assessment of sustainability of our forests

Southern Forest Resource Assessment

 Below is the original wording of one of the preliminary questions and public suggestions or concerns submitted about it--for details see our Public Input or Methods pages
 
 

"What are the management approaches of various forest ownership classes in the South?"
  1. Imperative that I have a good pulpwood market in order to accomplish the thinning that will need to be done.
  2. In assessing the management approaches of various forest ownership classes in the South, the Assessment should include the general land management goals of each ownership class.
  3. The industrial forest lands are intensively management and mined for trees, nutrients, organic material, hunting, and anything else of value. The private non-industrial forest lands are either left alone or more likely logged for short-term profit and turned into subdivisions or range land. The NF's are primarily managed for timber with high soil erosion, degraded water quality, fragmentation, reduced animal and pant diversity, and excessive motorized recreation.
  4. Identify land ownership and current management strategies.
  5. The industrial producers and processors of timber rarely bear the full costs of their activities. Taxpayers often subsidize logging on the national forests. Private timberland owners and processors benefit from tax breaks, taxpayer-provided infrastructure, and other subsidies.
  6. The positive and negative effects of forest management are not distributed equally. Any approach to managing southern forests will generate economic benefits as well as costs and create winners as well as losers.
  7. Consider and weigh the potential for the cumulative effect of separate forest-management decisions by different landowners to degrade the overall forest's ability to provide important ecological functions, such as the ability to deliver clean water and mitigate the risk of flooding.
  8. All government owned land should be managed using the best scientific techniques to insure the greatest health of the ecosystem. Clearcutting should not be allowed unless dictated by best application of our knowledge.
  9. Federal and State agencies should begin the process of restoring old-growth forests which have essentially disappeared from the southeast.
  10. What are the management approaches of various forest ownership classes? To what extent is ecologically sustainable forest ecosystem management currently practiced, and how might this be promoted?
  11. The Assessment should look at the acceptance and use of improved silvicultural practices by ownership classes. The Assessment should survey landowners to determine roadblocks to the application of these techniques.
  12. The Assessment should analyze landowner acceptance of responsible forest management practices (thinning, BMPs, planned regeneration) between regions with and without good markets for forest products.
  13. Document the accomplishments to improve reforestation from the public and private sector.
  14. Document different management approaches throughout the South.
  15. It is important to document the accomplishments of Southern Forest owners, both public and private, in their responsible efforts to improve reforestation and increasing the timber supplies of the south.
  16. The last few years have brought changes to the forests of Southeast Tennessee. Even-aged timber harvest has become commonplace even on small ownership tracts. The percentage of industrial forest land is gradually increasing with new out of state and foreign buyers and with the local hardwood pulp mill having to acquire forest lands in order to compete with distant plants and the new local OSB plant. The trend is also for shorter rotations and harvesting younger trees for pulp and fiber. Net effect of the changing forest utilization is that the public land is becoming increasingly important for ecological and recreation values.
  17. National forests began extensive clearcuts over thirty years ago. Higher quality sites were allowed to regenerate in hardwoods, but the oaks and hickories that had been in the stands were usually replaced with light seeded species like yellow poplar, ash and maple whose seeds may remain dormant in the forest litter for as long as seven years. Initially the lower and intermediate quality forest land was herbicided to try to grow pure loblolly pine plantations. It apparently took large herbicide doses to attack the diverse ecosystem of the Southern Appalachians. Annual or biennial weeds that rotted with the first frost appeared in the site prepped and herbiceded areas the first year. But soon the pines would develop a near complete broom sage understory which combine to make an almost inert ecosystem. It shows that soil nutrients were depleted by the process (as was indicated may happen in the Hubbard Brook herbicide study).
  18. Can quantify the amount of use the different forest management options will produce?
  19. Will you be able to study the below cost wilderness program on the Nation's Forest?
