Comments Recieved at Baton Rouge
The table below captures the comments collected during the breakout session at the Baton Rouge public meeting. Comments are grouped by major forces of change. Specific subregions of applicability are listed where provided.
| Comment | Subregion | |
|---|---|---|
Social |
||
| Consider the effects of public perception that harvesting is evil. | ||
| Public lack of understanding commodity cycle | ||
| Public needs to be educated regarding the value of land management and investments in private lands | ||
| Need to raise the awareness of the public regarding the value of non-consumptive uses | ||
| Recognize social value of coastal restoration | ||
| Demographic change in land owners needs to be considered, especially the passing of land from baby boomers to subsequent generations. | ||
Economic |
||
| Competition in international markets gives rise to inequalities regarding: labor costs political costs of doing business (payoffs,etc), uneven environmental regulations and often no certification program requirements | ||
| “Non-market” forest assets need to be valued through incentives/markets for these assets: Tax incentives, bundles of values (carbon ($3-4/metric ton), water, and hunting leases (avg. $7-$15/ac/yr)), or incentives for endangered species habitat protection | ||
| Gentrification and recreational value increase land values beyond production values. | ||
| Fragmentation reduces value of forest resources | ||
| Consider the role of general economy (recession v. growth) in affecting forest uses | ||
| Consider the affects of conservation easement/ withdrawal programs on timber land base/supplies | ||
| Loss of the logging sector driven by high start up costs and market uncertainties could have an important effect on the timber sector in the South | ||
| Losing value of forest for timber supplies | ||
| Quantify value of coastal restoration | ||
| Consider local politics influences on land values and land uses | ||
| Consider effects of taxes including local tax valuation (millage rates), income tax, estate tax, and severance tax | ||
| Consider various legal issues including: liability/tort reform, property rights, insurance/workman’s compensation laws/workers’ safety, third party certification, and costs for regulatory compliance | ||
Institutional |
||
| Broaden focus of programs in Delta to include non-forested landscapes | LMAV | |
| Consider the effects of potential markets for ecosystem services | ||
| Consider the effects of estate taxes on land use and management | ||
| Consider the public/private interactions of policies (when, where, how cut?) | ||
| Consider the potential for policy restrictions impacting private management options | ||
| Consider potential for public policies to negatively impact markets for forest products | ||
| Consider policies that could improve/increase markets for more forest products including NTFP | ||
| Farm bill terminology on biomass is not currently friendly to forestry | ||
| The Farm bill will be key to all farm- and forest-related incentive programs | ||
| Carbon markets are ambiguous at best, perhaps too uncertain for major analysis here | ||
| Complicated federal programs are off-putting to landowners | ||
| Poorly administered, funded, and communicated federal and state programs have little effect | ||
| Consider whether policy making processes in subregions differ in ability to respond to change | ||
| Lack of coordination/communication separation of federal and state programs influences program effectiveness | ||
| Consider how institutional forces may change biological values of parks/public lands in favor of more lucrative uses--Loss of biological value of public lands and Not funding/being able to fund public land management for biological values/original protection purposes | ||
| Consider the lack of policies and programs necessary to preserve rural land and forests | ||
| Consider the change in industrial forest ownership and lucrative process of selling land for development | ||
| Lack of options for institutional owners may influence land uses and management choices: lack of conservation benefit programs and policies to conserve land | ||
| Consider Clean Water Act impacts on forestry practices in wetland and lack of EPA guidance on silvicultural exemption | ||
| Consider the increasing role of NGO’s as land managers (e.g., TNC) either through direct ownership or certification programs. | ||
| Chicago carbon exchange sunsets in 2011 only 4 years to invest /participate—what are the implications? | ||
| Consider policy programs and affect on all forest management actions (more than just timber and including burning, roads, and management of invasives) | ||
| Consider the lack of ability of F.S. to engage in timber management and harvest (policy paralysis) | ||
| What are the impacts of international agreements? Kyoto? Montreal? | ||
