Washington outlook.

Like last year, President Bush's FY 2007 budget proposal for the Forest Service suggests bad news for programs that support forest restoration through collaborative efforts between the agency and communities. Many programs AMERICAN FORESTS and our community-based forestry partners consider priorities are proposed for cuts or elimination.

Ironically, many of our priority strategies--collaboration, forest restoration, and protecting open space through markets for ecosystem services--are featured among the President's as well. However, the Administration interprets those strategies and translates them into program budgets far differently than we would.

In fact, two major proposals among the Administration's strategy to expand collaborative efforts, we believe, would do more harm than good to current Forest Service efforts toward collaborative forest restoration.

One of these would increase Northwest Forest Plan funding by $65 million so the Forest Service can sell 800 million board-feet of timber in 2007. To support this increase, the President would hike the Forest Products program by $30 million and give the Northwest a greater portion of the agency's program funding--mostly from National Forest System programs but also from Hazardous Fuels Reduction and Capital Improvement and Maintenance for roads. This emphasis on achieving a timber target, we fear, will create new conflict among diverse interest groups in the Northwest, stalling or negating progress recently made through collaborative efforts focused on forest restoration. It also will cause resentment and controversy in those regions whose funding was reduced.

The other proposal would sell parcels of land within the National Forest System to help raise $800 million to fund a five-year extension of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-393). This Act--in particular its Title II, which established local Resource Advisory Committees--has been one of the most important and promising pieces of legislation over the last decade for developing place-based, collaborative forest restoration projects on federal lands.

Selling increasingly valuable, long-term assets to pay for short-term, one-time operational costs is shortsighted and irresponsible. We believe that Congress should reauthorize and fund the legislation for another seven years, as proposed last year in bipartisan legislation by senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Larry Craig (R-ID).

We would also suggest Congress consider how local Resource Advisory Committees could encourage practical experiments to develop future revenue streams--such as payments for ecosystem services--to help support place-based, collaborative forest-restoration projects.

The Administration's 2007 budget is presented against a backdrop of political priorities: the war on terror, strengthening homeland defense, and economic recovery, and the Forest Service budget seeks to do more with less, as summed-up in this statement:

"The Forest Service must therefore use collaborative approaches and operate with renewed efficiency in order to reduce costs while accomplishing its mission."

On one hand, it is good to have the Administration prominently recognize the importance of collaborating with other federal agencies, state and local governments, and nongovernmental organizations. President Bush's August 2004 Executive Order on Cooperative Conservation, followed a year later by a White House Conference on the same topic, has elevated collaboration as a central tenet of the Administration's policy direction for the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and other federal agencies involved in land conservation. This federal focus is an important achievement for those of us who have been advocating for collaborative approaches over the last decade.

With the Administration's major emphases on efficiency and cost-reduction, however, it seems collaboration is being interpreted narrowly. The Administration's tendency seems to be to treat collaboration as cost-reduction by letting the private sector or state and local governments take on more financial responsibility for activities such as assistance to communities and nonfederal forest landowners, community fire protection, and rural development.

AMERICAN FORESTS encourages collaboration that focuses on building understanding and trust among diverse agencies and organizations. We support developing plans and projects on which they can work together, implementing projects in ways that both use current capacity and build new capacity among public and private partner organizations, and monitoring the results for accountability and adaptive learning. Many of the Forest Service programs that we believe are central to this type of collaborative work have been hit hard in the President's FY 2007 budget proposal.

The agency's State and Private Forestry (S & PF) programs take the greatest cuts on a percentage basis, down 12.5 percent, or $35 million, from last year's S & PF budget. By definition, S & PF programs are those through which the Forest Service cooperates with other entities, including private for-profits and not-for-profits, as well as other governments in the U.S. and internationally.

S & PF programs are cut across the board; the only exception is the Forest Legacy Program, which received a $5 million increase to $61.5 million. AMERICAN FORESTS supports the proposed increase for Forest Legacy, which provides funds for acquiring easements on nonfederal forests threatened by conversion to nonforest uses. We encourage Congress to restore funding for S & PF programs the President's budget would cut or eliminate. (See AF's testimony on the President's FY 2007 budget proposals on our website.) The President's proposals would completely eliminate the Economic Action Program ($9.5 million) and the Forest Resource Information and Analysis Program ($4.6 million). Other reductions: $12.5 million in Forest Health; $6 million in State Fire Assistance and Volunteer Fire Assistance; $1.6 million in Urban and Community Forestry; and $.3 million in Forest Stewardship.

Wildland Fire Management also is targeted for cuts in programs that support collaboration with rural communities on wildfire protection. Most importantly, more than 40 percent ($16.7 million) would be cut from the State Fire Assistance program, which provides critical support for Community Wildfire Protection Plan--the key mechanism for local collaboration in identifying and designing projects to reduce hazardous fuels around communities.

AMERICAN FORESTS continues to encourage strong funding for the Hazardous Fuels Reduction Program, and therefore, supports the President's proposal to increase funding to $292 million. We are concerned, however, that the agency's emphasis on efficiency seems to translate into efforts to treat the most acres at the least cost. That ignores the need to support local collaboration in identifying the highest priority acres, the best treatment methods, and how to provide opportunities for local businesses and workers through these projects.

Another concern is a significant reduction for Rehabilitation and Restoration, which would leave the program with only $2 million. Five years ago Congress gave this program $142 million to help achieve critical post-wildfire objectives, such as dealing with invasive species and encouraging reforestation through tree planting or natural regeneration, as well as the larger National Fire Plan goal of restoring fire-adapted ecosystems. Since then, however, the Administration has consistently requested little or no funding for it; Congress has restored some funding each year but in ever smaller amounts.