We have been deluged by responses to Barry Wynsma's thoughtful essay on Forest Service leadership - or the lack thereof. Provided here is some feedback on the essay.
W.V. "Mac" McConnell writes from Florida. He is a U.S. Forest Service retiree whose Power Point presentations have appeared on our website many times. His latest efforts are nearby: an updated version of his earlier "Timber Resource Management" Power Point and a fascinating photograph, "One Landscape: Four Views," that shows what is happening on adjacent public and private forests at Deep Creek, near Townsend, Montana.
Editor's comment concerning Mike Petersen's (Executive Director - Lands Council) Response To Dr. Tom Bonnicksen's Essay, "Death Of A Forest: Why We Should Care"
Funding the Indian Forestry Program
What’s funding got to do with it? Funding is the critical key in every aspect of the Indian Forestry Program. It is one of the largest challenges we face in meeting our trust obligations to the Indian forest land owners. This challenge is encountered at every level of the program: national, regional, and at the tribe/agency level. Whether it is justifying, requesting, defending, distributing, or waiting for project funding to arrive, we are all affected. And, we are faced with the knowledge that there is not enough funding to perform all of the forestry management activities we are tasked with.
The Second Indian Forest Management Assessment Team’s (IFMAT II) report agrees with this assessment. “Funding for Indian forests, even with tribal contributions, continues to lag behind both federal investments on the National Forests that are managed for ecological services, and on comparable state and private lands managed for timber production. Despite increased funding for the fire program to protect forests from catastrophic fire and to increase forest health, rigid regulations prevent efficient use of funds to achieve integrated forest management. Smaller reservations and allotments pose special management problems due to larger per acre management costs. Partitioning of BIA budgets to individual tribes under self-determination and constant or declining budgets for technical services have strained the capacity of the BIA to provide a critical mass of technical service capacity.
 Figure 1. Federal funding for the Forestry Program increased between 1997 and 2005. Recurring funds are Tribal Priority Allocations. Non-Recurring funds are forest development, forest inventories and planning, and woodland management. Special funds are for Endangered Species, Forest Health Protection, and special projects. Self-governance transfers are not shown in this table. |
The table below shows the amount of funds provided in federal appropriations the Fiscal Years of 1997 through 2005.
From 1997 through 2002, federal appropriations have only increased because of fixed cost additions to cover federal pay raises, etc. Exceptions to this statement occur in the “Special” activity area of the budget where endangered species, forest health protection, and congressionally earmarked special projects may or may not be funded.
Recently, direct Indian forestry program funding increases were realized in three successive years, very much an anomaly in tight budget times. This is a direct result of the respect that is growing in political and management circles for Indian forestry and our ability to consistently manage forests year after year. In FY 2003, forestry Recurring funding was increased by $1,500,000 to harvest more forest products. Then, in FY 2004, forestry Recurring funding received a second increment of $1,500,000 for again harvesting more forest products. Also in FY 2004, forestry Non-Recurring funding was increased by $1,000,000 for the purpose of providing Integrated Resource Management Plan (IRMP) development grants. This was the first time that money was specifically appropriated for IRMP development.
Finally, in FY 2005, forestry Non-Recurring funding was again increased by $1,000,000; this time to address the lack of Forest Management Plans (FMPs) for all forested reservations and trust properties. This last increase capped a total three-year budget increase of $5,000,000, and was a direct result of the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) that was conducted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The additional funds are justified by the requirement in the PART to have approved FMPs for all forested reservations. OMB is tracking our progress in getting new plans approved. We have established a long-term goal of having plans in place for all reservations by 2015. This longterm goal also serves to implement two of the IFMAT II recommendations, paraphrased as follows: first, an aggressive planning program be implemented that will develop FMPs for all relevant Indian timberlands and woodlands within ten years; and second, amend the BIA Manual to allow for plans to be considered current until amended. We plan to accomplish both of these recommendations.
 Figure 2. Source of data is the National Funding and Position Analysis for these respective years.3 |
The Division of Forestry has compiled a National Funding and Position Analysis seven times since 1984. Six of the analyses captured a snapshot of tribal contributions. The table above summarizes the findings from these six reports.
What is the outlook for future funding? In the immediate future new or increased appropriations are going to be difficult to obtain. The current federal budget deficit and stiff competition for funds for other priorities within the federal sector will be difficult to overcome. The Division of Forestry, however, took a recent step toward overcoming some of these difficulties. One of the IFMAT II recommendations was for the BIA to integrate the large wildland fire budget with the forestry budget. The thought process involved with this recommendation was that woody fuels treatments are one of the tools of a complete forestry program and should be treated as such. As a result of this thought process, the BIA Fuels Program Business Management Handbook now contains an approved process by which hazardous fuels funding can be utilized to treat the fuels component of forestry projects. If the process is followed, tribes and agencies will have another substantial funding source to draw from in their overall forest management package.
Another relatively recent development is that Congress and the Office of Management and Budget are changing the federal budget process to a performance based system. While new reporting requirements have placed additional financial burdens on tribes operating federal programs, the reporting requirements are necessary in order to obtain data for Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the previously mentioned PART, and the Activity Based Costing (ABC) model that is under development. Providing accurate and timely data to meet these reporting requirements is essential to justify continuing appropriations and hopefully to secure the basis for future funding increases. In conclusion, funding is the critical key in every aspect of the Indian Forestry Program. While we have not come close to levels of funding identified as necessary in either the IFMAT II report or the Funding and Position Analysis, we have nurtured an acknowledged respect of the Indian forestry program; a respect that generates consistent if not rising budgets.
human need to use natural resources is fundamental to our continued presence on earth."