| Does less management by NIPF’s result from public policies? Impact on markets? Capacity? Biological benefits? | ||
| Consider potential impact of tax credits for NIPF’s to improve management? | ||
| Consider the effect of differential tax application on integrated forest products corporations tax structure: Negative impact—38% vs 15% for TIMO’s | ||
| Consider effects of interest rates as set by federal reserve and impact on long-term management | ||
| Poor communication between fed programs administrators (e.g., FSA and NRCS communication on CRP was inconsistent) | ||
| Consider tax credits for nonconsumptive uses/ecosystem services for private owners—all classes | ||
| Impact of trade agreements—good/bad? What is a good deal for forests? | ||
| Consider the effects of illegal logging both locally and internationally (Prevention, Prosecution, Impact of markets) | ||
Land Uses |
||
| Change in ownership from industrial to non-industrial. Coastal Plain. | CP | |
| Fragmentation of owners may result from change in ownership | ||
| Consider the implications of a generational change in family ownership | ||
| Carbon markets could have effects on land values: Change in management of the forest, timber rotation-economics, and increase in growth potential | ||
| Non-timber commodities need to be considered: Recreation, hunting clubs, storm surge, and water storage values | ||
| Financial markets/tax credits affect potential ownership—TIMOs, REITs. Consider how IRS tax structures affect and maintain ownership (e.g., death tax, ad valorum tax) | ||
| Globalization of economy will affect the demand for land from foreign investors | ||
| Demands for other goods, including biofuel stocks (corn, fiber) could affect land uses | ||
| Private landowners choices will depend on markets—availability of markets and sustainability of markets. | ||
| Private property rights will influence land use choices and management | ||
| Moving from rural to urban setting changes cultural and social values—e.g., loss of rural roots | ||
| Reduction in raw material from public lands (national forests) could affect markets | ||
| Urban owners pursuing a more rural life style—this creates access issues and water quality issues | ||
| Consider the effects of genetic change in agricultural crops and trees on land use | ||
| Changes in climate will have Biological/physical/hydrology/ effects and this will affect land use choices | ||
| Consider the effects of land use regulation (positive and negative affect) | ||
| Pressure from recreation use will have an effect on the management of forests (change in vision) | ||
| Increase in roads (miles/acres) will lead to fragmentation, access (positive and negative) | ||
| Conservation easements will have affects on the availability of land for management | ||
| Shift in ownership from private to public will affect management options | ||
| Fluctuating real estate markets/stock markets will affect land transactions. | ||
Biological |
||
| Consider the impacts of nutria on regeneration & reestablishment (Coastal Plain) | CP | |
| Consider the loss of open space and connectivity (Coastal Plain) | CP | |
| Consider impacts on wastewater assimilation (sewage and runoff) provided by forested wetlands (Coastal Plain) | CP | |
| Consider availability of environmentally tolerant species--saltwater tolerance (Coastal Plain) | CP | |
| Consider the Availability of reforestation materials in the LMAV | LMAV | |
| Consider of seed sources (genetic diversity) especially bottomland species in the LMAV | LMAV | |
| Consider the effects of changing age structure, especially cypress/Tupelo in the LMAV | LMAV | |
| Consider the locally (LMAV) important invasives Tallow, Privet, Nutria, Cogongrass, Southern Pine Beetle, Sirex, Cypress Leaf Roller | LMAV | |
| Consider impacts on Neotropical bird resting/feeding areas (LMAV) | LMAV | |
| Consider impacts of beavers on regeneration & reestablishment (LMAV) | LMAV | |
| Consider all invasive spp (not just insects, diseases, and plants) | ||
| Consider the effects of geographic seed source | ||
| Genetically improved/altered seedlings (including clonal material) and the need to match tree species to sites. | ||
| Consider declining growth rates and abnormal morphologies within existing forests | ||
| Consider how decreased fertilizer availability – as agriculture increases – may affect use in intensive forestry | ||
| Consider the effects of restrictions in use/availability of chemical controls on land use and management | ||
| Consider the values of forested wetlands, which assimilate waste water and aid in dampening effects of nutrient flow into river and gulf (hypoxia/dead zone) | ||
| Evaluate reductions in tree numbers/ density within forests – due to insects, diseases, senescence, degradations or declines | ||
| Evaluate the effects of biological disturbances on watershed characteristics | ||
| Evaluate the effects of multiple factors on species composition/ forest diversity | ||
