Washington outlook.

Congress finally passed an Interior Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year (FY) 2005, providing funding for Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and other federal natural resource programs. The bill, however, was caught up in election year politics and, therefore, became wrapped up in an omnibus appropriations bill that was passed hastily in a special session of Congress after the presidential elections and after the fiscal year had begun.

The good news is that Congress did pass a bill this year, rather than waiting for the 109th Congress to begin. The not-so-good news is that many of the priority programs for which AMERICAN FORESTS and many of our community-based partners have advocated in the bill did not fare very well.

The bill is a mixed bag, and some important programs did receive strong funding, especially given the severe budget constraints on natural resource and domestic spending programs. For example, Congress did come through with significant supplemental funds for wildfire suppression activities so that the Forest Service and BLM will not have to continue borrowing from other land management programs when all wildfire suppression funds for the year have been spent.

This "borrowing" from other programs for emergency wildfire suppression has been a major problem over the past few years and has had adverse effects on a wide range of programs important to communities and forest stewardship. The new bill provides an additional $500 million for wildfire suppression-$400 million for the Forest Service and $100 million for the BLM-to be used if all firefighting dollars have been spent.

The bill also provides significant funding increases for "hazardous fuels reduction" activities by the federal agencies, generally thinning small-diameter trees and clearing brush. The Forest Service received a $33 million increase from last year for a total of $266 million, and the BLM received a $20 million increase for a total of $204 million.

Though this total--$470 million--is substantial, it is far less than the amount needed to address the high-priority concern of reducing wildfire risks to communities and forest resource values. As we've discussed in the past, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act authorized $760 million for these activities through a bipartisan agreement (see Spring 2004). We have advocated for annual funding at that level, especially to develop fuels-reduction activities through the local collaborative processes the Act authorized.

A major disappointment is that the final Interior Appropriations bill eliminates funding for local collaboration and community assistance that was included in earlier House and Senate versions. The House, for example, had included specific funding for "community wildfire protection plans" in several Forest Service programs. These community-based plans are a critical mechanism for local collaboration in identifying and prioritizing hazardous fuels-reduction projects.

The House bill had included $5 million in Cooperative Fire Assistance, $3 million in the Forest Stewardship Program, and language stating that the $40 million for State Fire Assistance should be used "preferentially" for community wildfire protection plans. The House and Senate conferees on the final bill eliminated these funds in each instance, although they included language recognizing the importance of community wildfire protection plans.

Similarly, the Senate bill included specific funding for "multiparty monitoring" of hazardous fuels-reduction projects, another key mechanism for local collaboration. The conferees removed the $5 million allocation, part of the Inventory and Monitoring program. However, they acknowledged support for this activity and encouraged "various groups to participate in collaborative planning and engage in monitoring."

Support for "community assistance," or efforts to engage local communities and to build their capacity to participate in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act and the National Fire Plan, also suffered in the final Interior Appropriations bill. State and volunteer fire assistance and the Economic Action Programs were significantly reduced, and even the urban and community forestry program was slightly cut.

Furthermore, the problem of "earmarks" was exacerbated through the chaotic process of an omnibus appropriations bill. In addition to receiving $6 million less than last year, the Economic Action Programs were even more heavily earmarked. Of the more than $19 million designated for the programs, only $5 million was left for basic program activities; the rest was earmarked for specific projects.

As we look ahead to 2005 and the start of the 109th Congress, AMERICAN FORESTS anticipates opportunities to participate in further policy discussions regarding these priorities on local collaboration and community assistance. It is likely that the new Congress will hold oversight hearings on how well activities authorized by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act and the National Fire Plan are being implemented.

After five years, the "Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act" is up for reauthorization. In addition to making federal payments to counties for schools and local infrastructure, this law created a mechanism for counties to fund forest stewardship projects on federal lands through a community-based process involving Resource Advisory Committees.

Another model of local collaboration Congress might discuss is the "Community Forest Restoration Act," which created the pilot Collaborative Forest Restoration Program in New Mexico. Although this law does not require reauthorization after five years, there is congressional interest in expanding it to other states.

Finally, opportunities to explore new mechanisms for local collaboration are likely to arise as discussions begin on the next Farm Bill. Congress is expected to lay the bill's groundwork, which deals primarily with private forest conservation, this summer. The bill is not expected to be passed until 2006 or 2007.