georgia Forestry Association, Georgia Forestry Commission, and
Georgia Conservancy served as coauthors of this publication. Other contributors included individuals from the Georgia State Department of Revenue, Forest Farmer Association, Union Camp Inc., Georgia Association of Assessing Officials, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, and the Georgia House Ways and Means Committee. The coauthors and contributors serve to strengthen the bulletin and broaden its support and use. Publications and slide sets were distributed to and coordinated with Georgia Farm Bureau Federation, Georgia Forestry Association, Georgia Forestry Commission, Georgia Conservancy, Georgia Association of Assessing Officials, Association County Commissioner of Georgia, Georgia State Department of Revenue, and the Georgia Legislature. The additional distribution and coordination greatly increased the effectiveness of the extension education program as these organizations also conducted meetings and trainings.
Results Achieved Policy Education This Extension issues and policy education program was carried out closely with the Georgia Legislature, the Georgia Department of Revenue (DOR) and county governments to implement H.B. 283 and H.B. 66. It has been instrumental in helping to guide the entire process of development and implementation of the administrative regulations relating to Georgia House Bill 283, Conservation Use Valuation and Timber Taxation. Furthermore, it illustrates an optimum extension education process. The program included needs assessment, county agent in-service training, education for landowners and the general public, and provision of assistance to the Georgia Legislature and the State Department of Revenue in the development of legislation, regulations, and administrative procedures. Bill Dover, Chairman of The Georgia House Ways and Means Committee, wrote that the outcome of extension's work in this area provides, "common sense guidelines whereby qualified agricultural and forest landowners can enter a protective covenant to assure the conservation of their property for years to come." The knowledge of the specialists has been greatly increased by working on this program. These specialists have sharpened their expertise on land valuation techniques, ad valorem taxation, and timber taxation. Also, procedures have been refined for conducting integrated extension public issues and policy education programs in Georgia.
Benefit and Costs for Taxing Conservation Use Land Some 36,343 qualified landowners were enrolled in 10-year covenants with their county governments in 1994, the most recent year for which reports are available. Ad valorem tax benefits earned by these individuals in 1994 averaged $556 each, for an estimated total statewide tax savings of $20,209,957 for the acres in the conservation use program. (Table 4 shows the 1996 schedule of current use values for covenant land.) Also, enrollees limited their right to develop enrolled land in a nonagricultural or nonforest use for ten years. Popularity of the program suggests that enrollment will increase in subsequent years. Conservation Use Valuation is intended to help preserve farms, forests, and open spaces across the state. Agricultural and forestry enterprises are more profitable with conservation use assessments. Thus, their future integrity is enhanced. Likewise, there should be fewer farms crowded out by residential and other development pressures and a better environment in which to live. In 1994, $806,107,784 in assessed value was removed from county digests in Georgia due to conservation use covenants. This amounts to a 0.586 percent tax digest decrease.
Timber Tax Effects
On a statewide basis, there will be a long-run positive effect of taxing timber at harvest as opposed to the annual tax on growing timber. Projections are for 5,300 more jobs in the state's timber industry by the year 2010 than if annual timber taxation continued. Gross annual output from the forest products sector will be almost $600 million higher by that year, and wage payments will be $125 million higher. Additionally, the economic multipliers for output, wages, and employment will almost double the total effect in Georgia of the direct benefits mentioned. Most importantly, a large sector of the Georgia economy will achieve future benefits in return for this taxation change.
Other, short-run effects of the timber tax issue can be examined. The state had a total digest of $137,324,756,529 in 1994. The assessed value increase from the new one-time tax on timber at harvest or sale for harvest in 1994 was $542,509,610 (0.395 percent of the digest) with $13,854,467 collected in ad valorem taxes.
Evaluation Methods The University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service Instructor Evaluation form was used to evaluate teaching effectiveness in this program for seven training meetings held for over 300 county extension agents. This form is based on a ranking system where excellent = 5, above average = 4, average = 3, below average = 2, and poor = 1. The summary of evaluations showed that teaching effectiveness ranked between 4 and 5 on each of the following seven categories:
References Cubbage, F. W., C. E. DeForest, S. C. Carlson, and C. W. Dangerfield Jr. 1991. Economic impacts of proposed full
taxation of land and timber in Georgia. Final research report, The University of Georgia, School of Forest Resources, Athens, GA 30602. 90 pp., February. Dangerfield Jr., C. W., R. Ray Jr., and W. Givan. 1992. How agricultural and forestry property and improvements are valued ... for ad valorem taxes in Georgia (AG. ECON. Bulletin 92-026). Cooperative Extension Service, The University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Athens, GA 30602. November. Dangerfield Jr., C. W., J. E. Gunter, W. Kriesel, R. Ray Jr., R. Izlar, D. Martin, K. Johnson, and H. Neuhauser. 1993. Tax incentives for the Georgia land owner (Bulletin 1089), Cooperative Extension Service, The University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Athens, GA. 71 pp., May. Dangerfield Jr., C. W., R. Izlar, R. Ray Jr., and K. Johnson. 1995. Answers to frequently asked questions about agricultural preferential assessment, current use valuation, and timber taxation (AG. ECON. Bulletin 95-038). Extension Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Athens GA. 19 pp., May.
Dangerfield Jr., C. W., R. War, R. Ray Jr. 1995. County ad valorem taxes affecting agriculture and forestry: History, trends, legislation, and related issues in Georgia (AG. ECON. Bulletin 95-039). Extension Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Athens, GA. 54 pp., May. Georgia Department of Revenue. 1996. Property Tax Division, Regulations; Chapter 560-11-6, Conservation Use Property-93; Chapter 560-11-4, Conservation Use Property-92; and Chapter 560-11-5, Taxation of Standing Timber. 405 Trinity Washington Building, Atlanta, GA 30334. Georgia Department of Revenue. 1996. Property Tax Division, 1996 conservation use value study. 405 Trinity Washington Building, Atlanta, GA 30334. Ray Jr., R. and C. W. Dangerfield, Jr. 1994. Fundamentals of appealing property reassessments (AG. ECON. Bulletin 94-033). Cooperative Extension Service College of Agricultural and Environmental Services, University of Georgia, Athens, GA. May.
Extension Leadership in Issues-Based Programming: A North Carolina Example by Rick A. Hamilton and Edwin J. Jones1
Private forest landowners were and remain confused and concerned about what they can and cannot do with their land in light of the many environmentally related laws and regulations that have been promulgated over the past few years. To obtain information, many landowners contact county extension agents, state forestry extension specialists, offices of the state forester, and/or forest landowner associations. It was because of the large volume of concerns and the apparent confusion, misinformation, and conflicting information given to landowners that the NC Cooperative Extension Service decided to take the lead in organizing the workshops "Conservation and Confiscation: Who Really Owns Your Land?" held in July of 1992.
Planning Process Specialists within the Extension Forestry Program received a "mini-grant" from the Renewable Resources Extension Act funds appropriated to the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. The funds were approved to cover printing, mailing, publicity, and facilities costs. Since the program was to address forestry issues, a planning committee of legitimate forestry groups was formed. Included were the Forest Farmers Association, NC Forestry Association, NC Forest Stewardship Program, NC Division of Forest Resources, and NC Cooperative Extension Service. Expansion of the committee to include other groups with environmental interest was discussed, but the committee concluded that oversight by state agencies such as the NC Division of Forest Resources and NC Cooperative Extension Service would insure that the programs would be viewed as unbiased and conducted in a balanced fashion. it was agreed that the program would include a panel of speakers from other groups and interests and the environmental interest groups would be invited to participate via these panels. Program Objectives The program had three main objectives. The first was to inform landowners and the general public on the following topics: the importance of forestry in North Carolina, the Clean Water Act (specifically Section 404 as related to the forestry exemption), the Endangered Species Act, timber taxation, forest practices regulations, and the government's right to regulate private property. Secondly, participants would learn how public policy is made and how to participate in the process, whatever their interests or positions might be. Finally, the workshops would serve as the awards luncheons to recognize landowners who had become certified Forest Stewards.
1 Extension Forestry Specialist, Department of Forestry, North Carolina State University, Box 8003, Raleigh, NC 27695-8003; and Department Extension Leader, Department of Forestry, North Carolina State University, Box 8003, Raleigh, NC 27695-8003. Presented at the Symposium on Nonindustrial Private Forests: Learning from the Past, Prospects for the Future, Washington, DC, February 18-20, 1996.
Speakers Speakers on the environmental issues were selected from the NC Division of Forest Resources, Cooperative Extension Service, and the NC Attorney General's Office. At the Southern Pines session, the Southeastern Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Coordinator with the US Fish and Wildlife Service discussed endangered species. Speakers on the public policy process and timber taxes were individuals with experience in that arena and could better relate that information than could agency personnel. The intent of the workshop was not to tell people what to think but rather what the issues are and how to become involved in the decision making and policy development processes. Speakers were selected only with the understanding that material presented was to be factual and presented in a balanced/unbiased manner. The landowner/response panel was to be comprised of landowners, consultants dealing with environmental issues, and representatives of recognized environmental interest groups in North Carolina. Only the. latter refused to participate. The lead lobbyist for the North Carolina Conservation Council and the executive director of the state's largest environmental organization were specifically invited. These groups chose to make their comments through the media, rather than to be participants. Workshop Title, Brochure, and Pre-meeting Publicity The organizers chose the title "Conservation and Confiscation: Who Really Owns Your Land?" The title captured the interests and concerns that have been expressed by landowners, many of whom are following forest management plans or are in the forest stewardship program. Most landowners consider themselves to be conservationists and are justifiably confused and may even become angry when groups, individuals, and agencies challenge their right to manage property to which they hold title and on which they pay taxes. The title clearly captures the polemic views held by North Carolina citizens. In hindsight, the title and organization of the brochure to highlight the property rights implications of the workshops was a mixed blessing: the publicity and title resulted in over 900 participants, but at the same time raised the ire of many groups, individuals, and members of the press. A draft of the brochure was distributed to committee members for review, but in the process was "leaked" to leaders of several environmental interest groups. Even though invited to participate and aware of the workshops, these leaders chose at this point to air their displeasure with the content and tone of the proposed workshops. Negative editorials and newspaper articles appeared almost immediately. Organizers were harassed and threatened. Inquiries about the content and purpose of the workshops came from the governor's office, from several members of the North Carolina Congressional delegation, from the secretary's office of the US Department of Agriculture, and others.
The Workshops In spite of the negative publicity and threats of retaliation, the series of one-day workshops was held, the first in Valdese on July 28,the second in Southern Pines on July 29, and the final session in Rocky Mount on July 30. Over 900 people attended and by majority opinion, the workshops were indeed well done and conducted in a fair and unbiased fashion. Evaluations Workshop evaluations were completed by 231 participants. Overall evaluations were very positive (Figures 1, 2, 3); 98.65 percent rated the programs good to excellent, with the remaining 1.35 percent rating them fair. No evaluations rated the programs in the poor category.
The evaluations also allowed participants to make specific comments. Most felt that the workshops were worthwhile; some voiced concerns, and others provided helpful suggestions. All the comments are too numerous to list, but the following capture the range of responses: "Good program. More private landowners need the opportunity to learn about the various forces affecting their ownership options. Knowledge will lead to informed decisions and therefore better legislation." "Outstanding!!! I think the attention these programs have generated in the media and from the environmental wackos is a definite indication that we are finally doing something right. This is a fantastic informational effort and we should keep it going! Just stay with the facts as best we can and have the guts to face down the misinformation promulgated by `special interests."' "Decent workshop although could have been more balanced. This is coming from a conservation/libertarian/private landrights individual. I believe government has the duty to educate and work with business and private enterprise, not against them. Should look for more discussion amongst the differing viewpoints."
"Program very appropriate. Definitely not what my environmental group anticipated." "Seemed slanted in opinion. Would've been more enlightening if differing opinions had been offered. There needed to be debate in order to get the audience thinking instead of telling them what to believe. We learned what the issues are and regulations pending legislation. But those who initiated and wrote these were not present to defend or give reasons why."
What Have We Learned? The Cooperative Extension Service has a responsibility to inform the public in an unbiased manner, and to do so in cooperation with other agencies and organizations so that citizens can make informed decisions in improving the quality of their lives. It is obvious from the attendance at these workshops and the evaluations that there is a need for continual educational programming in the forest policy arena. Cooperative Extension is in a unique position to present unbiased information and to link that information to sound science. The objective of the organizers was to educate, not incite. It is debatable whether the negative reaction of environmental interest groups, the media, and others was avoidable. It is apparent that the choice of a title of a program no matter the content, can create interest and reactions. Although the negative reaction was undesired, it created greater visibility for the organization and the issues addressed. The North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service encourages its faculty to be involved in public policy education. largely as a result of the bumpy road encountered in planing and conducting this workshop, a policy regarding future issues programming has been adopted, which says in short: "Public issues education is consistent with the mission of the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. The administration endorses participation in this activity with the involvement of advisory groups and supervisors. The administration will fully support well-planned and executed public issues education programs that are balanced, based on scientifically derived information, and facilitate collaborative problem solving." While the tempest in a teapot surrounding these workshops has subsided, public debate over such issues as endangered species, wetlands, timber taxation, forest practices regulations, and ecosystem integrity continues. Extension forest specialists at NC State University initiated efforts to restore the Atlantic White-cedar and Longleaf Pine ecosystems and have ongoing programs in forest best management practices, forest stewardship, timber taxation, and policy education. They have also been key to the development of a pilot "Safe Harbor" program to aid the recovery of the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. In fact some organizations and individuals that were critical of the workshops before they happened, recognized the integrity of the Cooperative Extension Service and are not cooperators on other programs. One reason that Cooperative Extension is a key player in these and other efforts is that they are recognized as leaders in public policy education. That role and the need to be diligent in the commitment to balanced programming was reinforced by these workshops.
Natural Resource Education and Extension in the Historically Black Universities and Colleges by Peter R. Mount1
Like the ostrich, the historically black state colleges and universities have had their collective heads buried in the sand for many years. The main thrust of extension and education in the 1890 schools has been crop oriented or soil conservation oriented with virtually no attention given to natural resource education or extension. In the 1980s, in furtherance of the civil rights movement, there was an effort put forth by people like Glenn Blankenship, Bill Atkinson, and Otis Jones from the USDA Forest Service to increase the number of minorities in natural resource careers. Early efforts to share funds for natural resource extension were not very successful. In 1984 North Carolina A & T became the first 1890 institution with a natural resource program. In 1985 Tuskegee University followed with a forestry extension specialist. The program has spread, but very slowly, with schools like Virginia State, University of Maryland Eastern Shore, Alabama A & M, and others beginning to participate. It is somewhat strange that there has not been greater effort in this area since natural resource income is the leader, or among the top two or three income producers in almost all the states which have 1890 schools. Segregation: it still exists but in a much more modest form than before. Indeed, token efforts have been and are being made to appease the militant leaders in the minority community. One such effort was made when there was an offer to share RREA (Renewable Resource Extension Act) funds between Auburn University and Tuskegee University. Even though the dollar amount was modest, it prompted a program in forestry extension at a black university. In 1985 a program was initiated to 1) raise the level of reforestation on minority land holdings in southeast Alabama and 2) improve the management of forestlands held by minorities in the same area. An exhaustive search yielded no available black foresters with the qualifications needed to fill the position. A forester was hired to begin the program. The first efforts to reach minority landowners included personal contacts with peer group leaders identified by county agents; holding programs-demonstrations and field days-on minority farms; working through the Tree Farm Program to make one-on-one contacts with landowners; and starting a Minority Forest Landowner Conference, since changed to a Small Acreage Forest Landowner Conference. In the first year of this new endeavor, over 100 landowner visits were made with fewer than 20 being minority owners. Over the past ten years the program has gained acceptance by the minority community and now the ratio is reversed with 80 out of 100 visits being made to minority properties. The land ownership pattern in the black belt counties of Alabama is fairly uniform among counties. In Macon County where the population is 86 percent black, the minority community owns 46 percent of the forested properties but only 21 percent of the forest acreage. The largest ownership category is the absentee owner, the majority of whom are white. Another very important factor in the ownership of forested properties is the large number of tracts that are in estates or multiple ownerships among heirs. This
1 Extension Forester, Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, AL 36088. Presented at the Symposium on Nonindustrial Private Forests: Learning from the Past, Prospects for the Future, Washington, DC, February 18-20, 1996.
amounted to 11 percent of the total forestland area and 26 percent of all minority holdings. In general these properties are among the poorest managed in terms of forest production. The rules and regulations governing the transfer of title to forest properties between generations is not clearly understood by most minority owners. This leads to division of existing tracts and creates many small units which are not economical to manage. This in turn leads to the number one problem in the minority community, which is premature harvest. Most owners are willing to sell their timber as soon as it reaches pulpwood size, not realizing that it is just entering its period of most rapid volume and value accumulation. Another problem associated with minority forestry extension is the shrinking number of minority ownerships. The percent of land owned or controlled by minorities is eroding at an ever-increasing rate, which is unfortunate. Land is a valuable commodity in Alabama and one that is capable of making a good rate of return on investment. Because of this, land-hungry investors are amassing large acreages at the expense of minority community members. So there are problems which include: • Communication
•
Lack of knowledge
•
Disinterest
•
Short range planning horizons
Here is what some of the Historically Black Universities and Colleges (HBCUs) are trying to do to correct these problems: Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, Alabama. In 1985 it adopted a forestry extension program to aid and assist minority landowners. Highlights include: an annual Small Acreage Land Owner Conference is aimed at specific problems on minority ownerships; a portion of the 104-year-old Farmer's Conference is devoted to forestry and the distribution of free seedlings; an annual forest industry tour is offered; a library of "how to" videotapes that has been developed and is available to minority owners at no cost; a demonstration area is being developed to illustrate techniques of sound management; free on-site evaluations of forested properties are available; training sessions on everything from tree planting to prescribed burning are held annually; a monthly news packet is distributed to county agents; and an awards program for good management is held at an annual banquet each year. Has the program had an impact? The answer is an obvious YES; however, it is a cost item for extension. Another item of note is that Tuskegee has a preforestry program that is 27 years old and has provided the majority of minority foresters working in the United States at present. At Tuskegee there is an effort being made to determine how goats can be utilized as a tool of forestry. North Carolina A & T, Greensboro, North Carolina. Dr. Bob Williamson started a natural resource extension program in 1984 at North Carolina A & T. Bob has actively assisted landowners with wildlife plans, forest management plans, pond management plans, and marketing forest products. His program at A & T has been highlighted as a good example of successful natural resource extension. Virginia State University, Petersburg, Virginia. Dr. Mitchell Patterson, an extension specialist at Virginia State, has a stewardship program that is aimed at minority owners and has been very successful. Since 1990 there have been several conferences, field days, demonstrations, and workshop covering all aspects of forest management.
Florida A & M University, Tallahassee, Florida. Extension programs have included Christmas tree production, wetlands management, water quality, and use of pine bark. Research efforts are aimed at water quality, biological control of insects and diseases, wetlands mitigation, and freshwater stream management. A preforestry program is operated in conjunction with the University of Florida at Gainesville. University of Maryland-Eastern Shore, Princess Anne, Maryland. Efforts at this 1890 institution have been aimed at native plant propagation, commercial production, and Christmas tree production. Mark Teffeau leads an active unit in this extension program. Prairie View A & M, Overton, Texas. RREA funds are used to run the Estelle Youth Camp each summer. Dr. Billy Higginbotham has developed three interactive computer-run video programs for use in elementary school education in natural resources. All of the foregoing programs receive a small portion of RREA funds from the state university responsible for Extension programming. Even though the amount of these funds is small, the impact of their use is large, reaching audiences that are different from mainstream extension activities. There are many other members of the HBCUs that are involved in natural resources education but receive no funding from RREA. To mention some of these: Alabama A & M University, Normal, Alabama. It has a four-year degree granting program in forestry, an active program in shiitake mushroom production, an active horticultural program in commercial and home fruit production, and a water quality program in extension. Fort Valley State, Fort Valley, Georgia. Dr. Glenwood Hill has an active program in longleaf pine management including progeny testing and growth studies. There is also an active program in constructed wetlands that is being taken to the people by extension personnel. Alcorn A & M University, Lorman, Mississippi. There is a Mississippi River Center that has been developed at Alcorn which in part deals with natural resources. Southern University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. It has a four-year degree granting program in Urban Forestry. The natural resource extension is handled totally by Louisiana State University. Langston University, Langston, Oklahoma. In a cooperative project with the Forest Service, Nelson Escobar and Frank Pinkerton have been studying the use of goats as a tool of forest management. One project on the Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas has produced some very interesting results. University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, Pine Bluff, Arkansas. Its total natural resource emphasis has been on aquaculture and commercial fish production. Other 1890 schools with little or no programming in natural resources extension and education include South Carolina State in South Carolina, Lincoln University in Missouri, Tennessee State University in Tennessee, Kentucky State University in Kentucky, and Delaware State in Delaware. These schools have extension programs but have not emphasized natural resources. So where are we, where do we go from here, and what can be done to get greater participation in natural resource extension? The scant programming or lack of programming within the Historically Black Universities and Colleges derives from lack of funding, lack of direction from the National Extension Office, lack
of personnel to administer such programs, and the lack of clientele speaking up and saying they need these programs. This situation could be changed in several ways: one is to have direct participation by the 1890s in RREA, one would be for the current administrators of resource extension to encourage participation, one would be to have a call for programs from minority owners and minority ownership associations, one would be to publicize the impact of existing programs to a greater extent, and another would be to combine efforts of state organizations, government agencies, and nonprofit groups to coordinate programs for minority owners. Just creating programs is not going to ensure participation by those who need them or who might even want them. There has to be some accountability for programming and its impact, other than the haphazard justifications which are utilized at present to continue business as usual.
Historically Black State Colleges and Universities
Virginia State University Petersburg, Virginia Dr. Mitchell Patterson, Specialist
Alcorn University Lorman, Mississippi Dr. Harness, Director
North Carolina A & T University Greensboro, North Carolina Dr. Robert Williamson, Specialist
South Caroline State University Orangeburg, South Carolina
Florida A & M University Tallahassee, Florida Dr. Cassel Gardner, Specialist Langston University Langston, Oklahoma Dr. Nelson Escobar, Specialist University of Maryland - Eastern Shore Princess Anne, Maryland Mark Teffeau, Specialist Southern University Baton Rouge, Louisiana Kitt Chen, Department Head
Prairie View University Prairie View, Texas Tennessee State University Nashville, Tennessee Kentucky State University Frankfort, Kentucky Delaware State University Dover, Delaware Dr. Alabama A & M University Normal, Alabama Dr. Cathy Sabota, Specialist Dr.
Lincoln University Fort Valley State University Lincoln, Missouri Fort Valley, Georgia Dr. Glenwood Hill, Administrator Tuskegee University Tuskegee, Alabama University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff Dr. Peter Mount, Specialist Pine Bluff, Arkansas
Encouraging NIPF Stewardship Through Demonstration by Dr. Stephen B. Jones and Alison H. Harmon1
Pennsylvania's forests, covering more than half the state, supply high quality hardwoods to domestic and, increasingly, international markets. Needless to say, timber harvesting is an important reality, and must be viewed in that light as landowners and others also continue to enjoy the abundant amenity values associated with our 17 million acres of "working" forests. An extension education project, "Integrating Sustainable Forestry into Total Farm Management," has a primary objective of encouraging responsible forest resource management through education. Funded by the United States Department of Agriculture's Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, the project established seven Forest Stewardship Demonstration Areas across Pennsylvania. Although outdoor demonstrations are a traditional extension methodology, few studies have documented the educational efficacy of forestry tours. The purpose of the reported study was to determine whether this kind of outdoor demonstration can increase landowner and public knowledge of forest ecology and silviculture. For comparison, an indoor slide presentation provided the same information. In order to evaluate the educational value of the Forest Stewardship Demonstration Areas, we conducted five workshops using two of the sites, for various audiences during the summer and fall of 1994. Results from a workshop questionnaire indicate that outdoor demonstration enhances learning in the areas of forest ecology and silviculture. Objective test scores were significantly higher for respondents who saw an introductory slide presentation when compared to a control, and higher for respondents who viewed the slide presentation and toured the demonstration when compared with those who had been exposed to only the slide presentation. Exposure to the slides and to the demonstration site did not significantly influence respondents' attitudes toward timber harvesting, but attitudes toward clearcutting became more accepting following the field tour. There were positive correlation between test score and acceptance scores. That is, participants who have greater understanding of basic forest ecology and silviculture principles tend to be more accepting of using timber harvesting generally, and clearcutting specifically, as forest management tools. Acceptance of clearcutting as a viable forestry tool occurred only after participants toured the demonstration area, including its two-acre clearcut. Demonstrations provide an excellent forum for addressing controversial issues.
Introduction The outdoor field demonstration is a popular educational tool for Cooperative Extension programs. People young and old seem to prefer to learn in this manner (Riesenberg and Gor 1989, Rznewnicki 1991). But, considering the widespread use of field demonstrations, evaluations of educational effectiveness are surprisingly rare. Educational programs need to be evaluated to allow educators to choose among alternative teaching tools, activities, or delivery styles. Because monetary resources are limited in extension education, they should be spent providing programs that have been demonstrated to be effective (Pigg 1980, Andrews 1983). This study assessed the educational effectiveness of a Forest Stewardship Demonstration in Pennsylvania.
1 Associate Professor, School of Forest Resources, Penn State University, 07 Ferguson Building, University Park, PA 16802; and Graduate Assistant, 206 Borland, Penn State University, University Park, PA 16802. Presented at the Symposium on Nonindustrial Private Forests: Learning from the Past, Prospects for the Future, Washington, DC, February 18-20, 1996.
More than 70 percent of Pennsylvania's extensive forested lands are nonindustrial private forests (NIPFs) owned by more than a half million individuals and families (Birch and Stelter 1993). These landowners make decisions that affect the long-term viability of Pennsylvania's hardwood industry (a five billion dollar industry that employs 100,000) in addition to the sustainability of the broader set of values that society expects from even private forests. While there is a growing need for landowners to be knowledgeable about forest ecology and silviculture principles, most landowners in Pennsylvania say that they need more information to responsibly manage their forests (Luloff et al. 1993). Timber harvesting, a primary tool of forest management, is used by foresters not only to yield commercial products, but also to maintain healthy and productive forest ecosystems. Unfortunately, misconceptions about timber harvesting can fuel conflicts among landowners, forest resource professionals, timber harvesters, and the public (Jones et al. 1995). Because trees and forests enrich our lives in so many ways, timber harvesting has become an emotional and controversial issue. Understanding_ natural forest processes, as well as some of the basic principles of forest management, may allow the citizens of the Commonwealth to reevaluate their views and more realistically balance consumptive needs and wants with what the forest can sustainably provide. Timber harvesting must remain a viable management tool. Educational programming may play a significant role in reducing natural resource conflicts by providing an opportunity for and facilitating dialogue among the various interest groups (Jones and Finley 1993). Demonstrating the various timber harvesting practices that are employed in Pennsylvania is the educational method that this research explores. An extension education project coordinated by Penn State is intended to introduce landowners, the general public, foresters, and loggers to the role that timber harvesting plays in sustaining forests. The project, entitled "Integrating Sustainable Forestry into Total Farm Management," is funded by the USDA's Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. Cooperators include the USDA Forest Service, the Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry, the Pennsylvania Game Commission, the Pennsylvania Bureau of State Parks, the Timber Harvesting Council of Pennsylvania, and Tree Farmer George Freeman. There are seven project sites distributed across Pennsylvania and each demonstrates six different timber harvesting treatments, including no cutting. The five, two-acre cutting treatments include a diameter-based thinning removing the smallest trees, a diameter-limit cut removing only the largest trees ("high-grading"), a thinning of trees evenly distributed above and below the mean tree diameter (replaced by a shelterwood on three sites), an improvement thinning using SILVAH prescriptions (Marquis and Ernst 1992), and a clearcut.
Evaluation Methods Participants in five Forest Stewardship workshops and meetings during the summer and fall of 1994 served as the sample for this study. Two of the demonstration sites, located in Huntingdon and Clarion Counties, were ready for tours at that time. Foresters, landowners, timber harvesters, tree farmers, timber buyers, and others comprised each of the audiences. The program had two parts: a scripted slide show about forest history, ecology, silvicultural methods, and threats to the sustainability of Pennsylvania's forests, followed by a walking tour of the field demonstrations in which we used the various cutting treatments to illustrate concepts from the slide program. We randomly divided each workshop audience into three experimental groups. Group assignment merely dictated when participants would answer a questionnaire. One group completed the questionnaire upon ` arrival (control group), the second following the scripted slide show (slides-only group), and a third at the end of the demonstration tour (slides/field tour group). The questionnaire, which was standard for all groups, contained a series of objective questions about forests and forest management, and a subjective
Use of the sites requires aggressive action by foresters and others: workshops, field tours, and woods walks, as well as one-on-one consulting forester/client visits. Three of the Pennsylvania sites are selfguided, with interpretive signs. County landowner associations, forestry volunteers (COVERTS volunteers, Master Forest Owners, VIPs), and Tree Farmers, among others, can all play important roles working in concert with foresters and natural resource educators. If we are to ensure NIPF sustainability, we must maximize the effectiveness of our limited contact with landowner audiences-forestry demonstrations can serve us well in that regard.