| Consider the effects of biological factors on management including harvest rotations | ||
| Evaluate the effects of biological changes on habitats (wildlife and other spp associations) | ||
| Consider the effects of biological changes on esistance of trees to insects and diseases | ||
| Look at effects of changes on water quality in subregions | ||
| Look at effects of changes on carbon storage in forests. | ||
| Consider Fire dynamics: flammability, susceptibility, intensity, use of prescribed fire | ||
| Consider all economic effects, including: Non-consumptive uses (pine straw: economics, forest characteristics), Non-market uses (sassafras, ramps), Wildlife (hunting and fishing), Timber, Recreation, Hunting | ||
| Consider the impacts on soils (as impacted by earthworms or invasive plants that replace natives) | ||
| Consider the effects of changes on ecosystem services (water availability and quality, T&E protection) | ||
| Consider the impacts of genetic diversity (clonal, GMO, improved) on susceptibility to insects and diseases, and on suitability for wildlife | ||
| Consider the effects of native (that act like non-native) invasives (white tailed deer, SPB, beavers, cotton rats, voles) | ||
| Consider the loss of storm mitigation benefits of forested wetlands(Coastal Plain) | ||
Physical |
||
| Consider the effects of climate change on flooding and sea level rise in the Coastal Plain | CP | |
| Consider the effects of resource limitations like water, aquifers, irrigation (coastal plain) | CP | |
| Consider the impacts of development of navigation and reservoirs, levees | LMAV | |
| Waste water assimilation function of forests are important: Using forests as filter from waste water and absorbing nutrients in the process (e.g. Mandeville (north shore of Lake Ponchartrain), Thibodeaux) LMAV | LMAV | |
| Consider alternative development of infrastructure--Roads (e.g., I 49—Lafayette to New Orleans) LMAV | LMAV | |
| MS River diversions increase fresh water to forested areas LMAV | LMAV | |
| Consider the effects of fuels loading in forests | ||
| Consider the effects of hydrologic changes (eg., salt water intrusion, deposition) | ||
| Consider the effects on coastal flooding (reduction of coastline) | ||
| Consider the effects of population growth and urban sprawl on soil quality | ||
| Consider how loss of wildlife habitat could affect the economics of hunting leases | ||
| Consider impacts on the loss of diversity: species, structure (e.g. even age, uneven age stands) | ||
| Consider the effects on values of carbon sequestration | ||
| Consider effects of changes on the intrinsic value for recreation | ||
| Consider the effects of policy changes (permitting) especially on the logging sector | ||
| Consider strategies to change fire regimes to decrease fuels loading and fire class zones | ||
| Severe weather events will result in increased costs to forests for access (upkeep for forest visitors) | ||
| Carbon credits could influence ecosystem services | ||
| Fuels loading—suppression/management may increase management costs | ||
| Consider how fragmentation interacts with biological effects | ||
| Biofuels/timber markets and availability from catastrophic events | ||
| Increased carbon emissions from wood decay (catastrophic event result)—far surpasses carbon sequestration from new growth | ||
| Consider various sea level rise scenarios (habitat change migrates inland) | ||
| How does development of navigation and reservoirs affect forests (reduce natural flood cycles) | ||
| Development (urban) will alter water flow (hydrologic) aspects | ||
| No help/aid for landowners to handle/process large influxes of their material to the marketplace (catastrophic events) | ||
| Forests have beneficial attributes for counteracting catastrophic events (wind, storm surge). Salt water intrusions killing the forest that protect this. | ||
| Effect of flooding on cypress regeneration | ||
| Climate change can be positive: longer growing seasons | ||
| Forest management affects soil and hence productivity/ecosystems (bedding, ripping, fertilizing) | ||
| Parcelization effects: small landowners (< 40 acres) have hard time getting land harvested--generally contactors want 200+acres | ||
| Consider effects of changes on nutrient depletion | ||
| Altered frequency/severity of storms (climate change) cause changes in precipitation patterns | ||
| Evolving equipment have implications for forest conditions: Minimize soil compaction, smaller equipment for smaller trees/acres, larger equipment for larger trees/acre | ||
| Consider soils quality impacts from atmospheric deposition/pollution: Coal-fired plants, heavy metals, soil loss/disturbance, due to lack of rapid reforestation, lack of BMP (Best Management Practices) | ||
Southern Forest Futures Project
SFFP
Forestry Sciences Laboratory
3041 Cornwallis Road
RTP, NC 27709
(919) 549-4011