  20. Consider the inter-relationships of various parcels of forest land, rather than treating them as discrete entities.
  21. The forest ownership structure in the South, including federal, state, industry and non-industrial, has contributed to the diversity of forest conditions across the region. The Assessment should document the different management approaches and the likely future condition of forests in the South.
  22. What impact will the continuing loss of forest resources in the South have on publicly owned forests? Since there are essentially no state regulatory restraints on timber harvesting in the South, to what extent will this put pressure on federal lands to shift away from providing timber to a primary role of providing the other multiple uses?
  23. Has there been an increase in absentee landownership and what impact has this had?
  24. Do current forestry management practices consider anything other than the market value of the trees?
  25. Are state forestry policies influenced by cutting recommendations of big industry? Are individual landowners following recommendations offered by state forestry division personnel?
  26. What are the long-term effects of increased industrial clearcutting over the next 100 years on the natural cycle of forest regeneration?
  27. What methods encourages private owners to manage their forest long term and for greater species develop?
  28. The forest ownership structure in the South, including federal, state, industry and non-industrial, has contributed to the diversity of forest conditions across the region. The Assessment should document the different management approaches and the likely future conditions of forests in the South.
  29. My own farm, consisting of approximately 440 acres, was clear-cut in 1985 and I have finally replanted the entire farm in sections with the objective of genetically improving the stock and ultimately providing an income stream for myself and heirs for perhaps a 40 year period. We have left hardwood areas for game and our environmental interest has co-existed with our asset management.
  30. I am writing to you to voice my adamant opposition to allowing the abridgment of any more of the private landowners rights by any third party. I am opposed to allowing any group or third party granting themselves authority over the use and rule of my land. The invested landowner will always be the best stewards of the land.
  31. How have ownership classes changed? Age of owners? Rural/farmer to urban-type owners? Absentee owners? Insurance companies or retirement funds?
  32. There currently seems to be almost no regulation with rubber-stamping of permits for these mills. Usually, stormwater discharge from the mill site itself is the only factor considered. The process should be more thorough with a careful look at the environmental impact on the area that will be cut to supply the mill. This cutting is an inseparable part of the whole industrial process and must be examined. Permits involving just the mill site itself don't catch any of the larger problems.
  33. Assess the impact of shifting more forest harvest from public lands to private lands.
  34. How much idle land is out there? What are the reasons for it?
  35. What level of intensity does each group practice to identify new capacity?
  36. Value of management plan evaluated across land ownership’s. Private landowners--Breakdown by Acreage classes/groups/classes.
  37. Recent trends in timber land investment ownerships. (Wachovia, John Hancock, others)
  38. What effect is that going to have on 50-acre tracts and future fiber supply?
  39. Different ownership classes - government, private, individual.
  40. Productivity could increase so that it would free up land for other uses.
  41. More syndicated ownership – what effect?
  42. Consider property rights/landowner rights.
  43. How do management objectives relate to socio/economic class?
  44. Differences in objectives if near Federal ownerships.
  45. Consider long-term, selective management vs. short-term rotation.
  46. How can government/private incentives alter management approaches of forest owners?
  47. Evaluate the long-term opportunities for “Forestry in the South.”
  48. Document the reforestation efforts in the South through the present (FIA, SAFIS).
  49. Should the south remain an important timber-producing region?
  50. How can we motivate absentee forest owners?
  51. What would be the effects of reduced property taxes on non-harvested areas, i.e., conservation easements?
  52. What do you mean by “forest ownership classes?” What the local mill is producing dictates management and in many ways ownership. The smaller woods lot or specialized grower is being squeezed by transportation cost, therefore they must sell to the local mill. Smaller and more diverse mills are needed.
  53. Note the South has a wide variety of forest landowners and practices.
  54. Determine what percentages of landowners are doing nothing with their forest for products.
  55. Look at what “locking up” hardwood areas will do on availability, i.e., accessibility.