References Andrews, M. 1983. Evaluation: An essential process. Jour. of Ex. 21(5): 8-13. Birch, T. W. and C. M. Stelter. 1993. Trends in owner attitudes. In Penns woods-Change and challenge. Finley, J. C. and Jones, S. B. (Eds.). The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. pp. 50-60. Carpenter, E. H., J. G. Taylor, H. J. Cortner, P. D. Gardner, M. J. Zwolinski, and T. C. Daniel. 1985. Targeting audiences and content for forest fire information programs. Jour. of Env. Edu. 17(3): 33-42. Cortner, H. J., M. J. Zwolinski, E. H. Carpenter, and T. G. Taylor. 1984. Public support for firemanagement policies. Jour. of For. 82(3): 359-361. Egan, A. F. and S. B. Jones. 1993. Do landowner practices reflect beliefs? Implications of an extensionresearch partnership. Jour. of For. 91(10): 39-45. Jones, S. B., A. E. Luloff, and J. C. Finley. 1995. Another look at NIPFs: Facing our myths. Jour. of For. 93(9): 41-44. Jones, S. B. and J. C. Finley. 1993. Public forest stewardship ethic: Extension's role in the forest program. Jour. of Ext. 31(4): 8-10. Luloff, A. E., K. P. Wilkinson, M. R. Schwartz, J. C. Finley, S. B. Jones, and C. R. Humphrey. 1993. Pennsylvania's forest stewardship program's media campaign: Forest landowners' and the general public's opinions and attitudes, Final report. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. 20 p. Manfredo, M. J., M. Fishbein, G. E. Haas, and A. E. Watson. 1990. Attitudes toward prescribed fire policies. Jour. of For. 88(7): 19-23. Marquis, D. A. and R. L. Ernst. 1992. User's guide to SILVAH. Stand analysis, prescription, and management simulator program for hardwood stands of the Alleghenies. Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, PA. McNabb, K. and J. C. Bliss. 1994. Nonindustrial private forest owner attitudes toward the use of silvicultural herbicides. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education. 23(1): 46-50. Pigg, K. E. 1980. Program evaluation: Extension needs to get serious about it. Jour. of Ext. 18(5): 7-13. Riesenberg, L. E. and C. O. Gor. 1989. Farmers' preferences for methods of receiving information on new or innovative farming practices. Journal of Agricultural Education. 30(3): 7-13. Rznewnicki, P. 1991. Farmers' perceptions of experiment station research, demonstrations, and on-farm research in agronomy. Journal of Agronomic Education. 20(1): 31-36.
Cross Boundary Management on Nonindustrial Private Forests in Pennsylvania: A Vision for the Future by Michael P. Washburn1
Ecosystem-based management as a developing concept has great potential in meeting societal and individual landowners' forest management objectives. However, no examples of truly large-scale projects (10,00020,000 acres) have yet been successfully implemented on nonindustrial private forests. This paper suggests an approach to bring landowners together across a landscape to jointly plan and execute forest management. This activity will be encouraged through an extension-based education program that helps landowners understand the potential benefits of cross boundary management in meeting their own objectives and the societal objective of protecting the environment. The creation of landowner-driven cross boundary management organizations is the primary vehicle for this coordinated management activity. Emphasis is placed on landowner leadership and professional involvement. This paper also discusses the connection between sustainable, landscape level forest management and atmospheric carbon sequestration. If landscape level management is successful, it is believed that it can have the positive effect of reducing greenhouse gasses.
I n t ro d u c t i o n
Private forests are special places for both those who own them and those who don't. People value forests for a variety of reasons ranging from aesthetics to the wildlife they harbor to the products that we all use. In Pennsylvania, 72 percent of the commercial forestland is in nonindustrial private forests (NIPFs). These private lands provide most of the raw materials (80%) to the state's $4.5 billion a year hardwood industry. This is one of a list of reasons why we should concern ourselves with the question of sustainability in these forests. These lands are currently either poorly managed, or not managed at all. Society is beginning to understand that healthy forests provide environmental benefits including their influence on global climate change. Well managed existing forests may play a significant role in ameliorating the effect of greenhouse gasses, especially carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. Well managed forests sequester atmospheric carbon faster and in larger quantities than do unmanaged forests. Therefore, adjusting management to enhance this benefit is in the interest of society. Additionally, this management can improve forest health and provide benefits to landowners. In order to achieve a significant reduction of greenhouse gasses, management of these forests must occur at the landscape level. Penn State's School of Forest Resources has proposed a project to test methods of involving multiple landowners in cross boundary management to meet these ends. In the era of public participation in natural resource decisions, we are realizing that we must view forests as part of the larger landscape. Decisions can no longer be made on a stand-by-stand basis if we are to effectively maximize the myriad benefits of forests. Like natural systems, social values of the forest cross jurisdictional and private property lines. When viewing forest management at the landscape level, however, it is important to keep track of the difference between public values and private rights and responsibilities.
1 Graduate Extension Associate, Penn State School of Forest Resources, Ferguson Building, University Park, PA 16802. Presented at the Symposium on Nonindustrial Private Forests: Learning from the Past, Prospects for the Future, Washington, DC, February 18-20, 1996.
We often slip into the assumption that private and public desires for the future condition of the forest are different. This is not always the case. This paper suggests one approach to ecosystem-based management that combines an understanding of landowner attitudes with principles of sustainable forestry. A proposed project to coordinate management over thousands of acres of westcentral Pennsylvania's nonindustrial private forests is outlined. The project not only would test a new approach to natural resource decision making, but also would help us understand the potential for using cross boundary management scenarios as a means to improve the global environment. If funded, this project will begin in mid-1996 and the study period will be two years. The premise here is that through education, landowners will involve themselves in cross boundary management organizations (CBMOs) dedicated to sustainable forestry. The social benefits of such active management include: healthier forests over the long-term, a cleaner and safer environment, achievement of landowner objectives, and additional income to landowners over time.
Landowner Attitudes in Pennsylvania As mentioned above, NIPFs comprise the majority of commercial forestland in Pennsylvania. They are typically not well managed (Jones et al. 1995). The reasons for this are not clear. Understanding how foresters and landowners interact may be important to bringing more land under active management. Jones et al. (1995) reported that foresters have created a "myth" surrounding owners of NIPFs. "Foresters tend to characterize NIPF owners as rural dwelling and land connected, anti-environmentalist, timber-oriented, and intensely in favor of private property rights." In fact, these characterizations are largely false (Jones et al. 1995). "Most landowners are not particularly timber-oriented, even though many of them do sell timber at some point in their tenure" (Jones et al. 1995). Luloff et al. (1993), in a comparison of NIPF owners in Pennsylvania with the "general public" found that both groups prioritized forest benefits similarly. Clean air and clean water were said to be most important along with soil protection and wildlife habitat. Timber production was dramatically less important to both groups. This is evidence that sustainability of the resource is not counter to landowner objectives. However, professional assistance is needed in order to insure that actions are consistent with these expressed attitudes. Despite their lack of emphasis on timber production, Pennsylvania landowners are not opposed to timber harvesting (Jones et al. 1995). This is evidenced by the amount of timber provided to the regional market as noted above. While landowners feel strongly about protecting forest values, they are often left to make decisions that are inconsistent with protecting these values. This begs the question, Will education help? Egan and Jones (1993) found that although the correlation between expressing a land ethic and responsible decision making was limited, the correlation between education about forests and forestry with decisions about harvesting was high. This provides encouraging support for an effort to educate landowners about the potential for sustainable NIPF management. Such an effort is vital in order to have NIPFs provide timber over time. It appears that with good information, landowners are able to make decisions that better serve the long-term interest of the resource. Without good information, NIPFs are likely to continue to be poorly managed.
Cross Boundary Management In order for management across boundaries to be effective, a number of substantial barriers and disincentives-first to the protection of ecological values on private lands, and second to cross boundary cooperation (both public-private and private-private) must be addressed (Sample 1994). Sample refers to mixed ownership landscapes, but the human dimension of cooperation is similar with respect to multiple owner-
ship NIPFs. Managing across boundary lines is consistent with Leopold's concept of "the land." His call for people to adopt a land ethic was in part a suggestion that we look beyond our own backyards to try to understand the big picture. Yet our myth about NIPF owners has prevented us from attempting to involve landowners across a large area in a comprehensive management planning process. There may be barriers to cooperation based on landowner characteristics that are less understood. These can include: mistrust of government, reluctance to sacrifice individual sovereignty when making decisions on private lands, disinterest based on lack of time required to get involved, and a perception that group interaction necessitates following some externally determined protocol. These are barriers which necessitate deliberate use of language and honesty on the part of experts attempting to initiate such an approach. Landscape level decision making has the potential to provide for healthier habitats (both aquatic and terrestrial), more aesthetically pleasing landscapes, higher quality timber, and other landowner benefits. Through protection of stream buffers and wildlife corridors, forest connectivity and sensitive microclimates are protected. Cross boundary planning may be more affordable as landowners can share costs for professional help. Harvesting may be more profitable when landowners cooperate in road construction. Additionally, as we will see, certain silvicultural treatments may help ameliorate the accumulation of greenhouse gasses. With greater understanding comes better decision making. Where this decision making includes a long-term view of the forest resource, future profitability is enhanced. The obvious roadblock, however, is in finding an approach that gives landowners an opportunity to direct the decisions themselves. "Discussion about ecosystem management frequently turns from constructive debate about how to implement such a framework, to disputes about how people should interact with nature and each other" (Gerlach and Bengston 1994). Yet the fact remains that landowners who manage in cooperation with their neighbors stand to benefit in several ways. Campbell and Kittredge (1996) provide a list of these benefits, or what they call "Stewardship Neighborhood Opportunities." Their list of possible benefits includes: opportunity to increase quality or value of activity, new ideas, increased (job) efficiency and job continuity, better value for cost, minimized impact to forest, minimized conflict of objectives, and increased habitat value for wide ranging species (Campbell and Kittredge 1996). Their work with an ecosystem-based approach to management in Massachusetts suggests that traditional landowner cooperatives directed toward timber management might be complimented with cross boundary management projects that serve other forest benefits. The benefits listed above can result from cooperating across boundaries by sharing technical information; hiring a common natural resource expert; hiring the same logger; synchronizing woods activities; and sharing access roads, log landings, and stream crossings. Cross boundary planning can protect wildlife habitat and provide for better inventory data to make silvicultural prescriptions for purposes of protecting biodiversity (Campbell and Kittredge 1996). In order for. solutions like this to be applied, two things must happen. First, the landowners must be Imowledgeable about all of the options available for achieving their own objectives: this means professional involvement. Second, there must be a mechanism for landowner interaction. Cross Boundary Management Organizations (CBMOs) are a collection of adjoining forest owners who formalize their commitment to sustainable management by forming a group. Their participation is totally voluntary and no member forfeits any rights through participation. The group serves as a forum for landowner interaction, information sharing, joint contract negotiations, visits from experts, and conflict resolution. Through sharing ideas and resources, landowners find better ways to meet their individual objectives while keeping an eye on the larger landscape. A CBMO might consist of ten or more owners, depending on the landscape characteristics. They would meet on a regular basis to discuss issues facing the
landscape, such as impending development, planned timber harvests, sale of forest lands, and opportunities for cooperation. The difference between the CBMO and a typical woodland owners' association is that the emphasis is on building a membership of adjoining owners. Existing organizations may be a good place to start. CBMOs are similar to Ticknor's (1992) Ecosystem Management Councils (EMCs) except that they are purely landowner driven. The EMC concept involves coordination among private and public sector groups in decision making. Members of the CBMO might work together on having a Stewardship Plan written. They could invite speakers to their meetings to share professional perspectives on key issues. They could maximize benefits as outlined by Campbell and Kittredge.
Global Climate Change and the Big Picture As concern for changes in the global environment increase, we are beginning to understand more about how forest management might affect this process. The literature reflects the fact that well managed forests are more productive (i.e., more woody biomass per acre per year) than poorly managed or unmanaged forests. With this increased productivity comes an additional potential to sequester atmospheric carbon. Removal of trees for use in high-end products like furniture secures this carbon in-use for long periods. As this cycle continues, new forests grow, trees continue to be harvested, more carbon is secured. Essentially, if well managed, this process can act as a filter for atmospheric carbon. It is not yet known how much carbon might be sequestered if forests in the mid-Atlantic and Northeast were better managed. By increasing the area under active management and increasing productivity, it is hoped that there might be a real effect on the rate of carbon sequestration. Another key component of this project is the modeling of the potential for carbon sequestration, based on existing data. With this prediction, and based on the success of an active extension-based education program, we might begin to see what the long-term potential is for developing this natural air filter. This happens concurrently with improving the long-term supply of high quality hardwoods and meeting other landowner objectives. It is important to note that continued neglect of NIPFs is a lost opportunity to enhance this environmental benefit. "On October 19, 1993, President Clinton and Vice President Gore released the Climate Change Action Plan, which identifies nearly 50 new initiatives for reducing greenhouse gas emissions" (Vinson 1995). Among these projects are forest management programs in Russia. These pilot projects are based on the premise that forests act as sinks for atmospheric carbon. Large corporations support the projects because they provide carbon "offset credits" that companies can use to meet the goal of incremental greenhouse gas reductions. Such a project could be instituted in the United States to meet the same objectives, given the appropriate acreage. Pennsylvania's NIPFs offer this opportunity.
The Role of Existing Forest in Carbon Sequestration Birdsey (1993) noted that forest ecosystems are capable of storing large quantities of carbon in solid wood and other organic matter such as that found in the soil. He reported that northern forests tend to retain more carbon than do southern forests. Primary influences on regional variations in carbon sequestration are climate and the average age of the forest. Northern forests tend to be older and less frequently disturbed than forests in the south. It is these older forests that hold the greater amount of carbon in their wood, and the cooler climate of the north is conducive to greater retention in soil. Bormann and Likens (1985) described an "aggradation phase" in northern forests following a clearcut. In this phase, the forest accumulates biomass, ultimately reaching a point of maximum storage. Removing biomass (i.e., timber harvesting) late in this aggradation phase and manufacturing it into high-end consumer products such as furniture, secures the carbon in-use while the forests continues to sequester additional carbon on-site. The unmanaged forest, where no cutting occurs, eventually enters Bormann and Likens' (1993) "shifting mosaic steady
state," where mortality and decay offset annual carbon storage, resulting in no net sequestration of carbon. Timber harvesting "captures" this potential mortality, effectively keeping the forest in the aggradation phase. At the 1990 Society of American Foresters Convention, Dr. D. D. Hook presented a comprehensive review of literature pertinent to sequestration of carbon in the forests of the eastern United States. His paper, "Silvicultural Strategies and Carbon Budget Relationships in the Forests of the Eastern United States," presented a comprehensive review of applied literature, summarized below. Hook (1994) reported that silvicultural manipulation increased carbon sequestration in forests in the Eastern US. However, there are biological and site controlled limits to both the rate of accumulation, and the amount of carbon stored in any forest. Generally, these limits have not been reached in the forests of the East. Hook (1994) observed that in upland oak stands in the North Central Region, early stand management and a shorter rotation appear to increase carbon accumulation rate. He also noted that precommercial thinning and cleaning of aspen in northern Minnesota increased total carbon storage over no management. In addition, "high graded" second growth maple stands in Wisconsin did not store as much carbon as the control stand where no cutting occurred, nor as much as the stands treated with three levels of selection cuts (Hook 1994). Based on the premise presented above, a three-state data set produced as part of a regional effort to "determine sustainability" of the forest resource can be utilized to predict the potential regional effect of bringing new acres under management. Independently collected data from New York (Dr. Ralph Nyland, SUNY-ESF), West Virginia, (Dr. Mary Ann Fajvan, WVU), and Pennsylvania (Dr. Stephen Jones and Dr. James Finley, PSU) can be analyzed. This analysis will yield predicted growth and actual carbon sequestration that will result from different harvesting alternatives. (Such an analysis only accounts for the above-ground component of sequestration. It is assumed that an increase in the above-ground component would have a commensurate below-ground increase.) These predictions can then be compared with the success of our pilot project, described below, to predict future regional impacts of instituting active management.
Methods This project will involve direct mail, voluntary landowner participation, and professional outreach. It will test the degree to which cross boundary management organizations can facilitate landscape level planning, and predict the potential future advantage of large scale treatments for purposes of carbon sequestration. An area in west-central Pennsylvania will be selected based on the existence of a multiple ownership NIPF landscape of 10,000 to 20,000 acres. A second, similar area will be selected as a control and will be studied to determine the types of activities occurring absent the outreach education described below. This area will be characterized through existing data collected by the School of Forest Resources and a direct mail survey. Existing landowner groups will be surveyed to assess their level of interest in forming Cross Boundary Management Organizations. The author along with a field-based extension forester will work directly with interested parties in forming the organizations and facilitating forest planning. Records will be kept of management planning activities, acres brought under management, and types of treatments used in cases where applicable. The three-state data set will be analyzed by staff at the School of Forest Resources at Pennsylvania State University to determine the potential for carbon sequestration under varying treatments. It will be possible to quantify the actual amount of above-ground sequestration occurring in the project area, at least for those areas where changes are occurring as a result of management activities.
Domestic utilities and other companies might be attracted to provide funding for project development based on their need to meet greenhouse gas reductions as set forth in the Climate Change Action Plan. Additionally, private foundations and other nonprofits should find this project attractive for its interdisciplinary, citizen-based approach.
Conclusion This initial study would, admittedly, be only the beginning. In order for significant benefits to be enjoyed by society, the initial project area would have to be used as a model and implemented regionally. Important lessons, however, may result from our initial test. The forestry profession needs to better understand our clientele of NIPF owners and give them more opportunities to get to know us. Although not covered in this paper, the potential development of a market for alternative fuels might facilitate removal of low-quality timber and less desirable species from NIPFs brought under active management. In any event, this project is presented as a win-win situation for landowners, society, and the profession. If we can demonstrate that our skills are affordable and can truly improve conditions in the landscape, it can only be good for business. The alternative is to lock ourselves out of the process of NIPF resource decision making by being unwilling to adapt. This is a work in progress; your comments and suggestions are welcome.
Literature Cited Borman, F. H. and G. E. Likens. 1985. Pattern and process in a forested ecosystem. Springer-Verleg. New York. Third printing. 253 p. Campbell, Susan M. and David B, Kittredge. 1996. Ecosystem based management on multiple NIPF ownerships. Journal of Forestry 94(2): 24-29. Egan, A. E., and S. B. Jones. 1993. Do landowner practices reflect beliefs? Jour. of For. 91(10): 39-45. Gerlach, Luther P. and David N. Bengston. 1994. Ecosystem management is the solution, What's the problem? Journal of Forestry, 92(8): 18-21. Hook, D. D. 1990. Silvicultural strategies and carbon budget relationships in the forests of the eastern United States. National convention proceedings of the Society of American Foresters. Washington, DC. 193-203. Jones, Stephen B., J. C. Finley and A. E. Luloff. 1995. Another look at our NIPFs: Facing our myths. Journal of Forestry, 93(9): 41-44.
Sample, V. Alaric. 1994. Building partnerships for ecosystem management on mixed ownership landscapes. Journal of Forestry, 92(8): 41-44. Ticknor, W. D. 1992. A vision for the future. Journal of Forestry, 90(10): 41-44. Vinson, T. S. 1995. Forestry projects in Russia can help the US meet its carbon offset commitments. Forestry Perspectives. Portland, Oregon. World Forestry Center. 18-19.
Extending Forest Management with Volunteers: The Master Woodland Manager Project by Richard A. Fletcher and A. Scott Reed
1
Since 1983 the authors have been involved in an innovative project designed to use advanced level forest landowner education as an incentive to attract experienced forest landowners to do volunteer work stimulating additional forest management. Candidates for training receive an 85-hour, ten-module instructional package, plus followup supervision during the volunteer service by Extension Foresters. Each Master Woodland Manager donates a minimum of 85 hours of volunteer service in exchange for the free training and materials. The project is well documented by the work records filled out by the volunteers and two formally designed surveys of the volunteers and their clientele. This paper summarizes the significant successes of the program (i.e., volunteers have contacted well over 1,000 landowners and generated hundreds of forestry improvement projects), along with how the program has been adopted and adapted to other states and countries.
Background Significance of Private Forests in the United States The role and contribution of nonindustrial private forests (NIPFs) in the United States is growing. As uses of public forests tend towards nontimber priorities, per capita consumption of wood products continues to rise. This has the effect of shifting the demand for timber from public lands to the NIPF base and, to some extent, other worldwide sources. This paper will focus on an approach of utilizing NIPF owners trained with forestry and communication skills to extend their knowledge and influence through volunteer service. Recent research (Birch 1995) shows that both the numbers and proportion of US forestland held by NIPF owners is increasing. In the aggregate, 58 percent of the estimated 736.7 million acres of forest in the US (33 percent of the total land area) is held by private owners. Of that, 94 percent are individuals, collectively owning 59 percent of the privately owned forestland. These 9.3 million NIPF owners have increased from 6.8 million (37 percent increase) in the last 16 years. Over 90 percent of private ownerships have fewer than 100 acres of forestland each. Ownership trends show increasing numbers in this class of ownership, leading to concerns about fragmentation and rapid turnover of land. Over 40 percent of the current 9.3 million NIPF owners first acquired forestland since 1978. While many of these owners do not have timber production as a primary objective, history suggests that these lands will indeed be harvested at points where the owner and market conditions are favorably connected. An estimated 46 percent of private owners have harvesting experience, with an additional 32 percent stating they intend to harvest in the next 10 years.
Extension Forestry Agent and Associate Dean, respectively, College of Forestry, Oregon State University, Peavy Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331. Presented at the Symposium on Nonindustrial Private Forests: Learning from the Past, Prospects for the Future, Washington, DC, February 18-20, 1996.
any foresters believe that the application of a written forest management plan will enhance the quality of forest practices and, thus, the level of production and long-term land stewardship. This concern led in part to the creation of the Forest Stewardship Program and its emphasis on management planning in 1990. In spite of this emphasis, only about 5 percent of private forest land owners are estimated to have a written plan. While numerous sources of assistance exist for developing management plans, of those who have a plan, nearly 22 percent of NIPF owners stated that they prepared the plan themselves. Reed (1987) also found that friends and neighbors played a role in influencing the management behavior of NIPF owners. In that survey of participants in the US Forestry Incentives Program, 45 percent of more than 600 owners said that they had influenced other landowners to change their management practices. Extension's Contribution
The Cooperative Extension System was created to provide informal education to connect practitioners with easy access to objective, research-based information to guide important decisions. Stimulated by federal legislation in 1914 (Smith-Lever Act), the Extension System is today linked to state and local levels of government through Land Grant Universities nationwide (NASULGC 1995). One of seven base programs of the Extension System is Natural Resources and Environmental Management. This base program provides strategic guidance for enhancing the nation's benefits from natural resources. At Oregon State University nearly 30 Extension foresters work together for the improvement of forests and their contribution to society's needs. Programs are oriented to problem-solving education based upon research. Major efforts are directed to public understanding of forestry, forest resource management methods, and productivity and profitability of forestry enterprises. Volunteerism and Origins of the Master Woodland Manager Program
Volunteerism has a long tradition in America. Each year millions of Americans volunteer to help various causes through church, civic, and special interest organizations. The tradition of volunteerism is also strong within the Cooperative Extension Service. In Oregon alone, over 33,000 volunteers work through county-based programs each year with youth development, home economics, agriculture, and natural resource volunteer programs. Collectively, they contribute over 1.2 million hours each year to Extension programs. The value of this time is estimated to be worth in excess of $9.6 million dollars annually. The idea of working with trained volunteers to spread technical forestry information was first conceived by Don Carr, a forester with the US Soil Conservation Service who, in 1982, first suggested the idea of reaching forest landowners with volunteers. Carr, along with State of Oregon Service Forester, Mike Barsotti, and Extension Forester, Rick Fletcher, formed the trio committed to testing this innovative new idea. The original objective of the Master Woodland Manager pilot project was to train woodland owners to better manage their own properties and to have them reach and motivate nonactive forest landowners. A key part of this concept was for the volunteers to use their own social networks in a "neighbor-to-neighbor" fashion to reach woodland owners that were not being reached by current forestry assistance programs. Initially this involved 85 hours of training and a like number of hours of volunteer service. Following several months of grant writing and coalition building, 10 pilot project volunteers were trained in 1983. A 14-member advisory committee and the local soil and water conservation district oversaw the process. Oregon State University Extension and Oregon State Department of Forestry cooperated to sponsor the
training of the volunteers. By November 1983 the Master Woodland Manager graduates were ready to put their training to the test. After 18 months of volunteer service by these 10 volunteers, surveys were sent to each of them and to the clients that they had personally visited. Survey results indicated Master Woodland Managers had contacted 168 landowners and generated 44 new forestry projects on approximately 1,575 acres. This was a surprisingly large number considering that only 30 percent of the volunteer service commitment was completed. One persistent question was whether or not these trained laypersons would give accurate technical information. The followup survey indicated no landowners received incorrect information, and the clients expressed overwhelming satisfaction with the service rendered them by the Master Woodland Manager volunteers. A great side benefit of the pilot project was the impact of the training on the volunteers' own properties. The majority of them indicated that the training greatly increased their management ability, with only one volunteer indicating that little personal benefit was derived. The pilot project was judged a huge success and Oregon was prepared to launch an improved and expanded program.
Oregon's Current Master Woodland Manager Program In 1986 Oregon's Forestry Extension staff of nine county-based agents and eight campus-based specialists agreed to take up the challenge of developing a statewide Master Woodland Manager program. The plan called for curriculum development during 1987, with 100 new volunteers trained during 1988-90. To undertake this effort, grants were obtained from the USDA Forest Service Division of State and Private Forestry, American Tree Farm System, and the Oregon State University Extension Director. The Extension staff crafted a list of educational needs for the volunteers by assessing what information and skills the volunteers would need to better manage their own properties and to help motivate other landowners. Using the Woodland Owner Curriculum (Garland) published by Oregon State University as a guide, each educational need level was specified as one for personal benefit to the Master Woodland Manager trainee, or as one for which the volunteer would have to be able to teach others. Eventually the educational needs list was condensed into a curriculum of 85 hours of instruction. Authors were then identified to write lesson plans for each of the course's 11 modules. In all, 17 different authors had a hand in designing individual lesson plans. The method used for lesson plans was the Criterion Referenced Instruction method (Mager and Pipe 1983) that ties student learning to well-defined performance objectives. The basic lesson plans produced by January of 1988 are still the same ones being used today, although the technical material being taught is continually revised. The final module ends with a work session to complete the volunteers' management plans. Importantly, beginning in 1993 the Oregon Forest Resources Institute, an educational support organization of the forest industry, began providing significant financial resources for enhanced training and management of the program.
Key Components of Building a Program Selecting Volunteers
In order to attract quality volunteers to train, the program is targeted towards landowners who have previously attended Extension forestry educational programs. Potential volunteers are recruited via personal contacts to selected individuals along with general news releases. Criteria used to select applicants include:
• • • • •
Previous experience in private woodland management. Knowledge of local area. Willingness to contact other landowners. Ability to operate a hand calculator. Physical condition that will allow walking on steep, uneven terrain, even during bad weather.
Allowances are made, however, for handicapped individuals and they are given alternate service opportunities. Legal considerations that have been considered while building the Master Woodland Manager program include discrimination, injury to the volunteers, and being sued by a client for wrong information. Lawyers at Oregon State University have examined carefully each of these issues and recommended courses of action. The various forms used address some of these points. There is some liability, however, that just cannot be avoided. To date, no claims have been filed! At the end of the recruitment period, the applications are screened and successful candidates are asked to attend an orientation session and sign a commitment form. Some agents also use formal interviews to screen applicants. Generally, about 75 percent of the applicants have been placed in the training. Ones not chosen are encouraged to work on deficiencies and apply for a future training. Candidates for training have little in common except managing timberland. They are as diverse in age, experience, life history, and goals as the woodland owner audience that they represent. Both men and women are in the program. This works out well later on as some clients, particularly widows, feel much more comfortable with a woman visiting them rather than a man. Training Master Woodland Manager Volunteers
Each time the Oregon State University staff conducts a Master Woodland Manager training, the exact schedule and time allotment is modified a little. The current schedule involves 55 hours of classroom sessions and 30 hours of field sessions. When the program is taught in the pine timber country of eastern Oregon, several of the sessions must be modified in content to reflect larger ownerships and different management opportunities.
•
One of the main changes over time has been condensing topics into single sessions. Originally, topics such as regeneration were covered in two or more sessions. This proved to be best for student learning, but much too expensive for instructor travel.
•
Generally, the modules are held one weekend per month. This includes a Friday night session and all day on Saturday. One group chose to do training on Friday daytimes, and keep their weekends more open.
• Each student is expected to attend each session and complete the required homework. Early on we did not make this a requirement, but experience has shown that those who complete homework are also those who carry through with volunteer service. Students missing sessions can make them up by attending the training session at another site or checking out a videocassette tape of that session. The videotapes were shot live during a training offered on the OSU campus.
