|
|
 |
Spring 2004
Membership Dollars at Work: Healthy
Forests Reserve Program
BACKGROUND
Healthy forests are comprised of more than just forest management
and fire prevention on public lands. According to the U.S.D.A. Forest
Service (USFS), public forest lands comprise 317 million acres (42.38%)
and private forest lands comprise 431 million acres (57.62%), predominantly
in the eastern United States. In 1996, private forests provided 89% of
the nation's timber harvest.
While private forest lands are generally in better condition than public
lands, there are substantial opportunities to reach out to the Nation’s
private forest landowners with incentives that will assist them in better
protecting and managing these resources.
During the development of the Healthy Forests Initiative and the Healthy
Forests Restoration Act, Wildlife Mississippi played a major role in working
with The White House and the U.S. Congress to develop portions of the
legislation that would assist the South in addressing its needs. One such
piece was the Healthy Forests Reserve Program (HFRP).
 |
Fire-maintained, natural, southern pine forests
are a rare forest ecosystem in need of restoration. Photo by Michael
Kelly. |
Private forests provide substantial habitat for threatened and endangered
species in the United States. It is estimated that private, family-owned
forests provide habitat for 90% of our endangered species. Landowners
need the encouragement, financial support and backing of federal and state
governments to undertake projects to restore rare forests and the declining,
threatened and endangered species they support. Incentive-based programs
provide the basic operating framework to accomplish this objective. The
HFRP will encourage the formation of constructive and cooperative alliances
with federal and state agencies to implement fish, wildlife and forest
conservation on private lands.
There are many rare forest ecosystems in the United States that exist
largely on private lands, that require active forest management for their
restoration and will require substantial financial incentives for their
ultimate restoration and conservation. Examples include the once great
longleaf pine forest of the southern coastal plain; fire-maintained, natural,
southern pine forests; southwestern riparian forests; Hawaiian dry forests;
Southern Appalachian spruce-fir forests; mature Eastern deciduous forests;
California riparian forests; old-growth forests of the pacific Northwest;
mature red and white pine forests of the Great Lake states; fire-maintained,
ponderosa pine forests and southern forested wetlands.
The states with the greatest risk of forest ecosystem loss are Florida,
California, Hawaii, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, South Carolina, Virginia,
Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee.
For example, across the southern coastal plain, the longleaf pine ecosystem
once covered some 74 – 92 million acres from southern Virginia to
central Florida and west to eastern Texas. Longleaf pine currently covers
less than three million acres, much of which is highly degraded. The longleaf
pine ecosystem is characterized by open-canopied stands and is one of
the most biologically diverse temperate forest ecosystems in North America.
Over 20 federally-listed endangered species inhabit longleaf pine. Moreover,
longleaf pine produces superior solid wood products, including saw timber,
utility poles and other high value products.
Although a free-market economy is the preferred means of improving the
environment, it does not always work in this situation and incentives
should be provided. Incentives appear to be more expensive, but are less
harmful to the economy than burdensome regulations.
The protection, restoration and enhancement of degraded forest ecosystems
to conditions as close to natural is emphasized through the creation of
the HFRP. The HFRP's philosophy is to work proactively with private landowners
for the mutual benefit of declining Federal trust species and the interests
of the landowners involved.
AN INCENTIVE/PRO-PRIVATE PROPERTY-BASED APPROACH
The Conservation (CRP) and Wetland (WRP) Reserve Programs pay property
owners for implementing conservation practices. Many conservation groups
consider them the most broadly popular and successful conservation programs
ever passed by Congress. Waterfowl populations and many other birds
are on a rapid increase due to these programs. These programs are demonstrating
that widespread wildlife population declines are reversible by habitat
restoration. They have also stimulated rural development through increased
expenditures for wildlife-associated recreation, which will further
stewardship and improve economies.
These types of habitat restoration approaches, and those that include
cost-share for conservation practices like the Wildlife Habitat Incentives
Program and Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, present an opportunity
to solve many problems associated with the extinction of endangered
species in a manner that will maintain a strong economy and respect
private property rights. The approach described herein will help make
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) more effective.
Habitat for threatened and endangered species, improving biodiversity
and sequestering carbon can all be accomplished by encouraging property
owners, through financial assistance, to develop and maintain conservation
programs that meet national and international standards. The current
Farm Bill does not provide enough incentives to allow for significant
population recovery. This is a key to meeting the Nation’s international
commitments and better safeguarding the Nation’s heritage in fish
and wildlife.
While there are now programs under the ESA that address rare species
before they are listed under the law, more needs to be done to keep
species off the list by acting early and proactively. The HFRP should
concentrate on improving forests, therefore a species’ habitat,
before the species reaches a threatened or endangered status (i.e.,
rare, peripheral and special concern).
HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM
The purpose of the HFRP is to assist landowners in restoring rare
forest ecosystems through active management and stewardship. The program
will have two components: (1) creation of incentives for forest restoration
activities, and; (2) compensation for voluntary retirement of development
rights from the property. Under both components, landowners will retain
their ability to harvest timber as long as the rare forest ecosystem
is sustained over the life of the agreement. In addition, landowners
can choose either or both options at their discretion.
Under the first component of the program the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) will work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and
appropriate state fish and wildlife agencies to designate forest types
that are eligible for payments. Eligible forest ecosystems can include
any forest that occurs significantly on private lands and that has been
reduced in extent by more than 50% from its range prior to European
settlement.
For each forest type, the USDA will develop a series of stewardship
activities that could qualify as eligible forest restoration activities.