  56. Look at different landowner objectives on managing their lands.
  57. Increased impacts on NIPF due to reductions on public lands.
  58. What incentive can Federal/State look at to help NIPF - landowner, e.g., incentives to reforest and incentives to not cut at all?
  59. What can be done in non-productive land that wasn’t reforested?
  60. Health benefit issues of intensive management?
  61. Need to look at how much of forest land is in a State, e.g., natural forest land and not just pine plantations.
  62. What can be done to increase production on Forest Service land?
  63. Industry lands are very much multiple-use - need to point this out, e.g., look at what everyone is doing in terms of management and timber available.
  64. Look at regulation impacts on private land management.
  65. What is maximum sustained yield on Forest Service land vs. current harvest?
  66. Confiscation without compensation based on regulations - government oriented.
  67. How much does regulation impact forest production?
  68. Does the background data indicate past management use and practices?
  69. When does the private landowner’s right to manage his own land end and when does government regulation take over?
  70. Will the assessment show trends or only be a snapshot of conditions?
  71. What will be the impacts of insect and disease on monoculture plantations?
  72. How does public school curriculum affect education of kids in forest management?
  73. What is the BMP compliance by ownerships?
  74. Do large companies and logging contractors have different operating procedures for operating on their lands vs. NIPFLOs?
  75. Are NIPFLOs receiving enough information and assistance?
  76. What are the different landowner objectives?
  77. What impact is caused by the lack of management by some landowners?
  78. How do regulations affect landowner objectives based on ownership classification (i.e. taxes, state regulations, etc)?
  79. What are the projections of demand, removals and growth?
  80. How has different forest management by ownership classes affected habitat, product supply?
  81. How do different ownerships affect biodiversity?
  82. Will current land use or management meet future demands?
  83. Are chipping operations affecting other end uses of the forest resources?
  84. What is the trend of other end uses (i.e. furniture mills, etc)?
  85. How time sensitive will overall assessment information be?
  86. What is the impact of cost share assistance programs for NIPFLOs? Can the cost share programs be streamlined to help enrollment?
  87. Are there landowner education opportunities – are they effective?
  88. How is forest management affected by the increase in number of absentee landowners?
  89. How can the NIPFLOs be motivated to manage their land?
  90. What is the comparison on how the different landowner classes manage their land?
  91. Why are we looking at the different management approaches (i.e. biodiversity, markets, sustainability, productivity)?
  92. How does the different management approaches affect sustainability?
  93. How will the team document the management by the different landowner classes based on objectives, goals, problems, effects by taxes and regulations (i.e. what effects how NIPFLOs manage their land?)?
  94. How do public lands determine their management and who determines the management decisions?
  95. How do tax laws effect NIPFLO management?
  96. How will the landowner categories be broken out (i.e. ownership class, size acreage class)?
  97. Do small NIPFLO ownerships have continuity in management or are they affected by ownership turnover, fragmentation as the owners break up parcels of land?
  98. What is the impact of the global market on southern forest?
  99. How does forest management differ from timber management?
  100. Will the team differentiate the different types of management objectives (i.e. wildlife, recreation, timber, aesthetics)?
  101. What is the relationship of markets, taxes regulations, and other regulations to how NIPFLOs manage their land?
  102. Does the forestry community educate the public on use of trees?
  103. Are there examples of sustainability, productivity, and biodiversity that have been impacted by nontraditional or cooperative efforts to enhance the forest resources?
  104. How much education is done on the facts of forestry (i.e. what is being done to show the positive side of harvesting)?
  105. Is the public educated on sustainability?
  106. Assess the impact of shifting more of the forest harvesting from public lands to private lands in the South!
  107. How do new silvicultural practices impact productivity of Southern forest?
  108. What is the overall impact of modern forestry practices – assessment done by subregions and ownership?
  109. Evaluate markets over time to explain why harvest levels are where they are (worldwide demands, where they are, and what kinds of products).

red oak leaf as separator

Question as revised in response to these comments

Previous Question | Next Question

Public Input Home | Methods | Assessment Home

 
  modified: 1-MAR-2000
  webmaster: John M. Pye