•
Each volunteer also has access to a cache of field equipment and an extensive reference library located in the County Extension Office where they are taking the training. These items are intended to facilitate the training and be useful during volunteer service. The culmination of each training session is the presentation of management plans. Each Master Woodland Manager is expected to use the training materials to complete a management plan for their property. Session one begins this process, and session 10 ends with a work session to help put the finishing touches on the plans. Our staff at OSU felt that this was much better than giving a final exam and it has proven to be an excellent way to wrap up the training.
•
Presenting their plans to the other Master Woodland Managers gives volunteers an opportunity to demonstrate learning and to practice their group presentation skills.
•
The final step in the training is a graduation ceremony. These volunteers have each completed nearly a year of training, and it is indeed time to celebrate! Families, instructors, community leaders, and forestry professionals are some of the folks that join in the event. It is usually done around a no host catered dinner. At this time, each volunteer is presented with a cap, badge, and graduation certificate. They are now among the select few qualified to wear the sought-after green cap with the MWM logo.
Supporting the Master Woodland Managers Each group of Master Woodland Managers is supervised by an Extension Forestry Agent. Training is only offered in locations where the agent is committed to working with the volunteers after they are trained. This support involves advertising the program, referring landowners to volunteers, offering update training, and recognizing the efforts of the volunteers.
Funding a Master Woodland Manager Program Costs for a volunteer program obviously vary greatly, but they break down into personnel and cash costs. Personnel expenditures will involve teaching and preparation time and supervisory time to develop a local program. Cash costs for the Oregon program can be broken down by volunteer and training location (assuming a group size of 10-15): Equipment and supplies
$72 per volunteer
Demonstration equipment
$300 per location
Forms and brochures
$150 per group
Instructor travel costs
$2,000-3,000 per group
Costs for developing a curriculum and supporting materials and supervision are not included in this list, but they are significant.
Volunteer Service: Spreading Knowledge with Enthusiasm The Oregon Master Woodland Manager program currently uses the four goals developed during the original curriculum development process to help MWMs select volunteer activities. The intent of the goals is to suggest possibilities for service, not limit them. Oregon's Master Woodland Manager Program's Four Main Volunteer Service Goals: Goal #1: Stimulate nonactive landowners Goal #2: Provide leadership in woodland management Goal #3: Promote woodland management to non-woodland audiences Goal #4: Assist forestry extension agents with plots and demonstrations At the final training session each volunteer is given several record keeping forms, and develops a tentative plan for volunteer service activities. It is then up to the individual and the supervising Extension agent to make sure the volunteer follows through. Written records are kept for several reasons. First, it is important that the volunteer be clearly understood by the client. Each form is in triplicate, leaving a copy for client, volunteer, and supervising agent. Record are also important in case of a legal claim against a volunteer. Finally, the records allow us to reach and survey clients in a future evaluation of the program. Experience has shown that as compelling as these reasons are for keeping records, it is very difficult to get volunteers to use the forms. Each volunteer is provided with a hat and badge to help advertise the program to others. They are also given a supply of program brochures to distribute to others. One of the more creative volunteers recently developed a business card bearing the logo of the program. This allows him to leave his number with prospective clients and adds an air of professionalism. Our staff has also come up with a woodland information stick that MWM volunteers can use to teach simple tree measurement procedures. The sticks are low cost (--$0.75 each), and can be used with individuals or groups (e.g., school children). Master Woodland Manager availability is advertised in newspapers, newsletters, and with officials who contact woodland owners. A good example of this has been the placement of brochures at the county planning office. When new landowners come in for necessary permits, they are given the name of local Master Woodland Manager volunteers to contact. Many field contacts by a Master Woodland Manager result in referral to one or more public or private foresters in the area. Other people are looking for sources of seedlings, log markets, and information on nontimber forest resources. It is critical that the volunteer staff keep current on the sources of help in the local area and refer landowners to them often. In addition to one-to-one contacts, the Master Woodland Managers are also actively involved in group activities, such as public speaking and field tours. They are willing and extremely capable of doing these activities, but must be asked to get involved. Keeping the volunteer staff operating smoothly is a job that can take considerable time. Our experience has shown that supervising an MWM group of 10-20 people may take one day per month. It is important to recognize the efforts of the volunteers through notes, memos, and news articles. A prize or incentive program would also be nice, but none has been developed yet in Oregon. At the completion of volunteer service commitment, each Oregon MWM receives a specially designed coffee mug and an invitation to keep volunteering as long as they like.
Volunteers also need update training sessions. Our experience in Oregon has been one about every three to four months. Besides covering current woodland topics, this time also allows the volunteers to share stories and encourage one another.
Evaluating the Master Woodland Manager Program Work Records The ongoing database of volunteer work records has provided interesting insight into the MWM program. It provided a way to identify and contact clients served by MWMs. Additional detail on individual contacts also helps assess the accuracy and depth of assistance being provided to clients.
Volunteer Survey Part of the plan for the expanded program was to do an evaluation of both the volunteers and clients. The volunteer survey was developed by Dr. David Cleaves and Rick Fletcher of Oregon State University during 1991 and mailed in December 1991.2 Return rate on the survey was nearly 80 percent (80 of 102 surveys returned). MWMs reported a total of 660 individual landowner contacts (8.25 each), 330 group contacts (4.14 each), and over 5,700 people reached via volunteer service activities. Their collective volunteer time amounted to 4,595 hours (average of 57 hours each), which equates to nearly 2.5 F i s of time. Another way to state this is to suggest that we add an additional 2.5 people to the Extension Forestry staff for every 100 volunteers trained. There was considerable variation in amount of volunteer time reported. Some volunteers had none, while two had over 300 hours each. Better management of the MWM's 26,524 collective acres of tree farms was a goal set early on for the Master Woodland Manager volunteers. Each MWM volunteer must prepare a management plan for his or her property and present it to the others at the last session. When asked if this process of preparing a plan was a good learning experience, 99 percent responded positively and 90 percent indicated that they use the plan to manage their property on an ongoing basis. Another indication that the training is having an impact on the volunteer's properties is the response to a question about new projects initiated because of the training. Collectively they reported 218 acres of brush field conversions, 749 acres of precommercial thinning, 752 acres of commercial thinning, 1,454 acres of wildlife habitat improvement, 106 acres of stream protection, 34.5 miles of road development, and an additional harvest of over 4 million board feet of timber for other reasons. The numbers are doubly impressive considering that many of the respondents did not list projects, but said that they were already doing forest management, so actual acreage increases could not be identified. Also, of the 102 volunteers trained, approximately 40 percent completed the training in 1989, 40 percent in 1990, and 20 percent in 1991. Some of the volunteers were just getting started (six months after completing the training), while the longest time represented was 2.5 years. Cumulative numbers should increase significantly over time. A key to the future of the program lies in the response to a question regarding what the volunteers intended to do once their 85-hour commitment was up. Out of 80 respondents, only one volunteer would not offer
2 The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of Dr. David Cleaves, now with the USDA Forest Service in New Orleans, Louisiana, for his assistance in designing and conducting the 1991-92 survey.
additional volunteer service. Of the rest 73 (919o) indicated they would continue to offer help, while six (8%) were uncertain. Client Survey A survey of MWM clients was conducted during spring and early summer of 1992. Using work records supplied by the volunteers, Dr. David Cleaves and Rick Fletcher surveyed 151 clients with a mail questionnaire. There were 93 questionnaires returned, but unfortunately only 79 of these were usable. This data base offers some useful insight. As in the pilot project, the clients surveyed reported high satisfaction with the Master Woodland Manager program with 81 percent listing it as positive (32) or very positive (49). The 79 clients also identified 121 current forestry projects on their properties, with 274 planned for the future. Master Woodland Manager assistance was credited has having a positive (49) or high positive (30) impact on identifying these projects to be done. When asked to check off some ways the MWM visit helped, the clients listed: Answered basic forestry questions
77%
Equipped me for future management decisions
46%
Helped clarify goals/values
39%
Showed how to do simple forestry activities
37%
Identified alternatives for management
35%
Referred me to others
35%
Helped me choose an alternative for management
18%
Finally, these surveys showed that volunteers should be able to generally address the barriers faced by other woodland owners because they are also confronted with the same issues. Table 1 shows close correlation in response to the question of what were the biggest barriers to managing their woodland property for each group.
Spreading the Vision: Other Forestry Volunteer Programs from Across the United States After about ten years of active program expansion, over 1,500 woodland volunteers have been trained in a 14-state area of the United States. A few examples follow to illustrate particular experiences of some states with differing objectives, approaches, and collaborators.
Beginning in 1983, concurrently in Vermont and Connecticut, the Coverts program was born, thanks to the visionary funding of the Ruffed Grouse Society. The idea of Coverts is to exchange training in wildlife management for volunteer service working with the many nonactive woodland owners in New England. "We empower hand-picked people with education," (McEvoy 1993) is one factor attributed to the success of the program. The program has become a widespread success throughout the eastern United States with over 500 volunteers trained by 1993 in seven states. In 1985 the Minnesota Extension Service received a grant from the Ruffed Grouse Society and launched the Woodland Advisor program to reach woodland owners. Much like other efforts, Minnesota's program offered training in exchange for volunteer service. Once trained, the volunteers reported to County Woodland Committees for the volunteer service phase of the program. Volunteer steward training and the Tree Farm program were first combined in 1987 through a new effort in South Carolina. Dubbed the Master Tree Farmers, these volunteers each received 24 hours of technical training in exchange for helping promote tree farming. Since that time over 200 volunteers have been trained in South Carolina and more recently in Ohio. South Carolina has also added a "level two" training for existing volunteers who want to increase their expertise. New training initiatives spread to New York in 1991 via the Master Woodland Owner program (a kind of combination of the Master Woodland and Covert programs) and to Pennsylvania with the Volunteer Initiative Project (VIP). Both of these efforts were closely tied to the national Stewardship Program. Already these states report over 150 volunteers trained, with more training planned. Table 2 (following summary) displays some features of current programs in the US.
Expanding the Vision: Concluding Lessons A. Stimulate Organizational Leadership
Within any organization, some members tend to embrace opportunities toward innovation. For a major new effort such as MWM to succeed, organizations should cultivate, inspire, and support such individuals who have the natural passion and abilities to create support for the huge task of program development. B. Beware of the Vision Killers
One problem that has plagued volunteer programs to date is the defensiveness of professionals themselves. In South Carolina, Kessler (1988) found, "One major barrier was professional foresters who thought that providing training would make foresters out of tree farmers and reduce the value of their hard-earned college degrees." Other trainers have found similar negative initial response particularly from consulting foresters who were afraid that volunteers might be taking business away from them. Early evidence from surveys of the programs is just the opposite, however. Goff (1993) found that 80 percent of the landowners contacted by a Master Forester Owner volunteer either contacted (60%) or planned to contact (20%) a professional forester within one year. C. Communication with Professional Forestry Groups
For maximum endorsement of a fledgling program, groups should be actively involved in helping train and sponsor the volunteers. Most of the programs also clearly state how the training will assist professionals in reaching woodland owners. Rightly designed, these programs do not rely on volunteers to do technical assistance. D. Recruit Volunteers with Diversity
A variety of backgrounds is desirable within the overall volunteer force to match the diversity in the woodland owner audience. Repeated surveys of woodland owners point out that owners have widely divergent backgrounds and values. It is only logical that this same diversity should be reflected in the volunteer force recruited. E. Provide Flexible Service Options
Volunteers need flexibility to choose from among volunteer service opportunities that match their skills and interests. Some will have extensive logging or tree planting backgrounds. Others will be retired teachers who can contribute substantially to educational meetings and tours. Still others will have professional training, such as accounting or law, that can be used to provide better technology transfer and to help sh woodland policy. Providing a wide range of volunteer service opportunities will greatly enhance the vision and accomplishments of the volunteer force. F. Volunteer Supervision and Support
Each volunteer group needs a coordinator and ongoing support. Many of the existing volunteer programs ; now in operation across the United States have drawn a direct relationship between amount of success w' the level of volunteer program supervision. Oregon's MWM force has repeatedly stated in surveys that th' are willing to do more volunteer work than they have been requested to do. The Oregon MWMs have al responded positively to recent efforts directed towards them in periodic get-togethers, newsletters, and extended training opportunities. The better the supervision and support, the higher the volunteer service output. G. Empowerment Warning
Successful groups may take on an identity of their own. Vermont's Covert volunteers have now org under a nonprofit corporation and are taking the leadership role in current Coverts training. LandCare groups in Australia have successfully obtained grants for large-scale conservation projects and changes in
conservation laws. Volunteer groups commonly bond with one another and form friendships that facilitate future collaborative activity. This process will create new power centers to promote forest stewardship and the policy underlying it.
Summary
Educating and involving volunteer stewards is a powerful and effective strategy to promote forest stewardship. At nearly every location where volunteer programs have been initiated and supported, they have made a substantial positive impact on forest stewardship, largely through the land ethic embraced by the volunteers. These are people of patient character and long range vision. The kind of people that plant trees even though they will never harvest them. There are clearly not enough trained stewardship volunteers to reach the 9.3 million small woodland owners in the United States, nor the new woodland owners that are being added each year. If each volunteer was to reach 100 other woodland owners during his or her volunteer service "career," there would be a need for nearly 100,000 volunteers nationwide. With some 1,500 currently trained, there remains much training to be done. Over the past decade, volunteer stewardship training programs have spread rapidly throughout many areas of the United States. Their initial success appears to have laid the foundation for expanded efforts that will continue to spread forest stewardship. If resources are made available, they represent a good opportunity to work hand in hand with natural resource professionals in making a major contribution to future stewardship efforts. The unique backgrounds and societal linkages of volunteer stewards allows them access to opportunities to spread stewardship that are not open to professionals. Early on in the Oregon Master Woodland Manager experience, this was a key principle that surfaced. One volunteer was a medical doctor who recruited some clients from among doctor friends at a medical meeting. Foresters do not have access to this social network, hence they may have missed opportunities to sell forest stewardship to woodland owning doctors. This is but one example of the complex web of social networks that make up the woodland owner audience.
Contacts3 Coverts
Vermont. Tom McEvoy, Extension Forester, Aiken Center, Univ. of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405 (phone: 802-656-3258) or Jim Engle, Vermont Coverts, P.O. Box 64, Peacham, VT 05046. Connecticut. Steve Broderick, Extension Forester, 139 Wolf Den Road, Brooklyn, CT 06234, (phone: 203744-9600). Massachusetts. David Kittredge, Extension Forester, University of Massachusetts, Department of Forestry r and Wildlife Management, Holdsworth Hall, Amherst MA 01003, (phone: 413-545-2943). Maryland. Jonathan Kays, Regional Extension Specialist, Maryland Cooperative Extension Service, 18330 Keedysville, MD 21756 (phone: 301-791-2298).
3
This list is not intended to be an exhaustive inventory; it instead represents a sampling of some prominent Programs.
Ohio. Ed Smith, Ohio State University Extension Service, 16714 SR 215, Cladwell, OH 43727, (phone: 614-7322381). Virginia. Jim Parkhurst, Wildlife Specialist, VPI & SU, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0321. Maine. Catherine Elliott, Wildlife Specialist, University of Maine Cooperative Extension, 234 Nutting Hall, Univ. of Maine, Orono ME 04469. i Master Woodland Manager
Oregon. Rick Fletcher, Extension Forester, 1849 NW 9th, Corvallis, OR 97330 (Phone: 503-757-6750) Iowa. Dean Prestemon or Paul Wray, 251 Bessey Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011 (phone: 515-2944465 or 515-294-1168)
Master Woodland Owner/Coverts
New York. Gary Goff, MFO/Coverts Program Director, Fernow Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-3001 (phone: 607-255-2824).
Master Tree Farmer
South Carolina. George Kessler, Clemson University, 272 Lehotsky Hall, Clemson, SC 29634-1003 (phone: 803-656-2478). Ohio. Ed Smith, Ohio State University Cooperative Extension Service, 16714 SR 215, Cladwell, OH 43727 (phone: 614-732-2381).
Volunteer Initiative Project
Pennsylvania. Jim Finley, Extension Forester, 207 Ferguson, Penn State University, University Park, PA 16802 (phone: 814-863-0401).
Woodland Advisor Program
Minnesota. Mel Baughman, Minnesota Extension Service, University of Minnesota, Department of Forest_ Resources, 116 Green Hall, 1530 North Cleveland Ave., St. Paul, MN 55108-1027 (phone: 612-624-07 Applegate Partnership
Jack Shipley, Applegate Partnership, CPO Box 277, Applegate, OR 97530.
LandCare
David Clark, Lexton LandCare Group Inc., Post Office, Lexton, Victoria, Australia (phone 615-343-5
References Birch, Thomas W. 1995. The private forest-land owners of the United States, 1994 (Resource Bull. NE-?). Review Draft, US Forest Service, NE Forest Expt. Sta. Bliss, John and A. Jeff Martin. 1989. Identifying NIPF management motivations with qualitative methods. Forest Science 35(2): 601-622. Broderick, Stephen and Leslie Snyder, Eds. 1991. Proceedings of the symposium on volunteers and communication in natural resource education. UCONN. 74 pages. Clark, David. 1993. Annual review 1993: Lexton LandCare Group. Lexton, Australia LandCare Group. 13 pages. Garland, John. Woodland
owner curriculum. Oregon State University.
Goff, Gary. 1994. MFO report summary 1992-93. Cornell University. March 1994; unpublished data. Goff, Gary. No date. New York state Master Forest Owner/Coverts program 1994-1995. Cornell Universi ty. 1 page fact sheet. Kessler, George. 1988. We
are Master Tree Farmers. Clemson University. 20 pages.
Kittredge, David, Katie Barnicle, and John Crane. 1993. Coverts May. 6 pages plus appendices.
project in Massachusetts. University of Massachusetts.
Mager, Robert F. and Peter Pipe. 1983. Criterion-referenced ion. Mager Associates, Inc., Carefree, AZ. IYIcEvoy, Thom, Ed. 1993. Proceedings
instruction: Analysis, design and implementa
of the Coverts Regional Symposium. University of Vermont. July 1993. 16 pages.
4ASULGC. 1995. Strategic directions of the Cooperative Extension Universities and Land Grant Colleges, Washington, DC. 12 pages. non, Dean. 1993. Master
System. National Association of State
Woodland Managers program. Iowa State University. November 1993. A. Scott. 1987.
Targeting educational programs to stimulate investments in private forest managePhD. thesis. University of Minnesota. 175 pages.
State Forest Practice Regulatory Programs: Current Status and Future Prospects by Paul V. Ellefson, Antony S. Cheng, and Robert J. Moultor1
National debate over federal and state regulation of private forestry practices began with significant vigor during the early part of this century. Even Gifford Pinchot had strong feelings about government regulation of private forestry, proclaiming in his book, Breaking New Ground, that ". . . only Federal control of cutting on private [forest] land could assure the Nation the supply of forest products it must have to prosper ... that [we] will eventually exercise such control is inevitable, because without it the safety of our forests and consequently the prosperity of our people cannot be assured" (Pinchot 1947, p.293-294). Although most forest practice regulatory authority eventually rested with state governments, federal laws and policies have had a dramatic influence on state-level regulatory trends, especially the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Clean Water Act, Coastal Zone Management Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Often referred to as seedtree laws, the first generation of state regulatory laws focused on private forest lands were developed in the 1940s (Ellefson and Cubbage 1980). Although concerned primarily with the reforestation of cutover forest lands (an action thought necessary in order to avert future shortages of timber), many of the early laws also required private landowners and loggers to dispose of harvest slash and debris in an appropriate manner so as to prevent the spread of wildfire and the occurrence of insect and: disease infestations. Nearly all states have replaced their 1940s and 1950s seedtree laws with more modern regulatory laws and programs. Fostered by heightened social and political concern over natural environments in general, the second generation of forest practice regulatory programs arose during the 1960s and 1970s. Between 1971 and 1974, California, Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington became the first states to establish comprehensive forest practice regulatory laws. Alaska and New Mexico followed in 1978. In 1982 the Massachusetts legislative assembly significantly expanded regulatory authority granted by the state's Forest Cutting Practices Act. Maine enacted a comprehensive forest practices law in 1989 and Connecticut followed shortly thereafter in 1991. No southern or midwestern state has adopted a comprehensive forest practice regulatory law (Henly and Ellefson 1986). Since the mid-1980s, a third generation of forest practice regulatory laws and programs has evolved. Some have a commanding concern with the long-term, cumulative effects of forest practices on the sustainability,, productivity, and biodiversity of forest ecosystems (e.g., California, Washington). Others are but one component of a broader state regulatory system that is designed to reduce nonpoint sources of water pollution from various sources-such as agriculture, forestry, urban areas-or to promote natural resource conservation generally (e.g., Florida, Maryland, Montana, Virginia). And many are a statewide mosaic of rules and ordinances promulgated by local units of government (e.g., Georgia).
1 Respectively, Professor of Forest Policy and Administration, Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN; Research Fellow, Forest Policy Center, American Forests, Washington, DC; and Cooperative Forestry Analyst, State and Private Forestry, USDA-Forest Service, Washington, DC. Presented at the Symposium on Nonindustrial Private Forests: Learning from the Past, Prospects for the Future, Washington, DC, February 18-20, 1996.
Status of Regulatory Programs
Multi-program Regulations. Thirty-eight states have at least one program that regulates the application of forestry practices on private forest land (Ellefson, Cheng, and Moulton 1995). Some programs are comprehensive in that a single state agency has nearly exclusive authority to regulate forest practices, while others are blends of many programs that involve a number of responsible agencies. For states with multiprogram regulations, the administrative structure can take the form of a single overarching environmental quality program (e.g., statewide environmental quality act), or a multitude of independent regulatory programs each administered by a separate agency. For states with multiprogram regulations, forestry is often only one of many sectors that are regulated. The focus of regulation is usually nonpoint sources of water pollutants. Maryland and Montana are examples of states with multiprogram regulations. Forest practices in Maryland are regulated by eight separate programs administered by four separate agencies (Ellefson, Cheng, and Moulton 1995). The Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Protection Act is administered by the Forest, Park, and Wildlife Service; the Non-Tidal Wetlands Act is implemented by the Non-Tidal Wetlands Section of the Water Resources Administration; local soil conservation districts and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources oversee the erosion and sediment control provisions of the state's Water Quality Act; and permits under the Waterway Access Program are issued by the Waterway Access Section of the Water Resources Administration. Among the many regulatory programs affecting forest practices in Montana, the most recent was ratified in 1991 as the Streamside Management Act. The act authorizes the Montana Department of State Lands to adopt rules to implement standards stated in law, such as the selection and retention of trees and vegetation for wildlife habitat, and the establishment of vegetative buffers in designated streamside management zones. While the streamside management program is promoted through best management practices, the department has discretion to enforce standards and impose penalties if deemed necessary. Montana also has three other laws that regulate forestry practices: the Protection of Forest Resources Act, the Natural Streambed and Land Preservation Act of 1975, and a law governing the disposal of harvest slash and debris. Other states with multi-program regulations focused on private forestry practices are New Hampshire (Terrain Alteration statute, Notice of Intent to Harvest statute, Timber Cutting Near Certain Waters and Public Highways statute, Dredge and Fill in Wetlands statute), Vermont (Water Pollution Control statute, Alteration of Streams statute, Slash Removal statute, Harvesting above 2,500 feet statute), and Virginia (Seed Tree Law [1988 amendments], Debris in Stream Act, Silvicultural Activities Affecting Water Quality statute, Obstructing Tributaries statute). One component of Florida's multi-agency regulatory program involves three of five regional water management districts which in 1991 acted on 393 permits to carry out forestry practices (Ellefson, Cheng, and Moulton 1995; Lickwar, Cubbage, and Hickman 1990).
Comprehensive Forest Practice Programs Comprehensive forest practices laws have received the most publicity in discussions concerning the regulation of private forestry activities. Currently, 10 states have comprehensive forest practices regulatory programs: Alaska, California, Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington. The legislative intent of these laws is to protect forest soils, fisheries, wildlife, water quantity and quality, air quality, recreation, and scenic beauty and at the same time maintain an economic atmosphere that is positive to a healthy wood-based industry. To achieve such laudable goals, entirely new administrative structures have been established. They are charged with promulgating, implementing, and enforcing the application of very detailed, site-specific forest practice and related performance standards. With the exception of Connecticut, which is in the process of doing so, all 10 states have developed detailed rules that spell out permit application procedures and forest practice performance standards and related restrictions. Provisions are also made for site inspections, enforcement procedures, and penalties for
violations. Since 1989 almost all states with comprehensive forest practice laws have revised their forest practices rules, generally making them more focused and more intent on protecting natural environments. Administrative procedures Regulatory programs in states with comprehensive laws are by no means uniform. Forest practice standards in California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington are developed according to differences in biophysical and related resource conditions within each state. Even after rules and standards are spelled out in detail, the lead implementing agency is granted considerable discretion regarding what forest practices require notification, permit application, and inspection. In California all private landowners proposing forest practices must complete a detailed Timber Harvesting Plan akin to an environmental impact assessment. In 1993 slightly more than 1,200 plans were submitted, of which 1,084 were approved. The administering agency has been requiring changes in approximately 75 percent of the submitted plans. The Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act and the Massachusetts Cutting Practices Act also require all private forestlandowners or timber operators to notify the responsible agency and to complete a proposed plan of operations, although with less rigorous environmental review than occurs in California. All Oregon landowners proposing forest practices must notify the Department of Forestry (18,178 notifications received in 1991), but only certain practices, such as those adjacent to certain classes of streams or other environmentally sensitive areas, require a written plan. Administrators of Oregon's program also have the flexibility to waive notification waiting periods. Similar provisions exist in Washington for notification and applications. Nearly 13,500 forest practice applications and notifications were processed in Washington in 1992. Forest practices in Washington are divided into four classes according to degree of potential resource impact. Class I practices (e.g., culture of Christmas trees) are exempt while Class II practices (e.g., construction of advance fire trails) require only a written notification. Class III practices (e.g., bridge replacement over certain waters) require a written application to the state Department of Natural Resources, and Class IV practices (e.g., aerial application of pesticides) must undergo an environmental review pursuant to the state's environmental policy act. The department may condition forest practices applications with site-specific best management practices or specific standards for resource protection (Olson 1989). Idaho landowners must notify the Idaho Department of Lands of proposed forestry practices-3,400 notifications were received by the Department in 1991.. New Mexico landowners must also submit a notification of forest practices. Neither state, however, requires preparation of a detailed timber harvesting plan. Nonresidents proposing to harvest timber from private forest land in Idaho must submit to the administering agency a bond of at least $5,000 (but not more than $15,000) prior to commencement of harvesting operations. In addition to a timber harvesting permit, performance bonds are also required of timber harvesters and forest landowners in Nevada. The Maine forest practices act has written notification requirements for forestry practices proposed by landowners or their designated agents. Clearcuts of 50 acres or more require preparation and submission of a timber harvesting plan. Maine forest landowners selling forest products for commercial purposes must also submit a written annual report to the state Bureau of Forestry with information regarding volume cut, stumpage price, species cut, location of harvesting, area of land harvested, harvest methods employed, and the extent of whole-tree harvesting for solid and chipped wood. The Connecticut law does not mandate notification or application procedures, but requires the certification of foresters, forest products harvesters, and forest products harvest supervisors via written examination. x
Forest practice notifications, applications, and written plans are subject to interagency and public review in most states with comprehensive forest practice laws. The state of Washington has one of the more sophisticated computerized systems for applying for a permit to harvest and securing review of the application by appropriate agencies (e.g., Mapping Application Planning System). County or municipal regulations and
ordinances are generally superseded by the state regulations, although certain county governments in California have been given legal authority to promulgate additional standards subject to state review. Forest practices rules
The forest practice rules promulgated by states with comprehensive programs provide the detailed procedures and standards deemed necessary by a rule-making authority (board or individual) in order to fully implement the intent of a forest practice law. The rules differ markedly from state to state, although the substance of the rules often follows a basic model, namely (Ellefson 1992): 01
Administrative Procedures: processes which include notification and application procedures, requirements for written plans, administrative review processes, provisions for variances or exemptions and land-use conversions, and site inspections;
•
Timber Harvesting Standards: principles pertaining to timber harvesting, such as limits on clearcut size and timing, recommended silvicultural techniques on sloped areas, guidelines for slash and debris disposal, and minimum standards for felling, bucking, and yarding;
•
Transportation Standards: principles pertaining to road, skid trail, and landing construction and maintenance including criteria for location, erosion, and sediment control methods, placement of culverts, waterbars, and broadbased dips (sometimes entailing engineering formulas), guidelines for road stream crossings, general maintenance guidelines, and minimum standards for closures;
•
Reforestation Standards: principles pertaining to reforestation, specifically, minimum stocking standards (number of trees per acre harvested) according to site quality and regional conditions, recommended regeneration methods by commercial tree species, site preparation standards (some include special standards for chemical application), reforestation inspections and reporting procedures, and minimum free-to-grow standards (minimum height and vigor of trees five years after harvesting);
•
Sensitive Resource Standards: special rules pertaining to the protection of sensitive resources such as riparian areas, endangered species and fish and wildlife habitats, areas with steep slopes or unstable soils, wetlands, or designated watersheds; and
•
Enforcement: rules pertaining to violations and progressive enforcement procedures which generally start with a notification of violation and proceed with stop work orders, injunctions, and damage repair orders; fines and penalties are detailed as well.
