Washington outlook

American Forests, Spring, 2004 by Gerry Gray

The Bush administration's Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 funding proposals for the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) place great importance on implementing the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA), which passed Congress late last year (see Winter 2004 Washington Outlook). That's appropriate, given that the HFRA is the most significant piece of forestry legislation to pass Congress in a long time. But the President's proposals provide inadequate funding for both hazardous fuels reduction and support of local collaboration.

Language in HFRA sets up key expectations that federal agencies will accomplish a significant amount of hazardous fuel reduction around communities that face wildfire threats--the HFRA authorizes up to 20 million acres--and that a local, collaborative process will be used to plan, prioritize, and implement these projects. Congressional negotiations on Title I of the legislation, which authorized the fuel reduction program were very intense. Several key provisions emerged through bipartisan compromise, including an authorization of $760 million per year for Title I and authorities for community wildfire protection plans and multiparty monitoring as a means of collaboration.

While a White House press release states that the President's FY 2005 budget includes $760 million for his "Healthy Forests Initiative" and the HFRA, it is unclear where these funds are. The total proposed for hazardous fuel reduction for the Forest Service and BLM is only $475 million, a $33 million increase above FY 2004's $442 million. This is a substantial amount but nowhere near the increased investment that we, and many others, expected. At a Forest Service budget hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) told Administration witnesses their proposals were 'hundreds of millions of dollars short of what Congress authorized.' He promised to try to increase these funds. At Wyden's urging the Senate Budget Committee passed a resolution calling for an increase of more that $300 million for implementing the HFRA. That would essentially bring funding to the $760 million level authorized in the bill.

Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth said that the agency planned to be more efficient in achieving its goals by using new tools such as the expanded use of stewardship contracting, categorical exclusions, and other streamlined processes for environmental review. But Wyden argued that, without significant new investment, federal agencies couldn't come close to the amount of work Congress wanted and predicted enormous frustration in rural America.

The costs of hazardous fuel reduction projects vary based on forest type and conditions, location, and treatment options, making it difficult to estimate average project or overall program costs. But we know costs are particularly high where urban areas border forests, and those 'wildland-urban interface' areas are-and should be the priority for most fuel reduction treatments under the HFRA.

The Administration is proposing to treat nearly 4 million acres in FY 2005. Even with $760 million, this would average out to less than $200 per acre--significantly below the cost of environmentally sensitive thinning projects in the West. We fear the Administration's unrealistic targets might drive some resource managers to overharvest merchantable timber to pay for the costs of treatment.

Of equal concern is a lack of clear direction and funding for the Forest Service and BLM to work with local communities on wildfire protection plans and multiparty monitoring. We believe the Administration's proposals send mixed signals--suggesting that agency resource managers will be given greater discretion to make decisions and quickly implement programs while also directing them to work collaboratively with local communities.

While we are aware of concerns that the collaborative process might slow projects down, we believe that up-front collaboration can move projects forward with greater long-term effectiveness than internal decision-making that results in controversy and delay.

The collaborative process has proven effective at bringing disparate elements together to work toward a common goal. But resource managers can't engage in collaboration or support local collaborative efforts without clear funding. According to the Administration's budget language, funding for collaborative activities is contained in the hazardous fuel reduction line item. Yet, there is too little funding in that line item to accomplish even the actual on-the-ground fuel treatments.

We would like to see hazardous fuel reduction funding increase significantly with the stipulation that a portion of those funds will support collaboration efforts. A number of community assistance programs could be called on to support these collaborative mechanisms--programs such as Forest Service Economic Action Programs and the Community and Private Land Assistance Program--but the Administration's proposals significantly reduce or eliminate their funding.