Washington outlook.

President Bush's FY 2006 budget proposals for the Forest Service present some harsh fiscal messages, particularly for programs that support collaborative efforts between the federal government and communities, both urban and rural.

Many programs in the departments of Agriculture and Interior that have been targeted for elimination or reduction have provided grants and assistance to communities for conservation purposes, wildfire protection, and economic development. The Administration says these programs are low performing, duplicate other federal programs, or are not a federal responsibility.

The reductions are widespread and uneven, but education, community development, and natural resource conservation programs all took heavy hits. Two examples of conservation programs targeted for elimination have been high priorities for AMERICAN FORESTS' advocacy efforts on behalf of community-based forestry.

The Forest Service's Economic Action Program (EAP), which provides technical and financial assistance to improve economies in rural forest communities, was cut because it "duplicates other federal programs." Likewise, the Bureau of Land Management's Jobs-in-the-Woods program, which provides training and job opportunities for unemployed forest workers in the Northwest was deemed "no longer necessary."

Especially discomforting is the fact that program cuts are cloaked in broad initiatives such as "Strengthening America's Communities" and "cooperative conservation," which make it look like the Administration is providing special support in these program areas.

For example, President Bush last year issued an executive order on "cooperative conservation" directing the secretaries of Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, and Defense, as well as the EPA administrator, to "promote conservation partnerships and to empower local participation in programs and projects that protect and conserve natural resources and the environment."

A recent Administration news release seeks to demonstrate the President's support for cooperative conservation through his FY 2006 budget proposals. Yet the Forest Service case for its support of collaboration and partnership rings hollow. The agency mentions $253 million for State and Private Forestry (S&PF) programs, which generally do support cooperation with state and local governments, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, and private landowners. But this does not acknowledge that S&PF programs were actually reduced by more than $39 million--13 percent--from last year. (If supplemental appropriations of $49 million were included, the reduction from last year would be $88 million, a whopping 25 percent.)

Besides a small increase of $5 million for the Forest Stewardship Program, which provides technical and financial assistance to nonfederal landowners, and a substantial $23 million increase for the Forest Legacy Program, which acquires easements to protect non-federal forest lands threatened by development, all other S&PF programs were cut and EAP eliminated.

In touting its support of cooperative conservation, the Administration identifies $49 million proposed for the Forest Service's Wildland Fire Management programs in forest health, state fire assistance, and volunteer fire assistance. While this is a significant amount of funding, the news release fails to recognize that the President's budget actually reduces these programs by $24 million from last year.

Among the programs listed as supporting cooperative conservation, some do provide grants and assistance to communities, non-profits, and other nonfederal entities for collaboration. Others, however, are questionable partnership programs. For example: $281 million for the Hazardous Fuels Reduction program and $108 million for forest management trust funds. Federal policy might call for implementation through local collaboration, but they are programs with traditional land management objectives. It is less clear how they empower states, tribes, communities, private landowners, and others to undertake conservation projects.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Finally, the President's budget fails to take on the challenge of increasing wildfire suppression costs in a serious way. A major challenge facing the Forest Service and BLM the past several years has been wildfire suppression costs that significantly exceed appropriated funds, resulting in funds being transferred from other programs. These fund transfers have had a dramatic effect on communities, businesses, and other resource management objectives.

Last year a broad coalition that included AMERICAN FORESTS recommended at least a temporary solution: Create a separate account from which funds would become available if and when wildfire suppression funds were depleted. Congress adopted the recommendation and created an account with $400 million for the Forest Service and $100 million for BLM. The President's FY 2006 budget does include $52 million more in wildfire suppression funds for the Forest Service and $16 million more for BLM, but nowhere near the amounts likely to be needed, based on recent experience.

The Administration may be avoiding this issue in its budget, leaving it for Congress or seeking to deal with it through a request for emergency supplemental funds. We believe it would have been better for the Administration to acknowledge the issue in its budget proposals. The coalition has already submitted a letter to Congress urging the $500 million be included in its FY 2006 budget.

Developing budget proposals involves identifying priorities and funding strategies for achieving them. Major initiatives in President Bush's FY 2006 budget proposal seem to reflect many of the same priorities on which AMERICAN FORESTS is working: restoring and maintaining healthy forest ecosystems, developing and implementing conservation programs and projects through collaboration or partnerships, and building the capacity of rural and urban communities to participate in forest stewardship. But, the funding strategies proposed by the Administration do not fit with our views of how to achieve these common priorities. AMERICAN FORESTS will work with our community-based partners, with Congress, and with the Administration to find ways to address these concerns.