For the most part, forest practices rules promulgated under the comprehensive forest practices acts are prescriptive by nature. For example, Idaho's rules state: on slopes exceeding 45 percent gradient and which are immediately adjacent to a class I or II stream, tractor or wheel skidding shall not be conducted unless the operation can be done without causing accelerated erosion ... [Rule 3c.i]; and stabilizing skid trails and fire trails whenever they are subject to erosion, by waterbars, cross draining, out-sloping, scarifying, seeding or other suitable means ... [Rule 3e.i]. In using a prescriptive tone, forest practices rules are akin to recommended guidelines (Idaho Department of Lands 1992). In only very specific cases, such as reforestation, clearcut harvesting methods, and riparian protection areas, are the rules more standardized.
Emerging Trends in Regulatory Programs Regulatory Program Growth Regulation of forestry practices applied to private forestland has expanded on a number of fronts in recent years and is likely to expand even further in the years to come. At the present time nearly 22 percent of the nation's privately owned timberland is subject to a state forest practice regulatory program. If comprehensive regulatory laws known to have been introduced in 12 additional states during the past two years come to fruition, nearly 40 percent (136 million acres) of the nation's privately owned timberland will be subject to state forest practices regulation. Such is an area larger than all timberland owned by the nation's federal, state, and local governments combined. State agencies other than a state's lead forestry agency are also increasingly becoming involved in the regulation of forestry practices. In at least 18 states, including Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, nonforestry agencies have authority to enforce regulations pertaining to water quality protection, disturbances in wetlands, erosion and sediment control, insect and disease control, protection of wildlife and endangered species, and application of pesticides and herbicides. In many cases these regulations apply directly to forest management activities. In other cases forestry practices are declared to be exempt, or enforcement is not rigorous. County or municipal governments are also regulating forestry practices. At last count, nearly 400 such ordinances were in existence, 70 percent of which were established since 1980; half since 1985 (Hickman and Martus 1991). Examples are: 11 counties in Georgia have logging ordinances; 100 municipalities in Illinois have forestry-related ordinances; 20 of the 23 counties in Maryland have rules limiting forestry practices; 300 municipalities in New Jersey regulate forestry activities; and municipalities in New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wisconsin have ordinances pertaining to logging or other forest management activities. Even North Dakota, a minimally forested state, has seven counties with tree-cutting ordinances (Lickwar, Cubbage and Hickman 1990). The issue to be faced by a forestry community within such states is whether multifaceted regulation of forestry practices by many units of local government is preferable to uniform regulation by a single agency operating on a statewide basis.
Contingent Regulations Montana, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia are states which have adopted a contingent regulatory model wherein state acceptance of voluntary application of best management practices is conditional on their widespread use by landowners and timber harvesters. If a state's lead forestry agency (or other responsible agency) concludes that voluntary use of best management practices is unsatisfactory, penalties for noncompliance may be levied on those that are in violation of established forest practice standards. Sentiment toward adopting this administrative structure often occurs because of uncertainty over whether voluntary application of forestry best management practices by landowners and timber harvesters is sufficient to protect forest ecosystem values; a threat of regulation may be needed to ensure the application of such practices. This concern is clearly evident within the ranks of senior-level administrators of state forestry programs nationwide. Asked to rank the ability of different types of programs (i.e., voluntary guidelines, regulatory programs, tax incentives, fiscal incentives, educational programs, and technical assistance) to influence the way in which private forestry practices are applied, only 20 percent were of the opinion that voluntary guidelines were a very effective means of getting private landowners to apply practices that enhance water quality from forested watersheds; 80 percent indicated voluntary guidelines were neutral in effect (39 percent) or ineffective (41 percent) (Cheng and Ellefson 1993a).
Standards in Statute and Rules The breadth of forestry practices that are subject to regulation is also growing in states that have regulatory programs. Likewise, the exactness with which forest practice standards are presented in law and rules is
becoming sharper. This is endorsed by recent amendments to forest practices laws in several states--amendments that have moved beyond prescriptive guidelines to more specific forest practice standards, including outright prohibition of or requirements for certain forest practices. For example, Washington rules state (Washington Forest Practices Board 1993): Wildlife Reserve Tree Management:... for each tree harvested three wildlife reserve trees, two green recruitment trees, and two down logs shall be left ... [WAC 222-30-020 (11)] Even-Aged Harvest-Size and Timing: (1) Timber harvest which would result in an area larger than 120 acres and smaller than or equal to 240 acres harvested by even-aged harvest methods on land owned or controlled by one landowner shall be reviewed by an interdisciplinary team ... (2) Timber harvest which would result in an area larger than 240 acres harvested by even-aged harvest methods on land owned or controlled by one landowner shall be prohibited [WAC 222-30-025 (1,2)]. The revised Oregon Forest Practices Act contains similar language to restrict clearcutting, namely "... no clear-cut unit within a single ownership shall exceed 120 acres in size, . . ." and to protect visual conditions along certain roadways, namely "within a visually sensitive corridor, at least 50 healthy trees of at least 11 inches at DBH.... shall be temporarily left on each acre" (Oregon Forest Practices Act 1993). Greater specification of forest practice standards in law and the explicit prohibition of certain timber harvesting activities may reflect a more generic national trend to codify environmental protection standards generally (Hoberg 1993). Because such actions can severely erode administrative flexibility, the implications of such a trend could be profound. Where administrators of a regulatory program are granted significant administrative discretion, the regulatory burden of proof is distributed between the administering agency and those whose actions are being regulated. If a forest landowner, for example, applies for a variance or exemption from certain rules in order to apply a practice that the landowner and the agency know will not seriously impact the surrounding resources, the administering agency can often grant a variance or waive certain administrative procedures. However, if standards concerning the proposed forest practice are contained in a statute, the burden of proof rests solely with the landowner's demonstration of having complied with the letter of the law. Intense descriptive specification of forest practice standards in law or rule also poses dilemmas beyond issues of burden of proof. By placing prescriptive standards in law, proponents for doing so ignore the reality of the (Ellefson 1992): • Significant variability in the type and physical condition of forests, both at specific sites and over broader forested landscapes. • Legitimate differences in landowner objectives and the forestry practices that are needed to accomplish such objectives. • Changes in the biophysical condition of forests and in the interests and purposes that landowners ascribe to their forests. • Changes in public demands for the goods and services that can be produced by forests and in the public's perception of proper as well as inappropriate forestry practices required to meet such demands. • New science-based technologies that can make inflexible standards obsolete and damaging in application.
Collaborative Rule-Making and Program Implementation traditionally, rule-making processes have been implemented exclusively by government agencies, with allowances for public review, however minimal such might be. There is a growing but limited interest in
involving often competing public and private interests in the collaborative development and implementation of forest practice standards. In a broader sense this occurrence is acknowledged by the federal Negotiated Rule-Making Act of 1990. Washington's Timber, Fish and Wildlife (TFW) negotiations are the most salient example of public and private interests voluntarily joining forces to achieve mutual long-term goals within the forest practices regulatory framework (Mangin and Steger 1990). The negotiation process was established in part as a response to rule-making and program implementation actions that often polarized citizens' groups, wood-based industrial firms, Native American tribes, members of the anadromous fishing industry, agency administrators, and legislators. In an effort to break away from the traditional win-loss approach to developing and implementing regulations, representatives of these groups agreed to work toward common goals which were formalized in the TFW Agreement. Using negotiation and consensus processes, parties to the Agreement were able to have an influential role in reviewing and developing new forest practices regulations, making a special effort to ensure that such regulations incorporated relevant scientific, technical, cultural, and economic factors. Collaborative efforts similar to the Timber, Fish and Wildlife effort have occurred in Idaho. Such have been pursuant to the 1990 adoption of the state's antidegradation policy (Colla 1991). Among other provisions, the policy established a public participation process that was structured into 24 local working committees (LWCs) spread throughout the state. The committees, in coordination with state agencies responsible for curbing nonpoint source pollutants, identified segments of streams that faced serious degradation of water quality because of upstream land-use activities. Each committee developed water quality goals and site-specific best management practices for the stream segments of concern that were located in their region. Once done, the committees monitored progress toward achieving water quality goals and commensurate interest in maintaining the balance between development and environmental protection. Jurisdictional Concerns Among Governments
Ensuring the integrity and sustainability of forest ecosystems can become difficult when imposed on the owners and users of these ecosystems are multiple regulatory laws, multiple layers of government, multiple administering agencies, and many clients that have conflicting expectations for the values to be provided by forest ecosystems. The very ecosystems of concern to society can become fragmented by the multiple institutions that society has developed to guide their use and management. Likewise, multiple agency authority for regulatory programs within state government may diminish the ability of forest resource agencies to guide the use and management of forests in an integrative way. As regulations are developed for and administered by units of state government that have responsibility for a single good or service associated with a forest ecosystem (e.g., recreation, water, wildlife), government loses the ability to comprehensively monitor the condition of the entire system. The matter becomes even more testy when local units of government vie for authority to regulate forestry practices. Regulatory competition among governments within a state is typically addressed by formal (e.g., committees, memorandums of agreement) or informal (e.g., periodic consultations) administrative processes. Yet tensions continue to occur. Needed are more imaginative and effective administrative designs (Hoskisson, Hill, and Kim 1993). Cumulative and Long-Term Environmental Effects
Forest practice regulatory programs are also turning greater attention to the collective or cumulative effects of forest practices applied by individual landowners. Even though all forest landowners in a large area may comply with mandatory rules and procedures, the cumulative impact of landowners' individual activities may pose serious, irreversible consequences for the larger ecosystem of which they are a part. Exactly what those cumulative effects are and how they can be minimized are matters of considerable concern to several states. Washington, for example, has initiated one of the most active cumulative impacts assessment programs (Green et al. 1993; Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 1992; Timber, Fish and Wildlife Committee 1989). Spurred on by recently adopted forest practices rules, the state's Department of Natural Resources is responsible for identification and assessment of cumulative impacts within watershed adminis-
trative units (WAUs). Each unit is between 10,000 and 50,000 acres in size and is subject to three levels of analysis. At the first level, watershed administrative units are prioritized according to vulnerability. The vulnerability rating scheme incorporates information regarding the likelihood of adverse impacts from forest management practices. The second level involves additional review of first-level determinations by resource research specialists, and further analyses of especially sensitive resources that are located in a vulnerable watershed. In the third stage site-specific management prescriptions are developed for each watershed administrative unit. Since many sensitive areas may cross property boundaries, the prescriptions are designed to provide reasonable management flexibility while ensuring resource protection throughout a watershed. The Department is authorized to initiate monitoring activities to determine the effectiveness of the prescriptions. Idaho has also addressed the cumulative impacts of forestry practices via its antidegradation and Local Watershed Committee process. By creating a feedback loop between local level monitoring activities and the Idaho Department of Lands, long-term resource management and protection at a landscape level are achieved without additional regulatory activities. Efforts have also been made to develop more coordination among state agencies responsible for water quality and resource management and protection. The Idaho legislature has given thought to formalizing cumulative effects concerns and management processes in law (Tumer and O'Laughlin 1991). California has also been active with efforts to address cumulative effects. The Board of Forestry can be petitioned to designate watersheds and sub-watersheds (10,000 acres or less) that are considered especially sensitive to timber harvesting activities; once identified, maximum harvest limits can be established for each timberland ownership in a designated watershed. The California Department of Fish and Game and regional water quality control boards can recommend additional forest practice standards thought necessary to minimize cumulative impacts in the sensitive watersheds. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection has also established a water quality monitoring program to determine long-term effects of multiple forest practices on the quality and quantity of water flowing through forest lands. Adoption of New Technologies
Administrators of forest practice programs are beginning to acknowledge the need to design regulatory programs that can more readily accommodate new forestry and related technologies. Unfortunately, processes by which many forest practice standards and procedures find their way into statutes and rules are often very time-consuming and administratively very cumbersome-they are not always designed to easily assimilate stateof-the-art forestry science (e.g., rapid advances in monitoring protocols). Many states have experience with technical advisory committees at both the statewide and regional level. However, most such committees were abandoned when it was found that they duplicated the activities of a regulatory agency's staff. The search is on for regulatory administrative processes that can more effectively respond to, for example, more sophisticated monitoring systems, more biologically sound reforestation stocking standards, more publicly sensitive standards for scenic landscapes, and more exacting and accurate habitat conditions for forested wildlife. Legalization of Administrative Processes
Regulatory agencies generally have a tendency to adopt procedures, standards and language that are common to legal processes. Dimensions of growing legalization of an agency's operations include increased use of formal, standardized policies and procedures; increased use of protective measures stemming from concern over potential litigation (elaborate recordkeeping, rigid judicial-like procedures); loss of agency control as a result of access to a decision-making process that is legally granted to competing agencies and :organizations; avoidance of potential management strategies that are perceived as being susceptible to r1itigation; and a tendency toward dispute resolution processes that are adversarial in nature (e.g., formal administrative hearings) (Sitkin and Bies 1993). Some would argue that forest practice regulatory agencies
are tending in such directions. If they are to avoid such trappings, they must become less concerned with assuring legal acceptability of their operations and more concerned over efficiency, effectiveness, and positive employee and client relationships. Legal and Constitutional Consistencies
Among the most enduring debates within the nation's forestry community is the concern over government's authority to limit the manner in which forest practices are applied on private land. US Supreme Court rulings since 1887 (Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623) have legitimized state and local government authority to regulate land uses and activities there-on. This authority is typically based on interpretation of police powers which are exercised to abate a nuisance, namely an individual's action which could harm the health and safety of a community or the general public. Although the literature dealing with the legal aspects of forest practices regulation is sparse (Cheng and Ellefson 1993b, Cubbage and Siegel 1985, Hickman and Hickman 1990), the constitutionality of forest practice regulations has been unquestioned since State of Washington v. Dexter (32 Wn.'" 551, 202 P.1 906, 338 U.S. 863) in 1949. In Dexter, the Washington State Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling that the Washington Forest Conservation Act Law (Ch. 193) was unconstitutional. The higher court ruled that the state's reforestation requirements were a legitimate application of state police power and did not affect a taking. The US Supreme Court upheld the decision without comment. However, since 1949, the laws and regulations pertaining to private forestry practices have become more rigorous and the legal theories beholden by many courts have changed. Recent US Supreme Court rulings suggest an attempt by the court to reassess past rulings that have favored uncompensated takings by state regulations. Two cases, First English Evangelical Church of Glendale v. Los Angeles County (482 U.S. 304, 96 L.Ed.' 250 [1987]) and Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (483 U.S. 825, 97 L.EP 677 [1987]) determined that certain land-use regulations did cause a diminution of economic value to the point that a taking had occurred and that a monetary compensation was required. A third case, the now famous Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (404 SR' 895; granted certiori 112 S.Ct. 436 [1992], decided June 29, 1992, Supreme Court Docket No. 91-453), signaled a more significant change, namely, a move toward categorically defining what constitutes a compensable taking. The opinion stated that the use of police powers to abate a public nuisance must be grounded in longstanding, existing state policies applicable to a specific land use (McNeal 1992). If this perspective were applied to existing forest practice regulations, many states might escape unscathed, given the longstanding tradition of state regulation of private forestry practices. Furthermore, the generally prescriptive nature of administrative rules and the administrative flexibility, exemptions, variances, and reviews granted by forest practice laws provide for a greater amount of regulatory relief than commonly found in most land-use regulations. Such would bode well for the continuation of a regulatory agency's forest practice program. The overall legal future of forest practice regulations is likely to remain uncertain for some time to come. In the interim, regulatory programs should be crafted to avoid significant constitutional issues. For sure, they should'(Ellefson, Cheng, and Moulton 1995): • Advance well-defined and legitimate state interests in private forest property.
• •
Complement well-defined and long histories of public policy favoring environmental protection and land-use control. Promote the distribution of program benefits among many, widely-dispersed segments of society
•
Avoid the promotion of severe reductions (diminution) in the value of private forest property.
•
Avoid denial of all economically viable uses of private forest property, especially as such might result from standards which require permanent physical occupation of private property. Involve the application of rationally based and reasonably constructed forest practice standards.
•
• Link regulatory standards (required forest practices) very tightly to state interest in private forest property. • Avoid burdensome and overly complicated procedures that, in fact, deny use and management of private forest property. • Avoid arbitrary and capricious application of forest practice standards.
Government and Landowner Costs The cost to government and the regulated public of forest practice regulatory programs is also of looming concern. In the 10 states that administer comprehensive forest practices programs, public investments by the states' lead forestry agencies totaled nearly $21.9 million in 1991 and required a staff of nearly 321 full-time equivalents. These program and staff investments represented the culmination of an average annual financial increase of nearly 18 percent since 1985 and an annual increase of 18 full-time equivalent staff persons. While the funding of forestry programs generally within these states has increased 45 percent since 1984, investment in their forest practice regulatory programs doubled during the same period. Although such clearly demonstrates growth in regulatory program funding, one must recognize that regulatory programs are a very modest portion of the total forestry budget of the 10 states in question-namely, less than 4 percent (Ellefson, Cheng, and Moulton 1995). In addition to forestry agency investments in regulatory programs, nonforestry agencies of state governments also expend monies to implement portions of such programs (departments of pollution control, fish E and wildlife, environmental quality). In 1991 these agencies invested more than $5.7 million in forest practice regulatory activities (including nearly 61 full-time equivalent staff) in the 10 states with comprehensive forest practice laws. Combining regulatory program investments of lead forestry agencies and nonforestry agencies, the 10 states in, question invested more than $27.6 million (382 full-time equivalents) during 1991 in forest practice regulation programs. If regulatory programs in Maryland, Montana and Florida are included, the nationwide total probably exceeds $30.1 million and involves a full-time equivalent staff of nearly 400. To what sort of activities are these investments directed? Fifty to 60 percent of the investments are directed to administrative review of harvest plans and notifications of intent to harvest, and to enforcement of forest practice regulations and standards (Ellefson, Cheng, and Moulton 1995). Also a legitimate cost of regulation is that which must be borne by landowners and timber harvesters as they seek to comply with regulatory requirements to (for example) redesign roads and skid trails, install special water pollution abating structures, provide special wildlife habitat, apply special practices in riparian zones, and comply with more intense reforestation requirements. Some of these requirements are imposed before harvesting operations can commence, for example, timber harvest plans. In California the average base cost of having a registered professional forester prepare a timber harvesting plan exceeds $10,000. If special surveys are required, the total can exceed $20,000 (Henly 1992). A five-state review of 18 harvesting operations in the Midwest found that application of various additional water quality protecting practices suggested by watershed managers (e.g., skid trail and landing design; installation of culverts, water bars and broad-based dips; maintaining stream-side buffer strips; seeding and fertilizing skid roads) reduced the combined sale's net revenue by more than 59 percent (from $124,300 to $50,800) (Ellefson and Miles 1985). A similar study in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia found the cost of implementing these states' recommended best management practices was considerably less, namely aggregate gross harvest revenue was reduced by only 3 percent ($58,864) (Lickwar, Hickman, and Cubbage 1992).
For the private sector, regulations can also mean a reduction in timber available for harvest. In some states, for example, harvesters must leave sufficient vegetation to ensure the existence of at least 75 percent of the midsummer midday shade over certain categories of streams considered important for fish habitat. Other states require leaving specified numbers of wildlife reserve trees or potential reserve trees for cavity nesting birds. And yet other states require landowners to severely limit forest practices undertaken in corridors along designated scenic highways. Unfortunately, most analyses have focused on the cost of regulatory programs; very little effort has been expended to define the benefit side of the equation (Alden et al. 1995).
Summary and Observations Government regulation of private forest practices has become the political embodiment of a growing public concern over the integrity of forest and related ecosystem values. However, to suggest that regulatory programs are not without problems would be to deny reality. Most certainly they create significant burdens for private forest landowners. Who in their right mind would wish to be forced by law and fear of a penalty into complying with complicated procedures and rigorous operating standards? And what taxpayer is interested in supporting an expanded government bureaucracy that is charged with policing various forestry activities undertaken by the average citizen? Yet when society's interest in maintaining and enhancing forest ecosystems is of concern, owners and managers of forest resources have an obligation to examine the range of policy tools available for achieving such interests, including educational programs, cost share programs, tax incentives, regulatory programs, and voluntary best management programs. Within such a context, it is critical to realize that there are tremendous variations between states and region; with regard to forest practice regulatory programs. Failure to do so ignores many innovative, imaginative approaches that emphasize adaptive management, administrative flexibility, and landscape-level resource management and protection. Society will increasingly demand certain baselines for stewardship of forest resources occurring on private lands. Citizens, landowners, and forest resource professionals have a responsibility to be actively involved in defining such baselines and developing the programmatic mechanisms that will be used to ensure their accomplishment. Such mechanisms may well include regulatory programs which are a reality on the American forestry scene and a potentially useful policy tool for achieving many socially and environmentally desired objectives.
References Alden, A. M., C. R. Blinn, P. V. Ellefson, and P. G. Nordin. 1995. Timber harvester perceptions of benefits and costs of applying water quality best management practices in Minnesota (Staff Paper Series No. 108). Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. Cheng, A. S and P. V. Ellefson. 1993a. State programs directed at the forestry practices of private forest landowners: Program administrators' assessment of effectiveness (Staff Paper Series No. 87). Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. Cheng, A. S. and P. V. Ellefson. 1993b. State forest practices laws and regulations: a review of constitutional and legal environments (Staff Paper Series No. 88). Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. Colla, J. 1991. Evaluation of the 1990 anti-degradation local working committee process (Report No. 3-91 FPA. Idaho Department of State Lands, Boise, ID.
Cubbage, F. W. and W. C. Siegel. 1985. The law regulating private forest practices. Journal of Forestry 83(9): 538545. Ellefson, P. V. 1992. Forest resources policy: Process, participants and programs. McGraw-Hill Publishers. New York, NY. Ellefson, P. V., A. S. Cheng, and R. J. Moulton. 1995. Regulation of private forestry practices by state governments (Bulletin SB-605-1995). Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota, St. Paul. Ellefson, P. V. and F. W. Cubbage. 1980. State forest practice laws and regulations: A review and case study for Minnesota (Bulletin 536-1980). Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. Ellefson, P. V. and P. D. Miles. 1985. Protecting water quality in the midwest: impact on timber harvesting costs. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 2(2): 57-61.
Green, K., S. Bernath, L. Lackey, M. Brunengo, and S. Smith. 1993. Analyzing the cumulative effects of forest practices: Where do we start? Geo Info Systems 3(2): 31-41. Henly, R. K. 1992. Cost of small landowner timber harvesting plans. Working Paper. Strategic and Resources Planning Group, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento, CA. Henly, R. K. and P. V. Ellefson. 1986. State forest practice regulation in the U.S.: Administration, cost, and accomplishments (Bulletin AD-SB-301 1). Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. Hickman, C. A., and M. R. Hickman. 1990. Legal limitations on governmental regulation of private forestry in the United States. In Forestry legislation: Report of the IUFRO working party S4.08-03. International Union of Forestry Research Organizations, Vienna, Austria. Hickman, C. A., and C. E. Martus. 1991. Local regulation of private forestry practices in the eastern United States. In Proceedings 1991 Southern Forest Economics Workers Conference. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. Hoberg, G. 1993. Regulating forestry: A comparison of institutions and policies in British Columbia and the U.S. Pacific Northwest (Working Paper 185). Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. Hoskisson, R. E., C. W. L. Hill, and H. Kim. .1993. The multidivisional structure: Organizational fossil or source of value? Journal of Management 19(2): 269-298. Idaho Department of Lands. 1992 (May). Rules and regulations pertaining to Idaho Forest Practices Act (ID Admin. Rules IDAPA 20.15). Boise, ID. Lickwar, P. M., F. W. Cubbage, and C. A. Hickman. 1990. Current southern state programs for control of forestry nonpoint source pollution. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 14(2): 64-69. Lickwar, P. M., C. Hickman, and F. W. Cubbage. 1992. Costs of protecting water quality during harvesting on private forestlands in the southeast. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry (16): 13-20.
Mangin, R., and M. A. Steger. 1990. The TFW environmental policy negotiations of Washington state. Pg 21-39 in: Conflict Resolution and Public Policy by M. K. Mills. Greenwood Press, New York, NY. McNeal, H. L. 1992. Regulatory takings: Societal benefit or violation of owner's rights? Pennsylvania Law Journal 15:5, 18-19. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. 1992. Cooperative monitoring, evaluation and research: Research and status reports with abstracts 1988-1992 (TFW-00-92-001). Timber, Fish & Wildlife Committee, Olympia, WA. Olson, A. 1989. DNR guidelines for conditioning forest practices applications. Memorandum to the Timber, Fish & Wildlife Administrative Committee, June 28. Washington Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, WA. Oregon Forest Practices Act. 1993. ORS 527.610-770, 990. Salem, OR. Pinchot, G. 1947. Breaking new ground. University of Washington Press., Seattle, WA. Timber, Fish & Wildlife Committee. 1989. Status and recommendations on cumulative effects of forest practices. TFW Policy Group, Olympia, WA. Sitkin, S. M., and R. J. Bies. 1993. Legalistic organization: Definitions, dimensions, and dilemmas. Organizational Science 4(3): 345-351. Turner, A. C., and J. O'Laughlin. 1991. State agency rules in Idaho water quality policy: executive summary. Special report for Idaho Legislature (Rpt. No. 5). College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. Washington Forest Practices Board. 1993 (June). Forest practices rules and regulations (WAC 222). Olympia, WA.
Family-Owned Forests in an Era of Regulatory Uncertainty by Nels Hanson1
While some government agencies offer cost-sharing incentives for landowners to stay in forestry, other agencies create even more compelling incentives for families to get out. Events in Washington during the past ten years show that in this duel between agencies, the wrong side is ahead right now, and incentives to "get out" seem to be winning. What many landowners view as a regulatory barrage during the past decade, coupled with regulatory uncertainty for the future, is the villain. But our Association is now embarked on the Family Forest Project that will hopefully reverse these recent trends in our state and put the incentives to "stay in forestry" out in front again.
Washington's Family-Owned Tree Farmers Washington has over 20 million acres of forestland, of which the federal government owns about half. Industrial owners have about 4.5 million, nonindustrial owners about 3.5 million acres. The state owns about 2 million acres, and the Indian tribes have more than another million. The many severe restrictions placed on federal land attracts most of the publicity, but regulations that seriously impact private land are taking place also. These will be addressed in detail later, along with landowner responses. Family forests are usually managed differently than others. Most harvest when "they need the money" and are less driven than others by annual cash-flow requirements. As a result, they often let their trees continue to grow until retirement, a family emergency, or estate taxes come due, or some cut enough each year to cover on-going expenses. Family-owned farms pass from one generation to the next about every 25 years, which imposes a hefty tax burden that all other owners escape. Here's another duel between agencies: IRS says "cut it;" USF&WS says "let it grow." Two things people expect from any investment, whether it's in trees, the stock market, or CDs are: When money is needed, they expect to get it without unexpected discounts, delays, regulatory hassles, or impoundment; and They expect a reasonable rate of return on their investment of capital and labor. When they invested in tree farming, they knowingly accepted the risks that Mother Nature imposes-fire, wind, disease, and volcanoes-and they accept the cyclical fluctuations in the marketplace. But they are far less accepting of man-made risks that come from their government. Instead of being cyclical, like the market place or nature, experience has shown that each government intrusion is a platform from which to launch further intrusion. Instead of being cyclical, regulatory intrusions seem to work more like a ratchet.
1 Executive Director, Washington Farm Forestry Association, P.O. Box 7663, Olympia, WA 98507. Presented at the Symposium on Nonindustrial Private Forests: Learning from the Past, Prospects for the Future, Washington, DC, February 18-20, 1996.
The Birth of Uncertainty Washington's forest practice regulations have long been considered among the most restrictive in the nation. Though restrictive, they had been quite stable since 1974 when the state became a leader in adopting regulations to stop the abuses of the past. Then in 1984 and 1985 came strong pressure on the Forest Practices Board from other governmental agencies and environmental groups to require 200-foot buffers on each side of all forested streams, and we have lots of streams. There was also a clamor for upland set-asides for undefined wildlife habitat. The Forest Practices Board was about to adopt an array of new rules to accommodate both when a new and novel group was created. It was the Timber/Fish/Wildlife Group, or TFW Group. The TFW Group had clout because it consisted of the directors of state agencies, Indian tribes, environmental organizations, and landowners-both industrial and nonindustrial. It was a negotiating group that decided issues by consensus. The group agreed on a rule package in 1987 requiring reasonable streamside buffers and upland habitat for wildlife. The Forest Practices Board adopted this far more balanced rule package than the one it originally considered. Then in 1988 environmental groups and some state agencies insisted the TFW group be reconvened to draft another layer of rules on top of the first package. Even the most tolerant realized a new and more ominous risk to their tree farm investment had moved to the forefront. To add to their anxieties, the EPA came out with its new definition of a "wetland" in 1989, and though it was withdrawn shortly thereafter, it was seized upon and used by many of our state and local agencies. Later that same year the USF&WS listed the northern spotted owl as threatened. The Department of Natural Resources keeps tab on harvests from public and private land. Table 1 below shows the pattern of harvest permits and volumes over the past 25 years.