Each forest type would have a unique series of activities. For example,
eligible activities for the longleaf ecosystem might include planting
longleaf pine on former longleaf sites, use of prescribed fire, hardwood
control, restoration of native vegetation, control of invasive exotic
species, natural regeneration planning or other activities.
To participate in the program, landowners will enter into forest restoration
agreements with the USDA to carry out stewardship activities appropriate
to their property and forest types. Agreement terms will be 10 years,
30 years or 99-years in duration and will provide landowners with maintenance
payments for such activities as prescribed fire, natural regeneration
planning, restoration and other activities. Landowners will receive
cost-share assistance for the activities.
Where landowners are undertaking stewardship activities that directly
benefit endangered and/or threatened species and where the USFWS determines
that such activities will result in a net conservation benefit for the
species, the USFWS will provide safe harbor assurances through Section
10(a)(1)(A) or Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that ensure
that landowners will not be subject to additional regulation as a result
of their stewardship commitments.
Under the second component of the program, landowners can voluntarily
sell development rights to their forest land. Eligible lands for this
program include designated forest types that contain federally-listed
endangered species or designated candidate species and that are being
managed through a safe harbor agreement, candidate conservation agreement
with assurances, or similar, voluntary incentive-based programs.
PRACTICES
The practices of the HFRP include, but are not limited to: fencing
for habitat protection; prescribed burning, restoration of wildlife
habitat and corridors; forest stand improvement to include site preparation,
tree planting, direct seeding, firebreaks, release and site preparation
for natural regeneration, installation of water control structures in
forested wetlands to provide beneficial habitat for wetland wildlife;
installation/construction of nesting structures; restoration of hydrology;
removal of barriers for aquatic species; establishment, management,
maintenance, enhancement and restoration of grassed waterways and riparian
areas; stream bank stabilization; placement of fish screens; control
or eradication of invasive exotic or competing animal and plant species;
restoration of rivers and streams; removal of fish barriers; installation
of low water weirs and instream deflectors; fencing for habitat protection;
augmentation of flows; best management practices and other activities
approved by the Secretaries.
SAFE HARBOR ASSURANCES
It is important to assure owners, and adjacent landowners, be protected
from regulations of the ESA once the participating landowners HFRP agreement/easement
has ended or has been terminated.
It is important to leave somewhat more flexibility to the USFWS in terms
of how it provides the assurances to participating landowners. Because
there will be federal payments to participating landowners, there are
other (and simpler) mechanisms, besides safe harbor agreements, to give
such assurances to landowners. A programmatic biological opinion under
Section 7 of the ESA could, for example, provide future incidental take
authority at the end of the easement term applicable to any enrolled
property. To capture this in statutory language, the Secretaries shall,
through Section 7 or other authorities under the Endangered Species
Act, make available safe harbor or similar assurances, consistent with
the Fish and Wildlife Service’s regulations, to landowners who
enter into forest restoration agreements where those agreements will
result in a net conservation benefit for listed species.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO ENDANGERED SPECIES
Congress passed the Endangered Species Preservation Act in 1966.
This law allowed listing of only native animal species as endangered
and provided a limited means for protecting such species. It was revised
in 1969 to allow for protection of species in danger “worldwide.”
The ESA of 1973 combined and strengthened the provisions of its predecessors,
while breaking new ground. Upon signing the ESA, President Richard Nixon
said, “Nothing is more priceless and more worthy of preservation
than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed.
It is a many faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists and
nature lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we share
as Americans.”
The ESA has been very effective in preventing species from becoming
extinct; however, it has been weak in increasing populations. Only 28
species have been taken off the endangered or threatened lists. Some
species were the result of errors in the original listing. Only ten
species can be described as recovered. They include the Aleutian Canada
goose, brown pelican, three Pallu Island birds, American alligator,
Rydbird milk-vetch, bald eagle, gray whale and Arctic peregrine falcon.
However, the ESA did not play a major role in the recovery of the brown
pelican, Rydbird milk vetch, bald eagle, gray whale and Arctic peregrine
falcon.
It is obvious that we cannot set aside unlimited acres for fish and
wildlife habitat. The ESA calls for the federal government to prohibit
certain activities that would cause the take of a listed species unless
such activities are not otherwise authorized by an incidental take permit.
Many times, if the land use causes a take, the result is not only hostility
on the part of the owner, but damage to the species needing protection.
Ability of government to control how property is used can make an enemy
out of even the most harmless of birds, fish or other listed species.
Through incentive based programs like the CRP and the WRP, waterfowl
populations and many other birds are on a rapid increase; these programs
are demonstrating that widespread wildlife population declines are reversible
by habitat restoration. These types of habitat restoration approaches
present an opportunity to solve many problems associated with the extinction
of endangered species in a manner that will maintain a strong economy
and respect private property rights. As long as the status quo of not
increasing habitat, therefore not increasing populations, is maintained,
the full recovery of populations of many species will not happen.
The ESA can be improved by emphasizing recovery through habitat restoration
in the HFRP. Also, the HFRP should aid a species before it reaches either
a status of endangered or threatened. The HFRP will restore rare forests
that are causing listing problems and help de list threatened and endangered
species by placing an emphasis on population recovery for many species.
It will also aid a species before it reaches either a status of endangered
or threatened, thus making it unnecessary to list a species. Working
with private property owners and enabling them to restore habitat is
the kind of proactive strategy that can head off regulatory crises,
while improving the environment and providing opportunities for economic
development.
 |
The southern forest wetland ecosystem is one of
the most degraded ecosystems in the United States. Photo by Michael
Kelly.
|
|
 |
|