Applications from industrial owners remained quite constant according to DNR; nearly all the increase came from nonindustrial owners. The volume harvested by nonindustrial owners doubled from a 15-year average of about 768 million board feet annually to 1.52 billion bd. ft. annual average during the last nine years Each new regulation further increased the cost of harvest and further reduced income because more valuable trees must be left behind. An owner of suitable owl habitat was threatened with total loss. Nonindustrials had a lot of mature timber when this regulatory sequence started. The University of Washington in conjunction with the USFS completed a Timber Supply Study in the early 1990s. They found that nonindustrial owners had only about three-fourths as many acres as industrial owners, but had about the same acreage over 40 years old. Nonindustrials were less burdened by cash flow requirements and had been more inclined to "let their trees grow" till they needed the money. But then the 1985 ultrawide "streamside buffer" debate began. That got landowner attention and brought a dramatic change in their behavior. When that was followed by new streamside rules, new wetland definitions, more wildlife buffers, plus endangered species, past practices changed. Many decided that if they r need the money in the future, they better harvest now and put it in the bank before part or all their nestegg was impounded as a buffer, a wetland, or as wildlife habitat.
Family Forest Project to the Rescue Jim Waldo of The Northwest Renewable Resource Center, who had facilitated our TFW negotiations, responded to this disturbing data by offering to work with our association to find the "cause" for this behavior and possibly find a way to reverse it. Several prominent northwest industrial companies, a north-west environmental organization, and a wildlife foundation helped financially so that The Family Forest Project (FFP) could be launched and a truly professional job of analysis could be done.
We Have "Science" Too Task began by retaining Elway Research of Seattle to find the cause. Elway designed and sent out to 1,300 nonindustrial owners. They received 640 replies-one of their highest response to this type of survey. Elway Research reported these significant findings: More than half said the primary reason for their last harvest was regulatory uncertainty. More than half said regulatory uncertainty is the main reason for their next harvest.
Six out of ten said that because of regulatory uncertainty, they harvested sooner than planned, b harvested more than planned, or considered converting their land to non-forest uses. Two out of three said uncertainty about future regulations had a greater impact on decisions than the current number of regulations. 1,
Elway analysis scientifically confirmed that there were several counterproductive and probably led consequences of all this well-intended rule making. From a landowner perspective, the analysis led to say ~1i
Government's incentive programs were being overwhelmed by its disincentive programs.
•
Landowner confidence to invest money and labor in tree farming was seriously damaged.
•
Many are prematurely cashing-in their trees and putting the money where it will be at less risk.
•
Instead of more acres of mature forests for wildlife habitat, it was rapidly becoming less.
Criteria for a Solution The analysis gave NRRC and WFFA a focal point for the next phase of the project: to restore confidence by establishing regulatory stability while adequately protecting public resources. Recognizing that the long growth cycle for forestry stretches across generations, confidence must be restored for several type of owners and potential owners, among them
•
Current owners must see a reasonable rate of return compared to other uses of their land.
•
Young people must see it as a good investment compared to other places to invest their savings.
•
Heirs must believe it is an asset to retain rather than liquidate.
•
Those who want to buy a tree farm as a career must feel confident they can pay off the mortgage plus make a living doing it.
However, it must also be recognized that a regulation has two constituencies. It has those who are proposing the regulation and those to be regulated-the regulators and the regulatees. Any mechanism to bring regulatory stability must be viewed as a win-win situation for both. Our experience working with those proposing these regulations leads us to believe that they want to:
•
Have landowners keep growing trees so as much of the landscape will be forested as possible.
•
Minimize conversion of forestland to other uses.
•
Maintain forest biodiversity in age and species so it is habitat for many wildlife species.
•
Do forest practices that enhance wildlife foraging, dispersal, and reproduction.
•
Have forested buffers for shade and debris on fish-bearing streams and fish-rearing wetlands.
The vehicle to achieve the objectives for both landowner and the fish and wildlife proponents is called a Conservation Contract. Its aim is to conserve both family tree farmers and such public resources as fish and wildlife. Its purpose is to provide "stability" for both.
The Conservation Contract Entering into a contract would be voluntary on the part of a landowner. Those who did would know the rules for the duration of the contract; landowners who did not enter into a contract would operate under whatever rules were in existence at the time they applied for a forest practice. They take their chances.
The contract is written in landowner/forestry language, with biological, legal, and other technical terms kept to a minimum. The format is simple enough so it can be done on the kitchen table rather than by a team of lawyers and biologists on a conference table. Its duration is for 25 years, with an option to renew for two more 25-year periods, so it covers the growing cycle of the crop. Growers will know where the goal posts will be at harvest when they put seedlings in the ground. The Conservation Contract includes the following components: 1)
The current Forest Practice Board rules with a few modifications, including those for the spotted owl and other T&E species, would be the rules for the duration of the contract.
2)
Biodiversity commitment is in the management plan. The management options are either single-age tree farm management or multiple-age tree farm management. Smaller farms are usually all one age, so they would choose single-age management. With the hundreds of small owner, the random timing of various practices among them all produces a highly diversified mosaic of forestland. Thus collectively they provide biodiversity. Larger farms usually have several different age classes, so would choose multiple-age management and maintain biodiversity with several age classes on their ownership.
3)
Planned rotation age for harvest. There is pressure for all landowners to let some of their timber grow into late-succession stages or even to old growth. However, the greatest economic return comes with harvests between 40 and 50 years of age, and this is more in line with an individual's lifespan for family planning. Landowners could specify their rotation age, but late succession and old growth would be optional with the landowner.
4)
Reforestation: This would be completed within two years, so as to get a forested condition in a shorter timeframe than current rules require, and seedlings would be planted at a greater density. k Wildlife enhancements. Commercial thinning about halfway through the rotation would open up the stand for wildlife and shorten the stem exclusion stage which is usually so devoid of wildlife. It would also improve it for wildlife corridors, dispersal, foraging, and nesting. Precommercial thinning and additional commercial thinning would be at the option of the owner.
5)
6)
Buffers on fish-bearing streams and fish-rearing wetlands would go beyond current rules, but wildlife buffers around detached or isolated wetlands which are required in the current rules would become optional with the landowner.
7)
Duration of the contract would be 25 years and renewable for two additional 25-year periods at the owner's option.
8)
Family emergencies or Tree Farm catastrophe would allow the landowner to terminate the contract. The farm would also lose its regulatory stability and go under the rules of the day. Family emergencies include illness, death, or transfer of property. Tree farm catastrophes include fire, wind, and disease where major contract deviations are needed for recovery.
9)
Compensation would be paid to the landowner if future restrictions are imposed beyond those in the contract, or restrictions built into the contract would be relaxed to offset the added costs.
10)
Permits for forest practices in compliance with the contract would be approved by the department.
That is an outline of the ten components of the Conservation Contract. Our state has forest practice rules about as tough as any in the nation. They cover roadbuilding, a hydraulics code for all streamside activity, and landing locations to name a few. Landowners entering into a contract get very little relief from the current rules. The two things it offers both landowners and wildlife advocates are: Stability at the current level of protection to both. Our best chance to have as many forested acres in family-ownership 25 years from now as we have today.
In Conclusion Sustainable forestry is a public as well as an industry goal. Many want to keep those hillsides forested, plus be assured an ample supply of forest products and jobs far into the future. A Conservation Contract which commits to a supply of forest products and at the same time protects public resources offers one mechanism to achieve both goals. We believe many landowners would buy into the contract. But first we must convince governmental, tribal, and environmental leaders that it is a good deal for them also. That task has just begun. Most landowners look upon regulations as coming from a single entity-"government." In reality, they may come from three different levels of government. Landowners will view the Conservation Contract as a firm commitment by "government" only if it includes all entities that have authority to impose rules on forest practices, whether federal, state, or local. Curt Smitch, Assistant Director of the Northwest Region of the USF&WS, has taken the lead in exploring its potential for dealing with one contributor to regulatory uncertainty, the Threatened and Endangered Species Act. The directors of several state agencies that promulgate state regulations and local government representatives are also in the "exploratory" stage right now. Tribal and environmental leaders are also involved as we move ahead. So we still have a long way to go and I can assure you that we invite your support.
Local Regulation of Forest Practices in New York State: Implications for NIPF Management by Donald W. Floyd, Janyl E. Kaeser, Craig J. Davis, Valerie A. Luzadis, and Lianjun Zhang1
Local regulation of timber harvesting is proliferating throughout the Northeast (Cubbage and Siegel 1988, Hickman and Martus 1991, Greene and Siegel 1994). These ordinances provide management challenges for nonindustrial private forest landowners as well as the forest resource managers and loggers who deal with private lands in the region. Many studies have located and categorized local ordinances throughout the country, but the majority of the research has been descriptive. There is little empirical research on factors associated with the adoption of these ordinances. A notable exception is Salazar's (1990) study of the relationship between the extent of local forest economies and adoption of county level harvesting regulations in the Pacific Northwest. As these ordinances continue to proliferate, it will be important for those concerned with the management of NIPF lands to develop an understanding of the reasons why local governments adopt regulations. Many authors speculate on the reasons for enacting local timber harvesting regulations. According to some, the primary cause is a clash between urban and rural values as more people move out of cities into the countryside (Popovich 1984, Morrison 1993). Others believe it is a shift in public attitudes toward regulation for protection of the environment (Cubbage 1991). Other possible reasons are public concern over increased logging activity (Youell 1984), an experience with a controversial logging job (Wolfgram 1984), the enactment of an ordinance in an adjacent town (Goodfellow and Lea 1985), and officials' lack of forestry expertise (Salazar and Cubbage 1990). Each of these reasons is based on anecdotal evidence. The purposes of this study were to 1) empirically analyze the factors associated with adopting ordinances in New York State; and 2) examine differences in the attitudes of local officials toward the environment and environmental regulation.
Methods To address these issues, we developed and tested four research questions: What factors are associated with adoption of local ordinances by towns in New York State? Based on t the literature, we identified eight potential factors. They are: • Population density • Growth rate • Environmental attitudes of local officials • Officials' perceived scope of harvest operations • Officials' experience with harvesting controversies • Adjacency • Local economic structure • Officials' knowledge of forest management
1 Faculty of Forestry, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY 13210. Presented at the Symposium on Nonindustrial Private Forests: Learning from the Past, Prospects for the Future, Washington, DC, February 18-20, 1996.
•
How do attitudes, knowledge, and experience with harvest controversy vary by type of official?
•
How do preferred regulatory remedies vary by attitudes, knowledge, and experience?
•
How do preferred regulatory remedies vary by type of official?
The existence of ordinances was determined by surveying all of the Town Clerks in the 932 towns across New York State. Town Clerks were chosen because they are considered "key informants" about local governments (Sudman and Bradburn 1982). Any ordinance passed must go through the Town Clerk's office. The Town Clerk's office is also the central point of contact for many activities in the town, such as permit applications and registration of complaints. A simple survey was sent on September 15, 1994, to 915 Town Clerks (17 towns were missing on a list of towns obtained from the state) asking if their town has a law, ordinance, or other regulation which addresses commercial forestry or tree cutting. If the answer was Yes, a copy of the ordinance was requested. A 73 percent response rate was attained from the first mailing. A second survey was sent to nonrespondents on October 18, 1995. Telephone calls were made in November to nonrespondents, to those towns which had been left off of the original list, and to any town whose negative response conflicted with an indication of an ordinance from earlier, unpublished Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) surveys. A total of 907 towns received surveys and 834 ultimately responded for a final response rate of 92 percent. Collected ordinances were then classified based on an adaptation of both the categories of the Hickman and Martus (1991) study and the criteria of an unpublished DEC study. The ordinances were classified first by intent and then further broken down by the their specific restrictions. Several categories were taken directly from the Hickman and Martus analysis (1991); however, those that were irrelevant to the data obtained in this study were removed. Several additional categories were created to clarify the ordinances. Developing data on more than 900 local governments can be both challenging and an adventure. Although the survey response rate is high and the search for ordinances was very thorough, it should be noted that a few discrepancies still exist. There are some towns in which we were unable to obtain an ordinance from the Town Clerk where we suspect an ordinance exists. There may be a few additional towns which have ordinances that went undetected by this study. We used a geographic information system (GIS) to analyze 1980 and 1990 census data for population growth and population density. We also relied upon a mailed survey of town officials commissioned for a related study by the New York State Forest Resources Development Council (Coe and Leahy 1995). A combination of random sampling and censusing was employed to obtain responses from four types of town officials: two elected (Town Supervisors and Highway Superintendents) and two appointed (Planning Board , Chairs and Conservation Committee Chairs). The breakdown is shown in Table 1.
A total of 1,383 town officials were approached. Responses were obtained from 815 officials for an overall response rate of 59 percent. Because late respondents are generally representative of nonrespondents (Miller and Smith 1983), we compared early respondents and late respondents to assess nonresponse error found no significant differences for the variables tested. Content and face validity of the survey questions were determined by an expert panel review. Because we did not control the survey design and execution, pretesting was impossible. A post hoc analysis of the scales using a variation on Cronbach's alpha (rkk) was used to determine reliability. Three summated scales (forest management knowledge, environmental attitudes, and experience with forest management controversies) produced rkk values of .64, .84, and .79 respectively. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Analysis Systems program (SAS) and Statistical Software for Exact Nonparametric Inference (Statxact). An alpha level of .05 was selected for all tests. A subset of data was drawn for analysis of the factors associated with adoption so that the overall proportion of responses from a given official type was equal across all three ordinance categories. This was necessary to ensure that higher proportions of responses from a certain type of official in any category did not skew the results. The subset consisted of a total of 520 responses (64 percent of the original data set) with 44 percent from Town Supervisors, 37 percent from Planning Board Chairs, 11 percent from Highway Superintendents, and 8 percent from Conservation Committee Chairs in each ordinance category.
Results Location and Classification of Ordinances. A total of 107 towns indicated the presence of an ordinance of some sort; 727 towns responded that there was no ordinance in effect. Eliminating those ordinances which never reached us and those which were irrelevant, a total of 100 ordinances were analyzed. Sixty-two of these were directly related to timber 6 harvesting, and 38 were ordinances that addressed development or other forms of tree-removal, but not commercial forestry practices. Five of the timber harvesting ordinances were "right to timber harvest" ordinances. Because these ordinances are nonrestrictive, towns with ordinances of this type were considered to have no ordinance for the purpose of the statistical analysis. Local forestry regulatory and tree-removal ordinances in New York have varying objectives that reflect the differing concerns of the local governments that formulate and implement them. Most ordinances include an introductory statement, which states the purpose or intent of the law. Though most ordinances have a variety of objectives, the majority can be placed, according to intent, in one of seven categories. These categories are: 1) Public property/safety protection ordinances, 2) Urban/suburban environmental protection ordinances, 3) General environmental protection ordinances, 4) Special feature/habitat protection ordinances, 5) Forestland preservation ordinances, and 6) Timber harvesting/forestry uses permitted by right ordinances. 7) Tree removal/development (nontimber harvesting) ordinances. first six categories include those ordinances which specifically address timber harvesting or commercial entry. The final category are those ordinances which regulate types of tree removal that do not involve her harvesting. These ordinances are found mostly in urban or suburban areas where the area of forested is so small that commercial forestry does not occur. A small number of towns had objectives that did
not distinctly fall into a single category. If these towns fell into a timber harvesting category and a nontimber harvesting category, they were classified in the timber harvesting category. If the town fell into one or more timber harvesting categories, they were classified by the primary intent. A brief description of the categories follows. Table 2 shows the breakdown of ordinances by intent. 1. Public Property/Safety Protection Ordinances. Public property/safety protection ordinances are intended to accomplish either or both of two objectives. The first is to protect public investments in roads, bridges, drainage ditches, and rights of-way. The second is to limit interference with traffic flows and protect motorists from potentiall} hazardous driving conditions. Toward these ends, such ordinances typically regulate the transport of roundwood products, logging-related equipment, and harvesting activities such as felling and skidding conducted near public roads, bridges, drainage ditches, and rights-of-way. 2. Urban/Suburban Environmental Protection Ordinances. Urban/suburban environmental protection ordinances are intended to protect the environmental values associated with retaining individual trees or wooded tracts in urban and suburban settings. These benefits include improved aesthetics, reduced erosion and sedimentation, improved water and air quality, amelioration of climate, and reduced energy consumption and noise reduction. Often a secondary objective is protecting urban and suburban property values. To achieve these goals, laws of this type generally regulate timber harvesting associated with land clearing and development, sometimes restricting the removal of individual trees. 3. General Environmental Protection Ordinances. General environmental protection ordinances are intended to protect the environmental values associated with well-managed commercial forests. These values include natural beauty, low erosion and sedimentation, high water and air quality, diverse habitat for wildlife, and sustained soil productivity. Most general environmental protection laws regulated timber harvesting and harvest-related road construction practices. A smaller number of ordinances broaden the regulations to include other forestry-related activities that cause soil disturbance, such as site preparation and planting, dredging, and site drainage. A few of these laws impose controls on all forest practices that may potentially harm the environment, such as prescribed burning and using fertilizers and pesticides. 4. Special Feature/Habitat Protection Ordinances. Special feature/habitat protection ordinances are intended to protect features or habitats that are special because of their scenic value, environmental sensitivity, or the natural functions they perform. Examples of such areas include scenic river corridors, shoreline and coastal zones, wetlands, and habitats of threatened or endangered species. Most laws of this type, like the general environmental protection ordinances, regulate timber harvesting and harvest-related road construction practices. However, a number of these laws broaden the regulations to include all potentially harmful forest practices or at least those that can cause soil disturbance. 5. Forestland Preservation Ordinances. Forestland preservation ordinances are intended to perpetuate forests in use and to maintain a relatively undisturbed forest condition. To achieve this goal, the laws regulate land use, usually b zoning restrictions. Generally, in ordinances of this category, a very stringent process is required obtain a permit or license. The process is usually far more involved and potentially more costly than one would find in ordinances of other categories
6. Timber Harvesting/Forestry Uses Permitted by Right Ordinances. Timber harvesting/forestry uses permitted by right ordinances are intended to protect commercial forestry from excessive regulation. Some of the towns impose no restrictions on commercial forestry operations at all, and others allow such practices with one restriction, such as prohibiting clearcutting. Many of the towns simply list forestry uses as activities permitted by right in their zoning schedule. Others have enacted separate ordinances solely for the purpose of declaring the right to timber harvest in that town. Regulatory restrictions in this category are self-explanatory. 7. Tree Removal/Development (Nontimber Harvesting) Ordinances Tree removal/development (nontimber harvesting) ordinances are intended to protect those treerelated values associated with urban and suburban areas. These ordinances never refer to timber harvesting or other commercial forestry practices. The intent of these ordinances is usually to protect trees because of a combination of the following qualities: their ability to provide shade, act as sound barriers, enhance property values, add to the aesthetic quality of communities, serve as historical landmarks, inhibit excess runoff, impede soil erosion, and preserve the balance of oxygen in the air. These ordinances also are often enacted to prevent the damage associated with clearing or stripping land for construction and development purposes. Some regulatory provisions are very common and occur in the majority of the ordinances. These include permit requirements; application fees; posting of bonds; site plan review/approval; a harvest plan prepared by a professional forester; buffer strips along streams, property lines, and/or roadways; restriction of operating hours; a public hearing; adherence to New York State timber harvesting guidelines; and review ' by a town-appointed professional forester.
What factors are associated with the adoption of local ordinances? 1 o address the research question, three categories of ordinance type (no ordinance, timber harvesting . ice, and nontimber harvesting ordinance) were used and responses from officials in each category compared.
Population Density and Growth
Towns with nontimber harvesting ordinances (N.T.H.s) have a significantly higher average population density (people per square mile) than towns with timber harvesting ordinances and towns without ordinances. Average population density in no ordinance towns (N.O.s) and timber harvesting ordinance towns (T.H.s) is nearly identical. The higher density of nontimber ordinance towns is expected as N.T.H. ordinances exclusively deal with development, urban forestry, and street-tree cutting issues. Although towns without ordinances have a lower average rate of population growth than towns with ordinances, the differences are not significant (p > .05). Since there is no difference either in average density or average growth rate between N.O.s and T.H.s, we can assume them to be demographically similar and can be more confident in comparing them on the basis of other factors. (Note: New York City-Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, and Staten Island-were excluded when calculating averages) Environmental Attitudes
There do not seem to be any significant differences in environmental attitudes among officials based on the different ordinance types (p > .10). The distribution of responses to this question follows a bell curve, with most officials in all types of towns responding in the middle, and a much lower proportion responding either on the very pro-environmental or very anti-environmental end of the scale. Perceived Scope
Towns with a high number of operations are neither more likely to have had a bad experience (p > .10) nor to have enacted an ordinance (p > .10). Experience with Forest Management Controversies
There are significant differences in experience with forest management controversies between all types of towns (p < .05). Nontimber harvesting town officials reported the highest incidence of complaints and concerns. In comparing T.H. towns with N.O. towns, a much higher proportion of N.O. town officials answered on the low controversy end of the scale, and a much higher proportion of T.H. town officials answered on the high controversy end of the scale (p 30 cm (12") dbh were removed, 2) Diameter-limit cutting where all merchantable trees > 40 cm (16") dbh were removed, 3) Seed cut of the shelterwood method. Stands were 60 years old and harvesting occurred during the fall of 1993 and early spring 1994. Stand characteristics were measured before harvest and for two growing seasons postharvest. During the winter of 1995, a 1 ha (2.47 a) block was established near the center of each treatment area. Within each block, the location of each residual stem was mapped and diameter, height, crown area, and live crown length were measured using a survey laser. The objective of this part of the study is the long-term monitoring of residual tree growth. Results from the 1 ha mapped blocks show that the treatments have resulted in very different stand structures. Residual basal area of the shelterwood cut was double (19 m2/ha) that of the diameter limit cuts and 92 percent of the shelterwood basal area/crown area was in trees > 21 m (70') tall. Whereas in the diameter-limit harvests approximately 25 percent of the basal area was in trees between 12.3-21.3 m (41-70') tall and a higher percentage of crown area (3545%) was found in this canopy layer. There was twice as much red maple and about half as much red oak residual basal area in the diameterlimit cuts compared to the shelterwood. The shelterwood had 12 ni /ha (52 ft2/a) of residual yellow poplar compared to 3 m2/ha (14 ft2/a) in the 40 cm cut and 2 m2/ha (10 ft/a) in the 30 cm cut. The diameter-limit cuts resulted in very different residual stand structures in both species composition and tree size, which will affect future stand quality. These initial results also show that the spatial arrangement and amounts of residual crown area will have a strong influence on the amount and type of regeneration. Diameter distributions showed trees well distributed throughout the 18-53 cm classes in the shelterwood cut, however, trees were concentrated in the lower diameter classes (< 38 cm) in the diameter-limit harvests.
Effects of Timber Harvesting on NIPF Timber Resource Sustainability Joshua A. Peg and Stephen B. Jones7
Timber harvesting in Pennsylvania is occurring at a rate unprecedented since the turn of the century. Widespread concern among many forest resource professionals is that current harvesting practices are jeopardizing Pennsylvania's timber resource sustainability. Approximately 75 percent of the forested land in the commonwealth is owned by 513,000 NIPF landowners. Seventy-three recently harvested NIPF tracts across Pennsylvania were analyzed to determine impact on sustainable forestry. A Timber Harvesting Assessment Advisory Team (THAAT) was assembled as an expert panel on forest resources. The team includes representatives from industry, private consultants, state agencies, and scientists. The team developed detailed assessment protocols and is currently identifying future desired forest conditions. The team will compare projected future conditions to desired conditions and determine whether modifications to current practices are necessary to reach desired conditions.
7 Pennsylvania State University, 111 Ferguson Bldg., University Park, PA 16802; Major Professor, Forestry Extension, Pennsylvania State University, 7 Ferguson Bldg., University Park, PA 16802.
Data analysis is being done to efficiently evaluate NIPF forest resource sustainability in Pennsylvania. The THAAT is drafting sorting criteria to determine whether the current harvesting practices are jeopardizing timber resource sustainability. If practices are jeopardizing forest resource sustainability, the THAAT will recommend preferred alternatives. New York and West Virginia are conducting similar studies. Project goals will be reached by 1997.
Impacts of Conservation Reserve Program Tree Plantings on Agricultural and Personal Income and Employment in Laurens County, Georgia David J. Moorhead and Coleman W. Dangerfield Jr.8
Under the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) in Georgia, tree planting was the most significant practice. Of Georgia's 706,456 CRP acres, 91 percent were planted in pine plantations. Along with reductions in erosion and production of surplus commodities on the highly erodible lands targeted by the CRP, direct annual payments to Georgia landowners enrolled totaled $30,421,000. Laurens Country, one of the state's important agricultural counties in south central Georgia, enrolled 33,826 acres of tree plantations in the CRP program. Annual rental payments total $1,488,344 and more than $900,000 were costshared with the landowners to establish trees. While annual payments end after the 10-year contract expires, thinnings at age 15 have a projected value of $8 million and subsequent harvests will have even greater values. Projected net annual returns of soybeans and wheat commonly produced in Laurens County on sites enrolled in the CRP from 1986 to 1994 are compared to annual payments and projected values of future timber harvests from the CRP pine plantations. Changes in agricultural and personal income, and resulting employment in the county are detailed following the shift from intensive annual crop production to forestry under the CRP. Land capability classes, crop production records, and commodity prices for the county are used to base yields, production costs, and returns from these "marginal" acres.
Improving Markets for NIPF Products: Case Studies from Asia A. L. Hammett and J. L. Chamberlain9
Nonindustrial private landholders can benefit greatly from increased market opportunities for their products. This presentation describes efforts to improve the marketing of forest products from nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) lands in three Asian countries. The development of private tree farms through local industry centers in Thailand is emphasized. Work in the Philippines focused on creating local/level market information systems operated by community groups. The Nepal example presents ways to organize local knowledge of nontraditional forest products. The private tree farm development project in Thailand was one of the earliest efforts to select species and planting sites based on market needs. Agroforestry models for small landholders were designed to produce forest products for local, regional, and global markets. The model integrated community participation and
8 D. B. Warnell School of Forest Resources, The University of Georgia, P.O. Box 1209 Tifton, GA 31793; and Agricultural and Applied Economics, The University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Athens, GA 30602.
9
Department of Wood Science and Forest Products, 210 Cheatham Hall, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 20461-0323.
the private sector into Local Industry Centers that served as hubs for rural development. Policy aspects to encourage private enterprise development included standardizing products and product information. The analysis shows that standardized and equitable harvest rules also are needed for development of private tree farms. Local level market information systems have great potential to improve the abilities of Philippine farmers to market their excess production. Assessing market information needs is critical. A local situation analysis provides valuable insight into the strengths and weaknesses of existing market information systems. The analysis identifies opportunities and threats to marketing local forest products. This leads to better selection of appropriate products and services. A major component of successful local market information systems is a set of simple procedures to collect, record, disseminate, and update information. Organizing local knowledge of nontimber forest products produced by NIPFs in Nepal exposed a wealth of valuable experience. The knowledge base can provide critical information on important species and their local names, where these resources can be found, and seasonal availability of the products. Local knowledge-holders often know a great deal about how to manage, propagate, and protect nontimber forest products. Local knowledge can improve our understanding of harvesting, processing, and marketing of new and underutilized products. These may include food items, animal feed, construction materials, domestic utensils, fuel, and medicinals as well as raw materials for cottage industries.
Incorporating Ecosystem Management into Forest Stewardship Programs for Washington NIPF Landowners David M. Baumgartner, Donald P. Hanley, and Steven Gibbs
10
Nonindustrial private forests (NIPF) total nearly five million acres or 30 percent of the total timberland ownership in Washington State. A cooperative, interagency forest stewardship program was initiated in 1990 to foster active management of the state's NIPF lands for multi-resource objectives. Previously, production was the main focus. Now we emphasize forest stewardship and ecosystem management inducing wildlife conservation, scenic beauty, wetlands, and riparian areas, as well as the providing of income from timber and other forest products. We work with landowners to help them reach their objectives. Recently we developed a Forest Stewardship Planning Workbook to guide NIPF landowners in preparing stewardship management plans using an ecosystem approach. A new emphasis in Washington is coached planning, where professionals partner with landowners to develop management plans. In 1994 the Washington State Forest Stewardship program accomplished the following: Educational programs: Washington State University Cooperative Extension 1) conducted 50 forest stewardship classes on topics such as enhancing game and nongame wildlife habitat, forest riparian area management, timber sale basics, and pond and wetland enhancement; 2) conducted 10 multi-session workshops to help owners write management plans; 3) taught ecology and silviculture to over 200 loggers; and 4) distributed 16,000 copies of two editions of the Forest Stewardship Notes newsletter to NIPF landowners.
10
Respectively, Professor and Extension Forester, Dept. of Natural Resource Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6410; Professor and Extension Forester, WSU Cooperative Extension, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Box 352100, Seattle, WA 98195-2100; and State Coordinator, Forest Landowner Assistance Program, WA Dept. of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA 98504-7037.
Technical assistance: The Washington Department of Natural Resources and Natural Resource Conservation Service provided nearly 2,000 on-site assists to NIPF owners. Financial assistance: Over 800 landowners received $1.4 million in cost-sharing payments through federal cost-share incentive programs for tree planting, timber stand improvement, and several stewardship practices. Stewardship planning: 300 forest stewardship management plans were completed on 33,000 acres. Referrals to private sector: An estimated 500 referrals were made to private consultants.
Maintaining Long-term Forest Health and Productivity on NIPFs: Implications for Social Scientists A. E. Luloff and Steve Jacob" The proper maintenance of long-term forest health requires multidisciplinary input from both a broad range of traditional forest management topics and insights from other natural resource, planning, and social science perspectives. This is particularly important for nonindustrial private forests, which account for 58 percent of the nation's forested land and nearly three-quarters of all timberland east of the Great Plains. The vast majority of the 285 million acres of NIPF lands is located in the eastern United States and contains significant volumes of increasingly valuable, maturing hardwood inventory. These stands are critical to national forest products needs, providing more than 60 percent of the timber. In Pennsylvania, for example, 72 percent of commercial forestland is NIPF owned, yet it accounts for 80 percent of the timber harvested, reflecting the national pattern of cut being proportionately greater than land ownership by class. These are not the only significant issues related to forestland. Other equally salient concerns are those related to the general public, including their proximate location to these lands, the aesthetic value placed on these lands, and their heightened use for recreational activity. In this study the implications for maintenance of long-term forest health and productivity are derived from a comparative study of NIPFs and the general public conducted in Pennsylvania in 1991. Attention is given to a reconciliation of NIPF owner needs, societal demands, and the increased use of the resource by the general public.
National Assessment of Wildlife Management Planning in the Forest Stewardship Program Teresa M. Hudson and James A. Parkhurst12 Using a self-administered, mailback questionnaire sent to all state and territorial Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) Coordinators in 1994 (90.2 percent response rate), we assessed 1) variations among states
11 Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, 111 Armsby Building, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802. 12
Dept. of Fisheries & Wildlife Sciences, 100 Cheatham Hall, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0321.
in FSP design and implementation, 2) landowners' objectives relating to wildlife, and 3) the type and frequency of wildlife recommendations given to landowners in stewardship plans over the first three years of the FSP. Additionally, information was obtained about forestland ownership, FSP administration, nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) landowners' objectives, plan recommendations, and followup and certification protocols. Although FSP guidelines and standards allow individuals from various occupations to prepare stewardship plans, FSP Coordinators reported that only one or two types of professionals, usually foresters, prepared over 80 percent of stewardship plans. Among types of preparers, foresters had the greatest perceived need for help in addressing wildlife issues. Most plan preparers had sought help with basic wildlife knowledge and specific, technical management recommendations, but not with field identification, even through site inspections were an integral component of many state programs. Plan preparers relied on traditional methods (e.g., site inspection) rather than on newer technologies (e.g., computer databases) to inventory important natural/cultural resources. Although the FSP program was designed to make plans that not only meet specific landowner objectives, but also heighten landowner awareness of all types of natural/cultural resources found on their property, the latter purpose dose not appear to be occurring consistently in all states. Information describing each of the required eight resource areas was included in at least 80 percent of the stewardship plans written in only 50 percent of the states we surveyed. Information about soils, timber, and wildlife resources was included most frequently. Recommendations for general wildlife improvements were requested more often than either consumptive or nonconsumptive wildlife use objectives nationally, but consumptive use objectives were more frequent in the South and nonconsumptive use objectives were more frequent in the West. The frequency with which wildlife management recommendations appeared in stewardship plans varied among states and regions, due, in part, to the type of wildlife objectives requested by landowners, the appropriateness of a recommendation in a given region, the different focus or direction of a particular state's FSP, or possibly the type of management activities that would be eligible for SIP cost-share money. Despite differences in FSP design and implementation among states, the percentage of available NIPF land area enrolled in the FSP did not differ regionally (x = 3.4%).
Natural Resource Attitudes in Children's Magazines Angelina M. Kendra and James C. Finley13
The children of today comprise the next generation of forest landowners, managers, and decision makers; thus, we must understand what we are teaching them about natural resources. The objectives of this study were to describe the attitude distribution in children's periodicals, to develop a methodology for educators to use in analyzing similar literature, and to define a technique which can be used to critically analyze other media. The goal of this study is not to exclude any particular titles from scholastic libraries, but to enable educators to identify potential biases, and subsequently to choose additional reading materials to balance them. To begin to understand what children are reading about natural resources, this study examines the content of eight popular children's magazines. I first identified articles about wildlife and forestry; then for each paragraph, I determined the predominant natural resource attitude (e.g., utilitarian, moralistic, etc.) and the
13
Graduate Assistant, The Pennsylvania State University, 111 Ferguson Building, University Park, PA 16802; and Assistant Professor of Forest Resources, 2 Ferguson Building, University Park, PA 16802.
treatment of that attitude (e.g., support, opposition, etc.). The attitude types are adapted from the ten attitudes towards animals identified by Yale researchers in the 1970s. Identifying the treatment of each attitude type is important. For instance, if a magazine's articles tend to focus on the practical uses of wildlife and forests, we say that the magazine portrays a utilitarian attitude type. But one magazine might present information only about hunters and loggers who support this attitude type, while another contains more balanced material about resource users and those who oppose such use. Clearly, these differences are important for educators to understand when selecting reading material for young people. Preliminary qualitative analysis suggests that all of the attitudes receive essentially neutral treatment. In the few instances where a non-neutral treatment occurs, it seems to be balanced elsewhere in the same magazine. I compared the distribution of the attitudes in the magazines using the Shannon-Weaver function, an index commonly used to measure wildlife diversity. The 10 attitude types were most evenly distributed (J' = 0.819) in 321 Contact; in Puddler, the attitudes were least evenly distributed (J' = 0.253). The scientific attitude was consistently the most frequently occurring attitude, as well as the most evenly distributed across the articles in a given magazine.
NIPF Taxation: Current Status and Recommendations for Change by Charles F. Raper (compiler)14
In March of 1995, a nationwide group of largely private-sector foresters met at the National Symposium on Federal Taxation-Its Impacts on the Sustainability and Health of Nonindustrial Private Forests and Recommendations for Change. They concluded that current federal taxation of NIPF owners constitutes a significant and ongoing disincentive for any type of forestland management and stewardship, whatever the objective. Recommended changes related to 1) passive loss rules; 2) reforestation; 3) capital gains irrespective of taxpayer status, type of sale, or frequency of sales; 4) income averaging; 5) indexing of capital gains; 6) making "special use valuation" of estates compatible with the realities of forestland valuation and management; and 7) an estate tax election that would reduce the present liquidation of late succession ecosystems. Additionally, a preliminary examination was given to the possibility of a forestry-specific section in the Internal Revenue Code. No conclusions or recommendations were attempted as to its desirability or feasibility. (Copies of Symposium Proceedings may be obtained from the compiler for $10.00.)
14
School of Forestry, Auburn University, AL 36849.
Potential Influences on Private Land Conservation Program Development in Southeast Ohio Donald W. Floyd and Joseph C. Starinchak15 Managing the United States' natural resources presents today's resource professionals with a very complex set of responsibilities and constraints. One of the most alarming limitations is the ever-expanding divergence between the supply of resources and the demand for use. Trends show that as the nation's demand continues to expand, the supply shrinks. Currently about one-third of the country's land is publicly owned and managed. The remaining two-thirds are under private ownership and most of these lands are not available for recreational use. To meet the growing demands, resource managers must encourage private landowners to assist in providing the additional opportunities because the supply needs to increase. Past research concerning private land resource development focused on timber production, yet most of this research disregarded a basic issue-the landowner's objectives for owning the land. Several studies have found that wildlife and recreation were the primary reasons. In 1992 and 1993 the Ohio Cooperative Extension Service conducted a study in six counties of southeast Ohio that incorporated these objectives to identify potential influences on private landowners' attitudes, preferences, and perceptions towards developing a conservation-based enterprise (e.g., fee hunting, recreational access for birding or hiking, bed and breakfasts, campgrounds). Following Dillman's mail survey technique yielded favorable results (51 percent response rate). However, after conducting a comprehensive statistical analysis, the results indicated no significant relationships between the variables of interest. Therefore, the variables did not affect private landowners' opinions about developing a variety of conservation-based enterprises. Even though the study did not find any relationships, the reality is that opportunities for income-producing conservation activities do exist. As resource professionals, we must develop programs to inform and educate private landowners about these income opportunities to promote conservation activities and to ease the burden on public lands.
Projected Stumpage Supplies Influenced by Georgia CRP Pine Plantations Coleman W. Dangerfield Jr. and David J. Moorhead16 In Georgia 706,459 acres were enrolled in the CRP, of which 645,931 acres (91 percent) were planted in pines. These stands have been shown to grow at a rate of approximately two cords per acre per year on a 20-year rotation. Landowners have the option of producing pulpwood on a 20- to 25-year rotation, or more valuable solid wood products on longer 30- to 40-year rotations. CRP acres were enrolled in 10-year contracts from 1986-1992. Contracts begin expiring in 1995 until 2002. From 1995 to 1998 contracts will expire for over 600,000 CRP acres in Georgia. On a 20year pulpwood rotation, significant wood-flow from CRP stands should begin by year 2005. Wood-flow volume and income estimates are presented for short- and long-term management options at low, medium, and high (25, 50, 75 percent respectively)
15
Associate Professor of Forestry, SUNY, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, 1 Forestry Drive, Syracuse, NY 13210; and Wildlife Policy Assistant, The Wildlife Society, 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Bethesda, MD 20814-2197. 16
Agricultural and Applied Economics, The University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Athens, GA 30602; and D. B. Warnell School of Forest Resources, The University of Georgia, P.O. Box 1209 Tifton, GA 31793.
harvest levels of eligible CRP stands. Additionally, wood-flow volume and income estimates are presented for a fully regulated multiple product rotation on CRP pine stands.
Significance of Ohio's Forests: Nonindustrial Private Landowners Edward L. Smith17
Ohio's forests provide many benefits to its citizens. The forests are the foundation of a multibillion dollar wood industry and grow some of the finest hardwood trees in the world. The 1991 Ohio Forest Survey is an important benchmark for measuring changes in Ohio's forests. Most of Ohio's forestland is owned by private landowners. Approximately 7.2 million acres, or 93 percent of these forests, are privately owned by the forest industry or nonindustrial private landowners. The remaining 513,000 acres, or 7 percent, are owned by federal, state, or local public agencies. Within the private ownership category, 56 percent of the forestland is owned by individuals, 23 percent by farmers, 11 percent by corporations, and 3 percent by forest industry. More than 329,000 private individuals own Ohio's nonpublic forestland. More than half of them own less than 10 acres. Yet this group controls just less than 10 percent of the forestland. More than a third of the landowners hold parcels between 10 and 50 acres, and collectively control one-third of the forest acreage. Significantly, only 38,000 landowners control more than 50 percent (4 million acres) of Ohio's forests. The overall average size of ownership is 21.9 acres. The Forest Survey will be an important tool for assisting the nonindustrial private landowners to understand the importance of the forest resources in Ohio. The future of Ohio's forests depends largely upon private landowners.
Southeastern Pine Plantations and Wildlife Habitat: Impacts and Opportunities Arthur W. Allen18
Those who provide assistance to owners of nonindustrial private forestlands are increasingly expected to balance economically sustainable management with recreational, social, and environmental demands for forest resources. Changing demographics of nonindustrial private forest landowners suggest that real estate related investment, recreation, and aesthetic goals increasingly define acceptable management of forest resources. Wildlife is an essential component of managed forests providing contributions to regional biodiversity, the ecological integrity of forested ecosystems, and consumptive as well as nonconsumptive recreation. For many southeastern owners the provision of wildlife habitat is a primary concern that defines suitability of forest management alternatives. Assistance programs that are narrowly focused on timber production will have limited success in increasing wood production on lands that provide substantial nonmarket values. Over 180 million acres of land suitable for commercial production of forest products are present in the southeastern US, of which more than 90 percent are in private ownership.
17 Assistant Professor/District Specialist, Ohio State University Extension, 16714 SR 215, Caldwell, OH 43724.
18
National Biological Service, 4512 McMurry Ave., Fort Collins, CO 80525-3400.
Pine plantations are a dominant silvicultural practice in the southeastern states that will continue to perform a major role in the management of privately owned forest resources. Establishment of even-aged pine plantations, however, has been criticized due to the impoverished diversity of vegetation composition that affects the quality of wildlife habitat within managed stands and across the adjoining landscape. The impact of pine plantations on the quality and availability of habitat varies in response to the species of wildlife in question; across site-specific, local, and regional scales; and through time. Vegetation composition, age, and spatial arrangement all define the habitat value of a given stand. Plantations can be designed and managed in ways that surmount some of the internal and spatial austerity in habitat composition resulting from even-aged management. Realizing that wildlife habitat must be provided in the context of other land uses, the challenge is to integrate silvicultural practices with methods that sustain habitat values. Management guidance provided by state and federal agencies may affect the cumulative decisions made by multiple owners of forestland which ultimately could influence wildlife and environmental issues on a regional scale.
Stand-Damage Model Predicts Future Forest Conditions and Gypsy Moth Damage J. J. Colbert and Scott Enebak
19
The Stand-Damage Model (SDM) is the synthesis of work done over the past two decades by USDA Forest Service scientists and cooperators to understand the effects that gypsy moth populations have on forests. The SDM is a DOS computer simulation model based on JABOWA. The model predicts the effects of defoliation on a forest stand. Users provide a general moisture regime and temperature history for the stand and describe an initial tree inventory from a list of more than 20 species. Also, model users are provided with the means to add new species to the model. A menustructured, graphical user interface provides access to all parameters and control variables. One can view results in tabular form or as a number of graphs following each simulation. Input data and output tables and graphs can be saved for future review. Tree growth and mortality are affected differentially depending on stocking and vigor of the stand, the temperature and moisture regime, and stress factors, as well as defoliation intensity and persistence. Users can describe gypsy moth defoliation scenarios and design silvicultural prescriptions. They can then examine the results of various actions on future yields and standing crops, with and without defoliation. By repeatedly running the initial inventory under various alternative scenarios, the effects of management practices can be judged. Losses as well as yields and standing volumes are available for further analyses. Stem counts, basal areas, volumes, and quadratic mean diameters are tracked for each species. Also, the user can restrict outputs to follow just overstory trees, choosing a diameter or height as a lower limit for output. The poster demonstrates the use of the SDM by forestry students at Auburn University. Students are placed in groups of two for lab work and combined into larger groups for field work. First, classroom exercises familiarize students with the software and its capabilities. Next, they go to the field and collect stand data to initialize a set of simulations. The forests range from nearly pure bottomland hardwood to mixed hardwood-pine to pure pine stands. Student teams are asked to design a 25-year management plan for a tract of 25,000 acres. They are given general management options and defoliation scenarios for which they must
19 Mathematician, USDA-Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, 180 Canfield St., Morgantown, WV 26505; and Assistant Professor, School of Forestry, Auburn University, White Smith Hall, Auburn, AL 36849.
design cutting schedules, simulate management scenarios, and report on the relative merits of alternative treatments. While there are no right or wrong answers to the problems they face, they are asked to make a strong justification for their recommendations. Students are asked to consider aesthetic and recreational use of a portion of the land while other acres are managed for timber production. The model provides a means to assess losses under user-designed silvicultural practices and the students use cost information provided to them for population suppression using three different types of pesticides. Students are asked to compare and contrast the effects of gypsy moth damage relative to species composition, interpreting the biology of the insect and its food preferences. Feeding preference has a strong effect on species-specific defoliation intensity. Their final reports include stand data (growth, losses, and residual standing crop volumes, basal area distributions, and stem counts) and management prescriptions, as well as values and costs. The SDM will be demonstrated on a notebook PC. The program and three documents will be made available to anyone that visits the poster/demonstration. The documents are: a Users' Guide (with installation diskette), description of the SDM (a biological basis and reference document), and guide to the SDM interface management system (a complete description of the user-interface system and its code base). Other models of gypsy moth population dynamics and phenology will be available for demonstrations. Models and related information are available at URL: http//barney.fsl.wvnet.edu/gypymth.
Teaching Forest Stewardship to Urban Youth Shoma R. Broussard and Stephen B. Jones20
Nonindustrial private forests (NIPFs) are a critical component of Pennsylvania's landscape, even in urbanizing areas. If these forests that support a $4.5 billion forest products industry and contribute to the regional quality of life are to be sustained, we must make all citizens, young and old, aware of the realities of forests and forestry. The 77.6 percent of Americans who live in metropolitan areas have a profound influence on NIPF forest policy, thus creating a need for a citizenry knowledgeable about forestry. The research project, examining whether and to what extent classroom activities and a visit to a Forest Stewardship Demonstration Area effect changes in urban and suburban youths' knowledge and attitudes toward sustainable forestry, will be conducted by Penn State's School of Forest Resources. By bringing forestry to a local level where complex issues surrounding NIPF timber harvesting can be examined objectively, the researchers aim to make students more aware that "working" forests are essential elements of the urbanizing landscape. By breaking down the components that make up forests-wildlife, forest products, water, soil, aesthetic value-the students will have a baseline knowledge they need to make future decisions about policies surrounding the use and management of both public and private forests. The demonstration site to be used as an outdoor classroom is located at French Creek State Park near Philadelphia. Six two-acre blocks representing silvicultural treatments from no harvest, through four intermediate treatments, to a clearcut, comprise the demonstration. The target audience is 10 seventh- and eighth-grade science classes from schools in Reading and Philadelphia. The project will proceed in stages over its duration: 1) assessing youths' pre-existing knowledge, attitudes, and values about forest management; 2) determining the degree to which we can effect shifts in suburban
20
Graduate Assistant, The Pennsylvania State University, 07 Ferguson Building, University Park, PA 16802; and Associate Professor and Assistant Director of Extension, Forest Resources, 07 Ferguson Building, University Park, PA 16802.
and inner-city youths' knowledge, attitudes, and values about forest management; 3) examining differences among the two demographic classes; 4) developing, testing, and refining a model (or models if the two broad groups warrant different approaches) for educating these two groups of young people about the importance of sustainable forestry in urbanizing environments; and 5) providing in-service training and program materials to other youth educators in Pennsylvania. The project is slated to begin in May of 1996.
Using Low Power Radio to Communicate Forestry Messages A. Scott Reed and Michael C. Bondi21
Formulation of effective public policies relating to forests depends upon informed citizens and leaders. The application of low power radio (LPR) technology, while commonly used to broadcast weather, safety, and tourist information, has not before been applied to educate travelers about forests as they pass through highly visible forest settings. A network of LPR stations broadcasting messages within selected Oregon travel corridors relies upon more than 60 brief scripts that are designed to be educational, entertaining, and family oriented. More than 130,000 vehicles annually tune in to these broadcasts according to a recent evaluation. Survey respondents included roadside listeners and focus group participants, who offered useful insights about the content and marketing of such a project. More than half of the listeners had some college education and two-thirds were male. Practical information was learned about LPR equipment, station management, signage, message format, and evaluation challenges.
Virginia NIPF Landowner Surveys, 1991 and 1994 Sandra S. Hodge and Thomas W. Birch22
This poster presents some highlights from the 1991 Virginia NIPF Owner Survey conducted by Sandra Hodge and the Virginia portion of the 1994 Private Forest Landowners of the US Survey conducted by Thomas Birch. The 1991 Virginia NIPF Owner Survey
In April of 1991, a mail survey funded by the Virginia Department of Forestry was sent to 1,306 randomly chosen persons, with both in-state and out-of-state addresses, who were assumed to own forested land in Virginia. Two counties from each geographical region in the state, the Coastal Plain, the Piedmont, and the Mountains, were randomly selected. Within each NIPF landowner names were drawn using an interval sampling method. Six hundred fourteen NIPF owners responded, for a response rate of 52 percent. Five hundred thirty-one of the questionnaires provided useable data. The sampling error was 4.5 percent. A questionnaire was designed to elicit responses in the following areas: sociodemographic characteristics, beliefs and attitudes about natural resources in general and forest resources in particular, knowledge about
21
Associate Dean and Extension Forestry Agent, respectively, College of Forestry, Oregon State University, Peavy hall, Corvallis, OR 97331. 22 Adjunct Assistant Professor of Forestry, Department of Forestry, Virginia Tech, c/o 2764 Brown's Gap Tnpk., Charlottesville, VA 22901; Senior Resource Analyst, US Forest Service, Northeast Forest Experiment Station, 5 Radnor Corporate Center, 100 Matonsford Rd., Suite 200, Radnor, PA.
forestry and forest management, and behaviors involving different aspects of forest management practices such as harvesting practices. 1994 Private Forest Landowners of the US Survey
This study was conducted by the Forest Inventory and Analysis Project of the USDA Forest Service in cooperation with the National Association of State Foresters and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service in support of the Forest Stewardship Program of the USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry. The questionnaires for the 1994 study were mailed to 23,334 owners of 28,194 privately-owned forested, sample plots. Sample plot locations were from the National Resources Inventory (NRI plots) or Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) plots. There were responses from 11,742 ownerships that own 15,697 of these sample plots. The questionnaire covered the following areas: amount of land and reasons for ownership, forest management practices including harvesting and professional assistance, demographics, and expected benefits. Highlights from the Surveys
Highlights were displayed in three ways: separate data from the 1991 Hodge survey, separate data from the 1994 Birch survey, and comparison of several variables from both surveys. The variables highlighted individually from the 1991 Hodge survey included: background of NIPF owners, education levels, occupation, income, and selected attitudes and beliefs about forestry and natural resources. Those highlighted individually from the 1994 Birch survey were length of ownership and expected benefits. Those displayed as a comparison between the two surveys were age of NIPF owner, parcel size, and harvesting decisions.
Concurrent Session Discussions Monday 4:30 - 5:00 p.m. Tuesday 2:00 - 2:30 p.m. At the end of each day, discussions were held among participants in each of the three breakout rooms. The main purpose was to identify research needs related to the subjects that were presented in each concurrent session. These questions were discussed: 1. What are the main points that you learned in this Concurrent Session? 2a. What additional information would you like to have to better evaluate current and proposed policies and programs regarding the subjects covered in this Concurrent Session? and 2b. How might you get this additional information? Below are summaries of these discussions. Readers should refer to responses under questions 2a and 2b for possible research ideas.
Education 1. What are the main points that you learned in this Concurrent Session?
• Fine-tune results continually. • There are other agencies besides extension that do education. • Combining lectures and field tours facilitated landowner knowledge and changed attitudes regarding clearcutting. • Multi-partnership/interagency efforts are still being used. Perspectives on demonstration areas were reviewed that were different than mine.
• Value of putting ownerships together for effectiveness. • Funding is important to do education in an effective way. • Different approaches in different parts of the country to same effort. • Extension programs on policy issues have drawn several criticisms in the press and from legislators although programs were factual and well planned.
• Comparisons of different techniques in using volunteers. • Black forestland ownership has two risks: 1) lack of a will hinders estate management, 2) overcutting. • Education is an important tool. • A lot of innovations were shown. • Effective communication essential. • Need support from all diverse interests. • Be more careful about how to pick tools. • Redefine delivery programs. • Need to improve foresters to do extension programs. • Economic issues not addressed. • Uniqueness/challenge in specific geographic areas, e.g., litigation by minorities. • Wide range of delivery options/mechanisms. • Question regarding extension efforts effectiveness, e.g., % reached, which %O. • Appreciation of Master Woodland Owners approach. • Appreciation of demonstration approach. • Impact of $ limitations. • Consequence of loss of connection between extension agent and landowner based upon retirements and absentee landowners.
• All presentations came from Extension. Extension doing a decent job, but most programs being raked up by "choir." Basically, new targets should be media and nonowners. • Media utilization-commercials. • Regional woodland owner associations can reach more people directly. Need more emphasis on land owner associations. • Need SAF joint meeting with woodland owner associations at the state level. • More emphasis on youth-children part of general public, not necessarily NIPF owners. They can be vehicles for more appreciation of importance of forest by general public. • Ways other states implement forest management educational programming targeted toward NIPFs. • Specifics of Oregon's MWM Program. • Ad valorem taxation-complexity of policy and regulation formation. • $10,000 to train one FI'B. • Only 46% of MWM clients comfortable making decisions after help from MWM. • Need to carefully recruit MWM and carefully select their clients. • Need to target educational messages to subgroups of NIPF owners. • Education is underfunded. • The task is overwhelming. • We are dealing with a clientele that encompasses the full range of gender, race, age, education, etc., with a set of professionals that is trained in a narrow discipline and represents an even narrower cultural cross-section. • Extension education is an important tool. It is showing innovations to accomplish difficult task of reaching NIPFs. There is an inequitable distribution of resources to accomplish this mission. • There are one helluva lot of NIPF owners and we are not doing a very good job of reaching them. • We're preaching to the choir, sometimes to the congregation, but only very rarely to church members who don't come to church, and not at all to the rest of the public. • There are a number of methods that have enjoyed some success and which do seem to work. • Reaffirmed the importance of personal contact and field sessions. • There are many good program ideas and relevant data relating to NIPFs, but one of the most crucial set of questions is economics, and others are not being well addressed. • Important to have support from diverse interests (landowners, legislative, academic, agency). • Effective communication a must. • Flexibility and understanding of issues important. • TV spot marketing to NIPFs. • Number of NIPFs and general public. • Info/education needs of NIPFs and general public. • Demonstration impacts and tech. support seem able to change attitudes. • Need for NIPF involvement in education. • Landowners involved in design of education. • Need for new techniques to reach NIPF landowners (demonstrations expanded, TV, World Wide Web). • Vast majority of landowners are not seeking assistance. • Still not teaching communication/partnership skills at universities-work with landowner disciplines still segregated. • Supporting forest organizations. • Think of landowners as assets. • Extension attitudes toward and emphasis on NIPFs certainly varies from state to state. Too bad the inactive or disinterested states aren't given marching orders to get with it! • We can't reach all landowners with just university specialists. • Tools to address this issue, e.g., Master Woodlands. • Demonstration model possibilities.
• Tie into MWM program with coached planning. • Education of NIPFs is critical, but so is that of students. • Education programs can be very effective, but only for willing students. • Extension may be perceived as the only entity that provides education programs in forestry. • Master Woodland Project extends reach of existing Extension faculty. • The value of lectures plus demonstrations versus lectures alone in influencing NIPF landowners. Helpful in program planning. • Multi-partnership (interagency) efforts are still resisted. • We are not looking beyond our own agencies for information. • Academia must seek out private and other public foresters in research needs in order to make research meaningful. • Many different methods of training landowners are needed because individuals are receptive to different methods. • Government is trying to educate NIPFs and the general public. Most effort is going to those already involved. No one has a good way to get to those people that have little or no interest in good forest management.
• There was no discussion/presentation on education going on by private woodland owner organizations. • Several educational approaches do meet the needs of NIPF landowners; however, so few are reached that it has little • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • •
impact upon the forest resources. Types of education available to promote better stewardship in NIPF. Tours and demonstrations important tools. Extension Service main program designer. There is a definite need to educate people. There is someone out there that is trying to educate people. Are they catching the right ones? The number of private landowners isn't stable; it is hard to get information from them. Volunteers are needed. The MWM project appears to be a wonderful way of increasing manpower while also incorporating the community and other woodland owners. I wonder why more states haven't developed a similar program. Information needs to be spread among NIPF landowners. Involve the NIPF landowner. There's still a lot to be done. Spread info to a greater audience (school system, church groups, civic groups). When we're all concerned about forested land and have an understanding of forest management, then we can begin to develop a greater vision for the forests of America-private and public. The value of demonstration forests and tours to change attitudes. Unique use of demonstration areas. MWM and their role in Oregon's Forest Extension. Other programs available in other states. How to involve NIPFs in managing their forestland. A major problem is managing private landowners forestlands to maximize the health and productivity of their forests. Use of community resources (landowners) as intermediaries with landowners in an area to implement professional management plans. Carbon sequestration is a noble goal. Do we get it with current management goals or do we need to have crossboundary management? Cross-boundary management. Demonstration plots. Master Woodland Managers Communicating good forest management might best be done by woodland owners themselves. Woodland owners themselves must be the organizing force; organization (cooperatives) cannot be pushed, top-down style. We are woefully behind in our efforts to reach NIPF landowners. Existing education efforts are reaching too few or restricted diversity of NIPF owners, even though demand appears high.
• NIPF landowners must be reached, relative to getting the good land stewardship educational message out. 59% of US timberland is owned by NIPF owners. 49% of US timber harvest is on NIPF acreage. Only 5% of NIPF owners have management plans. • Forestry (Extension) education needs to be more adequately funded. • Educational needs are increasing. • Diversity of methods available. • Issues that dominate discussion among NIPF owners in the USA are the same as preoccupy us in Canada-taxes, inadequate woodlot management, need for education, importance of volunteer effort. • Diversity of methods of delivery. • More information on details of MWM program and accomplishments. • Value of demonstration plots. • Learned about problems in minority areas, something which I had never thought about. • Since we take groups around our land, I was interested to know that there was a difference in affecting attitudes regarding cutting trees vs clearcutting. • We are starting a Master Woodland Steward Program in Wisconsin, so got good ideas from that talk. • Cross-boundary management-what it is, benefits. • MWM Program in Oregon-taking the Tree Farm Program one or two steps further. • Our education efforts are only as strong as our funding/administrative support. • We've got to reach more people efficiently. • There's always a fresh (better or different) approach that can work. • NIPF landowners aren't predictable or homogeneous. • That we have opportunities working within Extension at both 1892 and 1860 universities that we aren't getting to due to lack of time, leadership, and in some cases expertise to carry out this program. 2a. What additional information would you like to have to better evaluate current and proposed policies and programs regarding the subjects covered in this Concurrent Session? 2b. How you might get this additional information?
(Note: Responses to question 2b are indented under responses to question 2a.J
• What type of technical assistance is best? What are the opportunities for funding technical assistance. Form research coalitions-not one agency.
• Reinvent process-listen to NIPFs. Frustration with FS setting NIPF agenda. More info on Master • • • • • • •
Woodlands Project. Need better impact evaluations of programs, e.g., clearinghouse entity. Web; clearinghouse More info on Oregon's basic forestry course. More info on MWM operational costs. More info on benefits (value of) MWM program. Effectiveness of training landowners to manage their own lands vs training them to purchase expertise elsewhere. More data on long-term effects of Coverts and woodland owner programs. More info on Georgia ad valorem struggle. Contact Univ. GA Coop Ext. Problem/situations/strategies to avoid in developing a MWM program. Case studies from the 13 other states with MWM programs. Call Scott. Systematic comparisons among public policy options to address NIPF needs. Specifically, demographics of recipients of cost-share payments. Are cost-share programs another effort aimed at the already privileged class? Research project/$ Shared vision of NIPF forests for the US-maybe it will flow from the Congress. The Congress? How about another Circle of Stewards (Nebraska City)? NIPF data, info, and motivations are still not clearly understood. We are going incrementally on this.
• Is there a recognition in high policy circles and political institutions that this is a problem? From recognition, can we look for the support $ and others to address the situation? States, etc., need to periodically meet or talk and share results-how best to do this? • Ways to reach NIPFs not in the "choir." • No additional information, but a procedure which was more oriented around the active involvement of NIPFs. Once again we are being told what to do and what's important-but who's listening to the NIPFs here? Restructure the symposium to place NIPFs as thinking, breathing individuals at the forefront of the program. Hence, better involve them so the experts can learn along with NIPFs. • What are the attitudes/thoughts from various parties being affected. Historical context of current/past policies/programs. Reason for change. Public hearings; workshops; individual contact; media; electronic outreach (Internet). • More info on potential of technology for educ. opportunity-Internet/WWWeb. • What avenues would work for landowners? What are the roles of federal, state, local organizations? Are they changing? How well do educational experiences correlate with applied resource management? Extending info through communities-private funding sources; sustainable landscape management could lead; breaking down barriers-people are willing to commit resources. • More research on what works and what doesn't in education and how to overcome barriers that keep the majority of NIPFs from managing their land. Through prodding state universities. • Infrastructure of successful programs, e.g., how many extension specialists/county agents working on forestry issues; how did the state recognize the importance of these programs. Contact the speakers and get referrals. • Tie Oregon Service Foresters into Extension in Oregon MWM Program. Networking; research/library. • Why aren't courses mandatory for forestry and resource management students that teach them communi cation skills, conflict resolution skills, etc. and that provide experiential learning working with NIPFs before graduation? If the group of students who will be future foresters don't have these skills, how can we expect them to reach and work with NIPFs either on an individual basis or multiparcel management? • What is the "psychology" behind a landowner's desire to obtain and use information? Need a much better understanding of what drives social opinions/needs; need to consider experience of other unrelated fields; how have other "agents of change" worked? • What do the participants/recipients of these programs think of now? By Extension doing customer surveys. • What specific types of technical assistance is best? What are alternative funding methods to finance NIPF technical assistance? How can we obtain a goal of 1 forester/25,000 acres of NIPF acres to insure a forester is available to assist all landowners. Form coalitions of agencies into research groups for crop research. Include Congressional aids, legislative aids, and associations of states • Any plans that have reached the nonmanaging NIPF owners and/or the general public. • Need cost-benefit analysis-does the result justify the expenditure? Better evaluations. • Passing to next generation. Promotion by media. • Longer term follow-up on what landowner's feelings are now. • How states that don't have MWM can have one. Through my extension service. • Some current legislation on exactly what the laws are for private landowners and what they can do with their land (what restrictions they have imposed upon them). Congressman or woman.
• I live in VA and work for the state. Your data indicated there was a Master's program in this state there is not. The idea has merit; however, there are risks in this approach I did not hear discussed. I suggest research into the risks involved in having partially trained volunteers giving management advice that may be poor or incomplete. It could be very costly to the customer! • Value of cross-boundary management as compared to overall management of individual tracts by service foresters or the equivalent. Needs to be examined by an independent researcher who has field experience. • More examples, how they work (what did and what didn't). If these are so successful, how do you sustain (staff) these projects? How to utilize these people (MWM?). • The explicit mechanics of cross-boundary management of NIPF land has yet to be explored. What are the trade-offs for the landowner-what does he/she give up in order to receive what tangible benefits? What are the characteristics of cross-boundary management and which would be attractive to NIPF landowners? University research into NIPF marketing, economics of scale in timber management operations. • How to identify NIPF "groups" that have specific interests/needs but are not now aware of issues/opportunities. • Consolidated research highlights related to all aspects of NIPF ownership-attitudes, etc. Via effective networking. • More thorough studies comparing effectiveness of educational programs vs cost-sharing in encouraging management. • More definitive presentations-too general. More basic cost information where available. Up to the speakers-give better guidelines to presenters. • Would like to hear more from owners on their educational needs-not what foresters think they need. Need more on education for nontimber benefits to landowners. Need more input from those not part of the "choir." The social aspects of training foresters and master woodland owners needs to be explored. • How much effort is planned to educate owners to be their own foresters and how much on educating them to seek professionals? • Would like to know more about the basic woodland owners' course in Oregon. They could publish what they do and make it available to others-or have they? • A better cost analysis of MWM. Does cost justify the benefits? • Mass media examples of program delivery. Industry-Extension partnerships that work. Sustainability approaches. E-mail; proceedings. • A strategic plan for education of NIPFs. Get a group of extension specialists and their audiences to develop a strategic plan. Regulation and Conservation Easements
(Note: These two concurrent sessions were combined in the discussion period. Where possible, the participant comments are separated below under either Regulation or Conservation Easements. Where separation was not possible, the participant comments are shown under the heading Regulation and Conservation Easements.]. 1. What are the main points that you learned in this Concurrent Session?
Regulation
• Regulations are growing; so is fear of regulations. Regulations can be counter-productive • Most important factors in NIPF response to regulations: regulatory uncertainty, financial impact, control over management decisions. Avoid more regulations by avoiding very visible, negative controversy peer pressure? • Appears that we are headed toward more regulations vs voluntary approaches. Adoption of local (country/town) regulations will make management much more difficult.
• Local regulation is growing. Regulation can be counter to environmental goals. Regulation is not popular with NIPF landowners. • Different policies in different states. States embarking on new rules should be better informed on what works or doesn't work in others to avoid repeating counter-productive rules. • Where regulations will be coming from was interesting (Ellefson). Devolution leads to complex local ordinances (Floyd). Uncertainty of timber prices (often from devolution) causes early liquidation. Important to understand NIPF values and issues and find a mechanism to represent them appropriately during devolution • Regulation proliferation causing concern to long-term future. Taxes are also an overriding concern. • That there are a lot of unanswered problems with regards to regulation of forestry-whether statewide or locally. • Bad and getting worse. No compensation today. • More rather than fewer regulations are likely. • Trend toward practical, effective regulation. Some problem areas need to be addressed to allow costeffective management while protecting public goals. • Regulatory programs are lowest in effectiveness. • Variability of NIPF landowner views and interests. Complex mixture of state, local and federal regulations. In general, support by industry for regulation. • Fear of regulation still strong. Need new tools. • NIPF landowners are still not consulted at the same depth as federal, state foresters, and operators about how regulation impacts NIPF owner. • In general there is a perception that current regulation is sufficient or sometimes excessive but there is a fear that there will be more rather than less in the future. • The variety in state regulation of NIPF. The direction that future regulation is tending. • Increased regulation laws and uncertainty increase forest harvest. Rules must be flexible. • Regulation (or the fear of impending) can drive landowners to cut out and get out. Devolution by central authority can create complex, misguided local regulation. • That there is hope out of the path of the regulation juggernaut by developing win-win compromises as was done in Washington. History. Future certainty proposal. Possible local mushrooming. Conservation Easements • Conservation easements can be a good tool, voluntary, but they aren't protected from changing regulations and- may have problems over generations. Conservation contract is interesting concept. Need to include all landowners in pushing NIPF policy. Taxation design could be really important. • Potential of easement as tool to reduce financial impact underused-needs to be better understood by landowners. • Giving up rights for perpetuity is a long time. • Easements can help. • This was mostly new information to me. From the presentations it seems conservation easements are a potentially powerful tool to ensure that future owners of a tract abide by the present owners' intentions and objectives for holding the land. It also seems like the tool is slippery and imprecise when put to the test. Maintaining adequate funding for trusts also seems a potential problem. • Conservation easements provide a way to give long-term sustainability and overcome some taxes. • That conservation easements have the potential to perpetually protect forests and their management but have limits which may dissuade landowners from participating. • What an easement is. How they are handled. • A useful tool for achieving long-term management and meeting some short-term needs. • Definition/applicability/details of conservation easements. • Long-term monitoring is required and could be a problem. • Some of the details of conservation easements. • With conservation easements an appraisal of the easement is done, i.e. a reduction of value. That in many areas easements have no effect on property taxes-it's strictly estate.
• Conservation easements provide some interesting tax benefits. In many ways they raise many more questions than answers. • What a conservation easement is. How they affect the landowner. Got a feel for their value to the general public in terms of protecting special areas. • Was not familiar with them. Seems like an interesting "tool." Seems a shame to have to "tie land up forever" to avoid taxes "today." Would rather see the tax laws changed. • Estate taxes are a major concern for NIPF landowners. Conservation easements can mitigate estate taxes. Conservation "contracts" are one method for state governments to protect family owned forests and ease the regulation burden. • Basics of conservation easements. • How much has to be done as to site specific properties. • Possibilities for encouraging NIPF landowners to manage their forests as opposed to regarding them as "Green Banks." These concepts are not being used in AR and may hold opportunities for the future. • Details about organizations charged with monitoring conservation easements. • Conservation easements are a way of preserving values but are a long-term obligation. Regulation and Conservation Easements • Wide diversity in private forestland policy approaches and development (e.g., complexity) throughout the US. There is growing understanding that regulatory approach has its limits in terns of effectiveness and costs, and that there is growing interest and development of nonregulatory policy approaches (e.g., easements). • Taxes are the major concern of NIPFs. Taxes and other legislation can act against good forest practices and stewardship of NIPFs. 2a. What additional information would you like to have to better evaluate current and proposed policies and programs regarding the subjects covered in this Concurrent Session? 2b. How you might get this additional information?
(Note: Responses to question 2b are indented under responses to question 2a.]
Regulation • Need plain language reporting. More information on relative effectiveness of voluntary programs vs regulatory programs and cost (to be able to push voluntary). Monitor regulations. How to "organize" landowners for policy input. • Need to encourage tax incentives as a tool to stimulate good management and to compensate landowners for the social benefits/values that they provide. Would tax incentive be more cost-effective than regulatory enforcement? Assess costs associated with regulatory programs currently in place and compare to loss of tax revenue in states that have tax benefits for good management. • A state-by-state summary of forestry regulations impacting NIPF landowners. Monitoring of these regulations over time to see if they achieve goals. Publish articles in NWOA magazine or Tree Farmer network or through state forestry services. • Need to understand NIPF values and desires and find a mechanism to represent them appropriately during devolution. What level of incentives (taxes, etc.) is required to prevent additional regulation. Research projects from academic outlets. • T&E impacts on NIPF harvesting. Clean water impacts in states with mandatory BMPs vs voluntary BMPs in South. • Plain language report on what we have in regulations and what is coming. Need regulations newsletter. Support NWOA and keep this as a regular part of the publication. • How can regulations and educational programs be symbiotic? • More research on voluntary programs vs regulation, education vs regulation, essentially. Can we empower people to do it without forcing them? Study/compare regulation vs voluntary. • What outcomes do they work toward? What costs to general public occur if these regulations are not enforced (water quality = removal of sediment, flooding...).
Study effectiveness of regulations to meet desired outcomes. Determine benefits from outcomes.
• How to make sure a "floor" of good management is established with voluntary or incentive approaches. Talk to some presenters.
• Long-term affects. Data on proven results-not speculative results, especially environmental and property rights • There isn't a clear consensus of what rules work and what is "excessive." • Economic impact of state and federal regulation. Research projects from academic outlets.
• How can we reach those landowners (and practicing professionals) whose poor resource stewardship is leading to regulation? Couldn't regulation be prevented if land stewardship norm was good? Conservation Easements • More information on procedures and costs needed for appraisal for easements. Region (state-local) information on tax structure, conservation easement requirements. More information on property taxationhow to develop incentive structure. • More information on estate planning. Who would pay for legal costs if they were challenged? Is this functionally much more than a tax shelter? Tomorrow's session. • Summary information on conservation easements. Publish articles in NWOA magazine or Tree Farmer network or through state forestry services. • Overview of easements in the South. Marketing tools. Potential impact on industry. Compile database of land trust organizations. Provide grants (i.e. McArthur, Rockefeller). • Comparison with conservation easement programs in other states, particularly states in the listener's region.. Each state's program seems unique-there must be some experiments going on. Long-term results of this device. Future programs; directed queries. • Need information on how these are treated in each state. Have a session in state woodland owners' annual meeting on how this works in Indiana. • Are conservation easements really voluntary? I think they are only voluntary once. • Property taxes need to be reduced. Is long-term compliance achievable? Study tax issues and negotiate with state/local tax authorities. • Conservation easements in other states/regions Dedicated symposium. • Availability to landowners of further economic incentives for sustainable forest management-certifica tion by Smart Wood Program. Dialogue between land trusts and certification organizations for education of landowners/strategy development. • More information on easements. Research and conference material. • What are the long-term impacts or procedures designed to measure conservation easements? What are second generation reactions? Examine traditional trust experience as gained by trust institutions. • What goes into an easement appraisal? Who does transaction? What do they cost the NIPF? Talk to the speakers. • Much more information regarding tax and estate planning. • More information on how to value conservation easements. • How to place a value on public values, such as clean air, water, scenic vistas. • Tax ramifications, catastrophic emergency. • Publication and actual policy statements used by states actively involved with conservation easements. Evaluate their effectiveness and the restrictions being employed on private lands. Contact states where conservation easements are being practiced.
• With conservation easements, do market values for the parts exceed the whole in subsequent appraisal before the IRS for estate purposes? How do you resolve differences between the landowner and the conservation agency over forest management? • I would like to see a more detailed view of how and why the values of easements were made and their consequences. We need to have the views of other professionals like industry, loggers, conservationists, wildlife biologists, fisheries, hydrologists, etc. to better understand this issue. More information from speakers and mini round tables/field sessions. Regulation and Conservation Easements • Effective education programs-how do we convey some of this information to landowners and encourage the use of that information to change behavior (ideally, increase forest management and environmental protection simultaneously)? Look at social science/education information. There's a lot out there already. Educate ourselves on how to effectively share a message. • How are these likely to change with current changes in government (i.e. less government, lower taxes)? • I would like to know the relevance and status of both topics in Ohio. Speak to professionals in that state. International Forestry
1. What are the main points that you learned in this Concurrent Session?
• Use of agroforestry; rapid appraisal; other techniques in forestry situations in other countries; problem with unstable, unsupportive political systems.
• Culture of participants is important in achieving success. NIPF owners worldwide face the same suite of problems/opportunities.
• Conditions required for people-oriented or nonindustrial private forestry to take place. Building foundation for sustainable development. Forestry accounting as a tool in assessing the sustainability of NIPFs.
• We need more on the lessons learned from overseas NIPF experiences. • Exposure to rapid rural appraisal technique. • It has been my observation that among subsistence farmers in underdeveloped countries, their principal interest is in producing food crops to sustain their lives. They are interested in trees in so far as trees contribute to the farm enterprise by renovating the soil, supplying fodder for livestock, and in other ways. I wish that these forests had been given attention, but perhaps that's not considered important. • None of the six presentations analyzed the forest situation through the eyeballs of the owner of a NIPF. The main point that I learned, therefore, is that such analysis is still considered irrelevant. I think that is a big mistake in any country, whether the US, Brazil, Colombia, the Philippines, or Finland. • Economic profitability is an essential requirement for sustainable and successful forest management. To get forest owners to intensify the management of their forests, it is important to get them involved in the planning process. • That the main problems of NIPF are quite the same all over the world. Of course there are differences between undeveloped and developed countries, but the main goal is how to make NIPF profitable? Also profitability is a different issue in different countries. • Situations from Brazil, Philippines, and Colombia are similar. 2a. What additional information would you like to have to better evaluate current and proposed policies and programs regarding the subjects covered in this Concurrent Session? 2b. How you might get this additional information?
(Note: Responses to question 2b are indented under responses to question 2a.
• What legal structures/incentives are; what land use rights people have; needs of people in areas where forestry projects are proposed/developed. Consult with individual speakers; newspapers of countries; US AID projects, etc. • More details concerning specific programs.
Management of constraints (social, political, economic, ecological) without being posed as deterrents to the attainment of sustainable development. Through research, if still needed. • Balancing development and conservation-what's the appropriate ratio? Through aggressive extension works dictated by the need for participatory development. • Social and environmental accounting be integrated into the total forestry accounting system. Develop an efficient "interlink" among the various sectors of the society on issues related to NIPF. • Why do people plant trees and after harvest? How to do a better job of marketing NIPF products? How do we get more people to work on problems related to utilization and marketing without knowing what the farmers need from trees-why they might plant trees? NO and government programs should share more about their experiences. NIPF communications, tree farm visitations, and educational programs might offer this. • What effects do government policies and social changes in other countries have on US markets? What are the trends in other countries that are/will have an effect on US markets? Feature articles in Journal of Forestry are a good means to get info specific to forestry, but the general media is an important source. Using the general news about world events means you have to apply/synthesize the news yourself. • I would like more information on how subsistence farmers can make use of trees in the farm enterprise. I think that the programs directed at them should find out first how trees can help the farm enterprise in growing food. The subject discussed above can be an important part of programs to help farmers to use trees. That use by them would have the environmental effects of trees that are considered desirable. • Size of areas affected by projects and programs discussed. Lessons from US for international programs. Implications of green certification programs in developing countries' NIPFs. Implications of US and other markets for forest products for NIPFs in other countries. NIPFs role in providing environmental goods and services to urban areas. Conflicts between NIPFs and the provision of such goods and services. • This was just some random cases-though a good selection; difficult to get the overall picture on the issues in different countries and continents. Would require our own symposium on this theme. • Compiling NIPF policies around the world, especially with regards to privatization of forest in countries like Russia, Mexico, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Latin America. Have to wait for World Bank/FAO/CZFOR research. Landowner Characteristics
1. What are the main points that you learned in this Concurrent Session? • In LA, the higher the income the more they use SIP; the smaller the acreage the more they use SIP. Protecting habitat is most important to landowners. Liability of contract loggers may fall on landowners. • We have some clues about what techniques work in persuading landowners to adopt stewardship plans and practices, but few definitive answers. There are many factors that impede adoption of plans and practices on NIPF lands-fragmentation, change in ownership, etc. • Very broad range of landowner types/characteristics. Growth of urban/educated landowners. Growth of apparent interest in noncommodity values of forests. Increase in forest fragmentation/subdivision of forestland. • Owners are different. Land being divided into smaller acreages. NIPFs influenced by TV, newspapers. • General information on NIPF landowners most of which does not adequately answer the question-how do we work with landowners to get results? • Lots of folks doing good work to categorize NIPF owners. Some concern that response rates too low (i.e. 30%, 40%). Acknowledge a "trend theme" for similarities region to region. • So much of what we are accepting as reliable data about NIPF owners is based on flawed or poor survey methodology and response-we really can't make the statements being made and probably aren't
developing a true profile of NIPFs. Even given that, we have a very diverse and nontraditional persona out there.
• Myriad of things affect landowners' decisions. Difficult to determine what these are; by and large we still don't know the right questions to ask. Not much known on human characteristics (such as skepticism, optimism, pessimism, fear, hope) on people's decisions. Landowners more affected by community perceptions than I thought.
• Landowner preferences; landowner statistics. • The challenge to reach NIPF landowners remains significant. We need to better understand NIPF land • • • • • •
• • • •
owners in my areas, identify barriers, and then focus message/media. Better understanding of landowners-their ownership characteristics and opinions, and methods of attempting to predict their behavior/choices, and means of effectively reaching them. Focused on believers; what about the others? Need better marketing of forestry message. Knowledge increases services. Diverse NIPF population-how to service them? Use targeted approaches to providing services. Knowing who the client is, is very important in adequately providing NIPFs service. NIPF needs and characteristics should drive our efforts. We know who the choir is and how to reach them. How can NIPF owners on the outside be reached? The longer someone owns land and hasn't practiced forest management, the harder it is to convert them to active management planning. That Steve Broderick gives the most outstanding presentations that are based on the most up-to-date relevant research which can be put into practice! Knowledge about landowner characteristics can increase the effectiveness of public/private landowner education programs. Funding is needed by public education people to target NIPFs to meet their needs as determined by the research. We need to educate professional foresters on employer/employee legal relationships. Use professionals to handle their areas of expertise. Forest management is a complex business-not to be taken lightly. The values of a forester and forestry is sometimes underestimated. Broderick's motivation factors. Application of Stewardship programs to NIPFs. More on NIPF characteristics. Reinforced value of using a consulting forester.
2a. What additional information would you like to have to better evaluate current and proposed policies and programs regarding the subjects covered in this Concurrent Session? 2b. How you might get this additional information?
[Note: Responses to question 2b are indented under responses to question 2a.]
• Back up surveys with the same owners to determine if there is consistency. Why do landowners mostly plant trees, but • •
• • • •
show highest priority is to protect and enhance wildlife habitat? Obtain better cost/benefit info to increase funding for NIPF programs. Find alternative funding sources for NIPF assistance. How does length (time) of ownership affect landowners' attitude about stewardship/management? I see lots of owners whose ownership is purely "incidental" to milking cows, hunting deer, etc. They don't even think about timber, make no deliberate decision to do (or not do) anything. Has this been looked at? I would like to have a clearer understanding of how increased forestry knowledge may affect interest in active management and pursuit of economic benefits. How to reach urban/nontraditional landowner with forest resource and management information. Research. Do they say what is socially correct or what they really mean? Do they do what they say? What about the nonresponders? Additional studies? Better techniques? Study history, its real. We still lack an understanding of what motivates NIPF landowners to participate in management activities. Need less survey data and more psycho-social research. Would like to see data (survey) work done county or multi-county, not as broad as statewide. Attempt to factor in "nonresponse" data. Need more social data (i.e. traditions). Involve more sociologists in
crafting questions for surveys. More information needed on land tenure question (turnover). Survey landowners' objectives, then 5 years later survey them again. (Go from dream to reality.) Who pays? Economic Development. Get these folks involved. Must go well beyond USDA Forest Service. Seek additional avenues to reach NIPF owners. • Better, more reliable data. • I'd like to see videos Stephen Broderick mentioned. I'd like to see some knowledgeable people help others in designing landowner surveys-questions to ask, sample size (not enough being done on these up front so surveys are not as useful as they could be). By personal contact with some of the speakers and seeking other professional contacts. • Landowner assistance policy and education. A lot of time was spent saying landowners need opinions/recommendations from foresters. But are there enough foresters to service all landowner requests. How does a forester segregate his time? • Social data about NIPF landowners. Reasons for inflow and outflow of landowners. • Comparison of "trends"/NIPF characteristics from region to region (state to state) across the country. Tech transfer/info sharing by Extension Service folks throughout the land. • Need dynamic information so we can galvanize a movement. Need better use of Coverts style programs. Better understanding of the groups transferring information and how to network them. SIP needs to be directed more toward nonbelievers. Extension, state-need more from them. Get direct link between NIPFs and provision of services, ask NIPFs, not indirectly from. Get NIPFs to this event, not just the professionals. Industry-why can't they help fund media and TV attention to NIPFs? • Learning characteristics is only one element. How does society, culture, tradition influence those characteristics and what is the trend. Finally, is there any connection between the needs of this group and society, and the science of forestry? In short, is forestry finding out how to meet NIPF needs or is the science proceeding on the basis of the scientists' interests? NWOA needs to advocate for NIPFs to speak for themselves. Then they can better drive the needs. It all gets back to getting more NIPFs involved, just like the "environmentalists" galvanized the green movement. • How to reach the 95% of NIPF owners who do not manage their land. Involve other disciplines outside of forestry. • We've spent a lot of energy gathering opinions, attitudes, and demographics about NIPFs. The real issue is that they are a significant source of commercial fiber. Incentives and programs for encouraging productive forestry are essential if market demand continues to rise as projected. University cooperating with landowner associations; landowner associations cooperating with industry. • More employer/employee "horror stories" to share with professional foresters. • I would like to know the outcome of the two cases mentioned in this presentation. The presenter. • Directed research in New Hampshire. Similar watershed or regional efforts in NH. Targeted audience efforts in NH. UNH/DNR grad student projects. Grant projects. • Model contracts that would mitigate landowner liability. Ways to influence the interpretation of OSHA standards to pinpoint responsibility. • Who handles a timber sale does make a difference in owner satisfaction and income from sales; owners fare better with consultants handling sale. Taxes 1. What are the main points that you learned in this Concurrent Session? • Need to emphasize tax incentives as a supplement to cost-share programs. Tax incentives could have general applicability to all taxpayers. • Estate planning is absolutely essential.
• One needs to prepare-write a will, etc.- to keep the tax burden down upon death. One type of tax is better than another. 2a. What additional information would you like to have to better evaluate current and proposed policies and programs regarding the subjects covered in this Concurrent Session? 2b. How you might get this additional information?
(Note: Responses to question 2b are indented under responses to question 2a.] • More detailed economic analysis of the tax incentives programs. Academic research but not review research.
• I would like to have some state specific information. We will probably try to set up something locally. Benefits from NIPF Lands
1. What are the main points that you learned in this Concurrent Session?
• Emphasize some of the extra benefits from tree planting. Emphasize other benefits in conjunction with timber production. 2a. What additional information would you like to have to better evaluate current and proposed policies and programs regarding the subjects covered in this Concurrent Session? 2b. How you might get this additional information?
(Note: Responses to question 2b are indented under responses to question 2a.J [No specific information provided]
Technical Assistance
1. What are the main points that you learned in this Concurrent Session?
• • • •
Who's in charge issues of liability. Having professional help would increase marketing efficiency and quality and quantity. Who's in charge of a timber sale (owner, contractor, etc.) does make a difference in liability of owner. Landowner liability.
2a. What additional information would you like to have to better evaluate current and proposed policies and programs regarding the subjects covered in this Concurrent Session? 2b. How you might get this additional information?
(Note: Responses to question 2b are indented under responses to question 2a.]
• Search out best liability free methods to sell timber. A balanced approach! Landowner, forester, logger, timber buyer. Cooperatives and Partnerships and Sustainable Management
1. What are the main points that you learned in this Concurrent Session?
• There are a pool of NIPFs that are interested in landscape level/ecosystem management that don't know where to go for help. This is a group with whom we can skip awareness development phase and go immediately to action.
• Management across NIPF property boundaries is being explored; already has precedents here and there; has promise to become a common practice, not only landowners welcome.
• Results of surveys seemed predictable-e.g., larger landowners are more knowledgeable about timber and more likely to have plan. The discussion after each paper was more useful with some interesting ideas being mentioned. • Location is everything-preponderance of landowners attitudes closely related to demographics. • Large landowners know more than small. Vast majority of landowners feel state should not control their land management practices. Majority of landowners are over 60 years old.
• SFI is going to be a slow process initially concentrating on BMPs and reforestation. 2a. What additional information would you like to have to better evaluate current and proposed policies and programs regarding the subjects covered in this Concurrent Session? 2b. How you might get this additional information? /Note: Responses to question 2b are indented under responses to question 2a.
• How do we identify people that are interested in landscape level/ecosystem management so we can help them? When
•
• • •
the AF&PA initiative has a history, I would like to see rigorous analyses of the effects. Also would like to explore AF&PA SFI relationship to NIPF. Journal of Forestry. Info on management of wildlife corridors for timber. Net financial loss when portion of commercial timberland managed for wildlife corridors. Follow up discussions and correspondence with presenters and other symposium and Congress participants. Read papers in symposium proceedings. Would have liked more information on sustainable management concepts and "successes"-maybe some talks by landowners giving case histories. Demographics of forest ownership. Effective ways to educate both landowners and general public about forestry and considerable misconceptions. Would like to hear a strong commitment toward moving away from high grading in the SFI.
Cost-Sharing 1. What are the main points that you learned in this Concurrent Session?
• Cost-share programs are effective. Prioritize tree planting over other c/s programs. Focus c/s practices on water quality and look for $ from EPA and other. Look for other alternative funding sources. Earmark ACP.
• Cost-share program planting have good retention rate. Private sector, individual involvement in c/s programs can work in some situations.
• Financial assistance programs have been successful. Need to maintain-turn over to states, expand assistance from private owners.
• General knowledge about cost-share history and performance, retention. • Cost-sharing programs need to be focused on public needs/benefits-timber indirectly benefits public; water quality, wildlife, fisheries, aesthetics, clean air provide direct public benefits.
• Cost-sharing-the different types of programs. Programs need to be continued. 2a. What additional information would you like to have to better evaluate current and proposed policies and programs regarding the subjects covered in this Concurrent Session? 2b. How you might get this additional information? /Note: Responses to question 2b are indented under responses to question 2a.J
• Emphasize some of the extra benefits from tree planting. Emphasize other benefits in conjunction with timber production.
• Congressional intent? State by state effectiveness-why some are more successful than other. Symposium provides; research project needed.
• Successful alternatives to cost-sharing. Weaning people off of cost-share. Future symposium.
• For water quality-cost comparison of forestry vs construction/operation of traditional treatment plants. Believe costsharing forestry is cost-effective alternative to water quality treatments. • More detailed economic analysis of the cost-share incentives. Academic research, but not review research. • Prioritize tree planting vs tsi.
General Session Discussions Tuesday 3:00 - 4:45 p.m. Near the end of the Symposium, a general session discussion was held among participants. They worked in small groups for 40 minutes discussing one of the seven subjects listed below and then shifted to another group for 25 minutes: a. Conservation Easements (easements on private land held by a government agency or conservation organization to protect natural resource values of a property). b. Cooperatives, Partnerships, Associations (associations among landowners, or landowners and agencies, or landowners and private companies to provide information and services to private landowners). c. Cost-Sharing and Loans (partial payment of costs or a financial loan from a government agency or private organization to a landowner for woodland management projects). d. Education (information and education for private woodland owners and related audiences through conferences, workshops, field tours, publications, videos, correspondence courses, radio, television, etc.). e. Regulations (government laws and regulations that influence forest management on private lands, generally for the protection of natural resources). f. Taxes (property, income, gift, inheritance, etc.). g. Technical Assistance (management advice and on-the-ground services provided by a natural resource professional to an individual landowner concerning forest management). Each group discussed these questions: 1. Based on information presented at this symposium and your own experience, what conclusions can we draw about the current state of nonindustrial private forestlands and their management? (Identify any regional differences.) 2. With regard to this discussion subject (circled above) , what are the strengths and weaknesses of existing policies and programs to influence management of NIPF lands? 3. What forces and trends (e.g., social, economic, biological) are occurring that will influence the future effectiveness of policies and programs regarding this discussion subject (circled above) ? Below are summaries of these discussions. Responses to question 1 are not specifically related to any of the seven groups so they are summarized first. Then responses to questions 2 and 3 are summarized for each of the seven groups. Responses to question 3 are preceded by a number in parentheses. This number is a priority rating from the discussion participants. Each participant was given six stick-on dots and asked to vote for the three most significant forces and trends in each of the two topics they discussed. The largest numbers are the highest priorities. Question 1: What conclusions can we draw about the current state of nonindustrial private forest lands and their management? • We are still reaching only 5% of landowners. Ownerships are getting smaller and land is changing hands more often. Reason for owning land is changing. Our one-on-one assistance model should be superseded by new innovative models. Peer to peer is an avenue with promise. • Administration of programs should be developed at the local level because of the wide diversity of regional differences, to develop local people and to target needs, problems, and opportunities rather than a one-size-fits-all approach or shotgun approach. This will provide the most value and accomplishments for the money and time invested.
• Some are doing well, but the majority are not owned or managed with regard to future timber supply. Amenity values are becoming even more important and must be recognized. Help is needed! • Basis-20 years as county forester in New Hampshire: Low level of awareness of issues, assistance, value. Generally substandard timber harvesting practices. We, the industry, have to do a better job reaching this audience. Changes in tax structure federally and in some states are crucial. • In NH conservation easements have become much more popular in the last few years. Conservation easements are not widely used everywhere but seem posed to grow. Used to avoid taxes. • NIPFs are so important that we can no longer just study them and theorize about them. We must figure out how to galvanize them into a movement that will bring about proper management that meets both their needs and society's needs and compensate them when there is not a correlation. • NIPF lands are not in bad condition; however, more and better management could help landowners meet their goals. Education is needed to let landowners know that management is not a bad word (not a four-letter word). • Extreme diversity makes generalizations difficult. Communications is #1 issue, whether for education, technology transfer, tax reform, CEs, etc. NIPFs hold key to current/future forest existence (not converted) and diversity. • Landowner decision making, in the absence of good information, threatens the sustainability of the NIPF resource. • In the South, NIPF landowners are more informed and are focused on commodity production. In the Central States, especially Appalachia, hardwood forests on NIPF lands are not managed or poorly managed, landowner resources are more limited, especially for long-term investment in forestry. • Most NIPFs are perfectly satisfied with the level of management they give their forests even if such management consists of doing nothing at all for long periods. Yet NIPFs are contributing the majority of forest products, environmental goods, and services. • The West seems to display the same general demographics as US. There is a difference between West Coast and Inland West. Emphasis needs to be given to smaller ownerships and nonresident owners as the least likely to manage.
• They represent a major portion of the US forests, but, as yet, their potential has been hardly tapped. • • • • • • •
Connecting with NIPF landowners is a problem and their resistance to cooperation, regimentation, etc. is and probably will be a problem. Tax policies seem to be a substantial disincentive. A lot of valuable information exists that may be of real value to NIPFs in managing land. Unfortunately this in most cases does not cross regional boundaries. A national clearinghouse that could disseminate this information may be a very worthy endeavor. Bottom line-landowners must be willing to help themselves. We need new approaches to reach more NIPF landowners. At a local level (county or multi-county) we need to understand landowners, identify barriers, then focus message and medium. There are a variety of associations, but they include only a small minority of NIPF owners. There is strength that develops with association. Political strength is helpful in dealing with political issues such as taxes and regulation. Associations also provide one of the best tools for education and training. Associations need to be encouraged. Very few NIPFs have formal management/stewardship plans (on paper). What NIPFs without plans "profess" and what they do is quite different. Generally speaking, a good share of NIPF land is in a neglected state insofar as conservation stewardship is concerned. Obvious that this will only work after education has had some impact on NIPFs and private companies and associations. There has to be felt a need. In my neck of woods there is an invitation for this to occur and the landowner only has to seek it out. Forestry Commission is major influence in suggesting this to occur. Mike Jacobson study shows that some NIPF owners are not too excited about collaborating with other agents or with the ecosystem management initiatives. We don't seem to have a lot of cooperative agreements.
• We continue to examine NIPFs. As resource professionals I believe we continue to transfer our "beliefs" onto the situation. We do not embrace their concerns. We continue to ignore their call for education about a plethora of interests. Programs to reach landowners through education are underfunded. • There is a very wide range in management practices on NIPF lands. Uncertainly about the future makes it very difficult for landowners to decide how to manage. • Need to communicate with larger number of landowners with smaller average holding size. At least two different populations of NIPFs: larger holdings that are production oriented and many small holdings that want nonmarket benefits. • State and local policies regarding NIPF lands and practices vary widely. Regulations and uncertainty (threat of loss of control) can result in landowner responses that produce resource effects that are directly opposite of desired results (e.g., premature harvest). • Regulations have widely varying impact on landowners. • Rules go against the individual. Some people are very uninformed, partially due to fragmentation of acreage. • Diverse (individual and regional) core of active managers. Increasing number of landowners with small parcels and nontimber objectives-probably will not practice forestry's "vision" of good forest management without help. Affected greatly by taxes and regulation structure, and availability of information.
• Regulations must be sensibly drawn up and sensitively applied in order to produce effective results. Too • • • • • • • • •
often, perhaps, we have looked to regulations to resolve problems and issues which can more effectively be managed on the basis of education, incentives, involvement, or voluntary guidelines. Regulations are here and growing. Regulations punish everyone to try to stop the few offenders. Any one that thinks regulation works should drive in the speed limits (they don't work when they are dumb). Regulations often cause poor forest management. That which is not in best interest of society or NIPF landowner. Regulations are not based on science, rather misinformation and emotions. I still don't detect a voluntary approach to landowner regulations. Many tax issues (capital gains, estate taxes, certain kinds of property taxes) become a major disincentive to forest management and to retaining forestland. Taxes are one of the strongest incentives/disincentives for major decisions like holding/selling land and timber. Would like to encourage consistency between tax policy and environmental policies/rules (balance costs, reward positive environmental management). Taxes identified as in most need of change. Woodlands are a long-term investment, but taxes force short-term thinking. Taxed like annual crop, but return is 40 to 100 years. Tax burden is high for NIPF landowners, especially when they harvest timber. Current estate tax policy makes it difficult to retain land ownership and discourages sound long-term management. If improving management and increasing productivity of NIPF lands remains a priority, there are a number of economically efficient incentives to do so. The inheritance tax structure is punitive, complex, and needs to be changed. Cost-shares and tax incentives appeal to landowners at different income levels and constitute a tool box with two types of tools. Tax code is general and applies to all landowners, unlike cost-shares, which are often awarded on political basis.
• Taxes make NIPF investment difficult, nonincentive, low profit. • A significant but small number of NIPFs are actively managing land in spite of current disincentives and incentives. The question to me is should we focus efforts on all NIPFs or target NIPF owners that can return the greater number of acres. Actual means to reach increasing number of NIPFs are not clear. • Need more landowners to manage their lands. Pitifully few NIPFs are benefiting in producing. Current public programs are weak and not structured to benefit owners. • They're in a mess. Too few managing appropriately for maximum ROI/ROE. Wide variance in needs around the US. Impossible to address as forestry-need tax incentives.
• Too little of this land is being managed for any objective. It is being shortchanged by society and many (but not all) of its owners. Its management does not, on average, begin to meet what's necessary for it to meet the demands presently and prospectively placed on it. • Reforms are needed, e.g., inheritance tax implications on premature harvesting and sell off, making long range planning difficult. Income averaging needed. Tax incentives for uses in addition to timber, e.g., wildlife, aesthetics, recreation... Tax uncertainty makes planning difficult (e.g., changes in capital gains treatment). • Tax breaks and or incentives definitely can influence management activity. Because of long-term investment forest management needs special or different treatment. • We do not know how (or to what degree) tax policy affects NIPF management (landowner behavior). We also have not considered (enough) how tax policy influences land and resource consumption. • There is very little management and tax policy doesn't promote good management. • Intermountain West: NIPF landowners growing-acreage/owner declining. Land becoming fragmented. Forest priorities changing. Taxation not a big problem if ag classification-inheritance, gift, capital gains are big problems. Owners poorly organized or just getting organized. • Northeast: Such management is responsive to the owner's needs for money, to market forces, and to catastrophes that require salvage; that is, in regard to timber resource, the involvement is only occasional and follows no management plan or cutting schedule. The result is low intensive, but not destructive management. • The South is fiber production emphasis. The Northeast is multiple resource oriented and the West is regulation oriented. There is a need for a multi-faceted approach to assisting landowners. One method will not work. More government (federal and state) funds are needed to accomplish the job. Alternative funding methods are needed like taxing imported wood products to be used for NIPF management. Cooperation among all foresters is needed. Diversity is the strength of NIPFs in that each has different objectives that meet the needs of society. • Technical assistance needs to involve other professionals, other than foresters and wildlife biologists, to build real stewardship plans. • All states do not provide the same level of technical assistance. There is not equal treatment under the law. State and federal programs have been funded at token levels. Financing state/federal programs provides the most cost-effective method of delivering forest goods and services to society when compared to costs of management of national forests or state forests. • Technical assistance is an important tool to NIPF owners in managing their woods.
• We're not getting the job done. • Technical assistance is a great service for the landowner, but will society support it at the needed level. • Very low % of NIPF landowners are actively managing their lands-no formal plan, little conservation stewardship • • • • • •
being effected. Must take care in broadly categorizing landowner characteristics, i.e., 10-40 acre holdings by W Va "yuppies" differ profoundly from 2,000+ acre E. Washington ranch with significant timber included. NIPFs need to be aware of their need for technical assistance in meeting their goals for their land. They benefit strongly from technical assistance! Technical advisors need to clone themselves. Other states depend on state or federal agencies for technical assistance. I believe RC&D could really help and provide excellent service for a fee. Increase employment-need more acres under management. Technical assistance is too fragmented among the professional providers and the recipients. Too dependent on cost-shares as the driver of technical assistance programs. Status of NIPF land management, reforestation, etc., not good. Huge vacuum between need and level of technical assistance being received by NIPF. It has not changed dramatically in the last 10 years. Approximately 80% of all NIPF harvests (USA wide) are not actively regenerated. The other 20% of NIPF harvested lands are being professionally prepared from state forestry commissions, consultants,
extension, foresters, biologists, etc. and overall managed both natural and artificial regeneration. States understaffed. Growth: drain negative. Lots of < 100-acre tracts. • 25-50% get harvest assistance in South. Better owners get more help. Landowners are getting brighter, sharper. Urbanization, availability reducing shares. • Cost-share is needed incentive. Downsizing of state service forestry agencies. Small (under 100 acres size) need more attention. • Woefully lacking in ability to meet the need. Lack of coordination among those entities providing technical assistanceindustry, public, private consulting. • Importance of NIPF in providing forest based goods and services is increasing, but this is not recognized by government and others. More emphasis is needed to insure that NIPF lands have a management plan prepared with professional assistance. Taxes/taxation is a major detractor to landowner management. • Only 5% of the landowners have used a forester. There is a great need to reach more landowners. The landowners are constantly changing and ownership is getting smaller. About 50% of wood comes from private land and it will become more important in the future. We need to develop better partnerships with forestry consultants, wildlife to reach more, need articles. • Most cases interest is increasing to manage forestlands in Alabama. This has occurred because the price of forest products has increased causing stumpage to increase. • Drain exceeds growth in most regions of the South. If availability criteria are applied, then drain dramatically exceeds growth. Productivity needs to be improved on most acres. Most productive sites will need to be managed very intensively to sustain the flow of forest products. Technical and financial incentives are working well where available. Need a wider range of incentives to better match diversity of owner needs. • Although highly important, harvesting for profit is not necessarily the leading motivator in private forest management. Smaller ownerships are an increasing trend. Overregulation and taxes are disincentives to sustainable forest management. Conservation Easements
2a. Strengths
• • • • • •
Creative means to meet public needs while preserving family ownership. Flexibility. Voluntary. Keeps land in active management. Variety of easement forms across states (flexibility). Conservation easements are one of an array of related tools. 2b. Weaknesses • May not be well understood in terms of which rights sellers/donors give up. • Need more research on long-term effects-economic effects. • Questions of long-term monitoring and enforcement (cost; may become a burden of the state in the long run, if nonprofit goes out of business). • Coordination of trusts among landowners/trust holders at the landscape level. • Enforceability? • Potential resistance to shift in tax burden. • 50 different models-no consistency. • Values are locked in from single generation's perspective. • Resource management professionals need training. 3. Forces and Trends (Note: numbers in parentheses indicate priority rating by participants] (8) Conservation ethic-desire to pass the land along in its present form. (7) Taxation policy.
(5) Population growth; aging population-demographic change. (3) Interest in noncommodity products (changing social expectations for forests). (1) Movement toward more personal freedom. (0) Lack of trust organizations in some areas and may not be desirable to some existing trusts. (0) Regulatory stringency.
Cooperatives, Partnerships, Associations 2a. Strengths
• • • • • • • • • • • • •
Stewardship plan involves landowner and articulates objectives, increasing effectiveness. Willingness among foresters to work cooperatively. Excellent models exist in some areas. Good macro information on NIPF owners. Good cadre of extension/university people. Most landowners want to be good stewards. Strong commitment of university. Cross-communication between associations generally good. Industry's forest coop management programs. Landowner controlled and organized coops are effective in getting information out. Easy to recognize audience. Can be politically powerful if we make ourselves active. Potential to ally with other groups and gain their political expertise.
2b. Weaknesses • No local extension forestry support. • Overall extension support very limited (8% of national budget for extension). 10million NIPFs vs other audiences. • Lack of forestry professionals in some areas. • Communications training lacking among foresters. • External influences (social, political, and economic factors) override development of coops, produc ing loss of rights. • Landowners unaware of foresters and positive attributes (coop, etc.) • Model programs limited. • Regional information lacking on social differences. • Need to re-think use of available resources for maximum benefit (less one-on-one, larger audiences). • Lack of budget for delivery. • Tax structure doesn't treat forestland for unique attributes it holds. • Agencies/programs that focus on large landowners miss others. • Timeliness of delivery of assistance sometimes lacking. • Lack of recognition of public's sense of forest ownership. • Extension/service foresters can help get things started, but then need to let landowners design/lead cooperative efforts. • Lack of organization and influence among landowners. • Membership turnover creates problems. • Support organizations (universities/government) don't know when to step aside. • Need more local chapters. • Lack of political effectiveness despite #s. • Not connected with groups that are effective politically.
3. Forces and Trends [Note: numbers in parentheses indicate priority rating by participants/ (11) Increasing demand on all forest products (goods, services-wildlife, timber, ecosystem) will require more from NIPF lands. (9) Budget declines, shift from public to private. (7) Increasing values will stimulate more interest. (5) Increasing number of ownership groups. (4) Value of resource increasing, thus associated tax policy increasingly important. (2) More landowners (with parcelization). (2) Shifting ownership patterns. (2) Escalating property values and increasing taxes. (2) Increasing role of nonprofessionals ("Master" programs, etc.) (1) Younger generation may not look far in future. (1) Environmental demands will increase. (0) Shifting dependency of resource supplies (regional, local, international). (0) Changing demands for some forest products due to substitutes, etc. (0) Market has positive effect on management. (0) Agency downsizing (assistance). (0) Erosion of public support for education; coops must do their own education. (0) Reduction in government programs. Cost-Sharing and Loans
2a. Strengths
• Existence of cost-sharing is a strength. • Application is diverse. • Popular and well-received with landowners. • Stimulates activity. • Leads to more management activities. • Short commitment leads to longer-term benefits, minimal landowner liability, yet may lead to long term benefits, e.g., 120-year rotation.
• Provides public good, especially noncommodity values-compensates the landowner for this. • History of effectiveness (70-80% stay in tree planting). • Plans connect landowners with professional foresters. • Technical assistance is also an incentive regardless of the source. • Voluntary, nonregulatory. 2b. Weaknesses • Dependent on annual appropriations-fluctuation hurts credibility. • Deals only with the believers. • Lack of landowner action until funds become available created dependency. • Misperception that cost-share will solve all supply problems. • One size doesn't fit all-financial diversity of landowners prevents uniform application of program! • Lack of participation by private sector. • No attention given to more efficient state programs. • Block grant programs to state forester to administer locally. • Consuming red tape-time and $. • Lack of regional flexibility (e.g., 25% cap on SIP 1) • Regional differences in distribution of funds. • Have gone away from a one-agency "funnel" for distribution of funds (now have FSA, USFS, NRCS).
• Program viewed as a subsidy to industry. • Cost of administration viewed as too great. • Perception that landowner needs money to get $, goes to well-heeled landowners. • Perceived fear of loss of property rights when accepting cost-shares. • Reliance on acreage of improvement. • Local political decisions guide distribution in some parts of US. 3. Forces and Trends [Note: numbers in parentheses indicate priority rating by participants] (11) Budget balancing is leading to loss of federal funding. (9) Disconnection of urban consumers with the source of what they are consuming. We need to deal with this. (3) Increased pressure on public lands = more pressure and problems on private lands-warrants increased cost-share. (3) Fragmentation of ownership continues. (2) Not a connection between society and forestlands = less interest in continuing these programs. (1) Nonowner pressures on NIPF lands continues to grow. (1) A loan trust fund is probably the #1 priority on the horizon. (1) National forestry community giving mixed signals-we need to come together on this issue (up or down). (0) Philosophical differences with Congress-landowners should use timber income to pay for practices. (0) More reliance on NIPF for timber-regional needs-as available public timber is reduced. (0) There is a change in the way people view the use of land. (0) Can't look to the federal government for everything; we will need to look to industry to do more. (0) Weakening of the forest inventory system will have an adverse affect on policy, management planning. (0) We are more than state, national, local. Everything has a global context-we need to understand it. (0) Biological carrying capacity has been exceeded in this country. (0) We are not subsidizing the landowner or the land, we are subsidizing the "management." There exists a misperception. (0) Public is looking at regulation rather than assistance. Education 2a. Strengths
• • • • • • • • • • • • •
Committed professionals. Increasing public interest in the environment. Starting to use others to help with education. Some important economic impacts. Some innovative programs. Dealing with an increasingly valuable timber resource. Potential of new media. Have quality programs. The Stewardship Program and specially the people. Use of Internet and PSAs. Empowering people to plan and manage is cost-effective. Education as an alternative to regulation. Opportunity to get research into practice. 2b. Weaknesses • Limited $. • Do not share resources.
• Need to increase listening to NIPFs and general public. • Low adoption to change by educators. • Education too broad-need to focus. • Too closely involved with timber. • Need to refine/target audiences. • Inaccurate materials presented to children. • Low visibility to decision makers. • We lack a clearly stated and shared vision. • We are in a rut. • Preaching to the choir. • A little bit of knowledge can be dangerous. • Forestry schools weak in teaching social and communication skills. 3. Forces and Trends (Note: numbers in parentheses indicate priority rating by participants/ (18) Biological stresses resulting from human population growth. Shifting population and demographics and aging. (9) Drastic increase in NIPF owner numbers. (8) Widening gap between urban/rural residents. (5) Increased recognition of owner objectives. (5) Proliferation of communication technology (4) Tendency of nonlandowners to dictate policy. (3) General trend toward environmental ethics. (3) Increased emphasis on landscape/ecosystem management. (2) Forestry's focus on urban populations. (2) Industry's interest in sustainable forestry. (2) Money talks. Use the economic incentives. (2) Declining and unstable budgets. (1) Uncertainty of future for cooperative extension. (1) Recognition of landowner diversity will force change. (0) Industry's focus on urban populations. Regulations
2a. Strengths • State social objectives. • Site specific regulations. • Protection of specific resources. • Can be used to prevent abuse. • Sometimes results in positive public opinion. • Often times are based on science. • Establishes sidebar for behavior. • They very often work. • Collaborative development in some states. Results in good compliance. 2b. Weaknesses • Cost. • Personal support agendas (subject to interpretation). • Federal regulations not easily changed. • Not easily enforced; cost-benefit (marginal utility) not easily measured. • Regulations are an attempt to establish homogeneous solutions to complex problems. • Regulations penalize (T&E-disincentive to old growth).
• Regulations not always based on science. • No compensation for taking. • Conflict between regulations. • Pits one resource against another. • Too much energy devoted to compliance at expense of other positive benefits. • Cover up to poor stewardship; poor stewardship encouraged by lack of incentives. • Regulations focus on techniques rather than outcome. • Regulations alienate people toward government (polarization). 3. Forces and Trends /Note: numbers in parentheses indicate priority rating by participants] (7) Societal values (vocal minority carries too much weight). (6) Population growth/increased demand for products and services. (6) Fragmentation by populace that doesn't understand management. (5) Social trends are demanding more use of NIPF lands. (3) More acceptance of voluntary/incentive approaches. (2) Opposite sides of issues will exploit their benefits, focus on self-interest (e.g., magazine attacks). (2) Growing political involvement of NIPF. (2) Toward more education and use of voluntary measures (BMPs). (2) Regulations tend to result from emotions. (2) Forest Stewardship (is a voluntary means to delay/avoid regulation). (2) Fragmentation (without inherent land ethic). (2) Media. (1) Increasing cost of regulations. (1) More collaborative approaches. (1) Toward nonregulatory approach. (1) Multiple-use of forestland on a volunteer basis. (1) Ecosystem based management. (0) More regulation. (0) Commodity values. (0) Urban/rural interface. Difficult to provide services. (0) Education seen as solution. (0) Efforts to improve city life. (0) Trend toward alternative development of rural lands. (0) Looking at more alternatives to regulation. Taxes 2a. Strengths
• • • • • • • • • • • •
Still have C.G. and depletion on timber. Conservation easements. Estate tax planning. Taxes are collected-raise $$. Current use assessment. Reforestation tax credit and amortization. Tax those that have the $$. Where forestland gets special use break. Can make changes. Economically efficient ways to encourage forest management. Products affect across the board-society benefits. Low enrollment.
• More landowners manage in states with forestry tax laws. • Equality of access-efficient way to adjust. 2b. Weaknesses • Taxes are disincentive to land management-cause short-term thinking. • Regressive, discourages long-term management. • Passive loss rules. • Lack of ability to expense stand improvement and restoration costs. • Inheritance tax penalizes next generation. • Encourages fragmentation and subdivision. • Waste in time and dollars to protect ownership from government. • Those setting tax policy don't care about forestry-don't know. • No special use break. • Taxes disincentive. • Uncertainty about taxes. • Inheritance taxes and carrying taxes. • Confiscatory. • Too high-long-term risk and length of investment. • Policies at cross purposes. • Complicated and unknown. • Inheritance taxes destroy mature ecosystems. • Equality of access. • Lack of tax incentives for nontimber benefits. • Capitalization of reforestation expenses. • Need to know huge amount of information. • Kinds of tax relief called for may be viewed as break for wealthy. • Politicians lack courage to correct unfair tax policy. 3. Forces and Trends (Note: nwnbers in parentheses indicate priority rating by participants] (11) Looming massive intergenerational transfer of forestland. (8) People with no vested interest in forestland have say in how taxed. (5) Racial, cultural, economic demographics of general public different from landowner demographics different value systems. (5) Forestry community still small politically-need broadened base. (4) Education can be positive force. (4) Decreasing availability of cost-shares, lack of tax incentives, bad inheritance tax-against environ mentally sensitive management. (3) Budget cuts. (3) Growing population, aging, urbanizing population. (2) Political involvement and maturity of NIPF-positive. (2) Overall population growth and migration. (2) Trend toward less acceptance to things viewed as subsidies-tax relief may be viewed as subsidy. (2) Time ripe for tax reform. (2) Concerned with class warfare promoted by politicians. (2) Disinterest in timber, increasing interest in other benefits. (1) Increasing ownership by people who lack forest education in stewardship, ethics. (1) Tax for highest and best use leads to clearing for development. (1) Fragmentation (caused by growing population, aging, urbanizing population). (1) Scarcity of timber will affect. (1) Escalating property values, wildly fluctuating timber prices.
(1) Change in parcel size-smaller makes traditional management difficult. (1) Environmental organizations interested in tax reform. (1) More landowners professional people-over 50% not opposed to cutting. (1) Landowner associations effective. (0) Increasing environmental movement. (0) This kind of symposium-positive. (0) Increasing international market. (0) 70% of wood use is firewood-shortage. (0) Time is wrong. (0) Best forestry research in past 10 years. (0) Continuing education programs for landowners and farmers. (0) Price driving some synthetics to replace wood products-substitutes with nonrenewable materials. (0) Increasing gulf between haves and have-nots. (0) Reduction in raw material, increase in wood paper products may encourage public support for change. (0) Combined tax rates increasing. (0) Uncertainties of future policies. (0) Necessity for estate planning-haves can do; have-nots can't. (0) Equity issues of increasing importance. (0) Political climate in upcoming election. (0) Interest in going away from property taxes to income and sales taxes for revenue. Technical Assistance
2a. Strengths
• l-on-1 is one of the most effective means (how can we continue to do so?). • Stewardship program offers landowners assistance on what they want. • Certain states excellent working relationships (Iowa, WA). • Advice givers are genuinely concerned with meeting the landowner's objective. • Potential for strength through interagency (group) cooperation/coordination. • More demand for services from consultants in areas beyond timber sales. • More foresters into the wildlife consulting business because of increased interest in hunting. • More and more partnering, less time/work to fight. • Have more owners who really want to know (more interest on part of owners). • Stewardship has allowed more diverse landowners to have access to management. 2b. Weaknesses • Too focused on cost-share delivery. • Fewer staff for programs (all resources). Too few resources to accomplish goals, especially for fire protection in Southeast. • Poor coordination of state, private, and industry assistance to NIPF. Growing animosity. • Consultants need to broaden service package offered to NIPF. • Less than desirable level of political support. Communications are weak. • Program structure inhibits reach out to NIPF. • Overall failure to recognize importance of technical assistance to NIPF. • Fluctuation of government funding for assistance. • Not enough foresters to provide services. • Lack of national certification for consulting foresters. • State agencies must coordinate/work together more. • Need more scientific information, re: impacts upon other nontimber resources.
