Bulk of Federal Forest Money Heads West

Lawmakers in the Midwest and East say their national forests are getting the short end of the financial stick and want the Forest Service to change the way the agency doles out cash.

Forest Service officials say the complex formula they use for deciding how much money to send to regions is fair. But they acknowledge the formula has problems and plan to overhaul their budget system by the fall of 2002.

Forests in three states--California, Washington and Oregon--are getting more federal dollars per acre this year than forests in the rest of the nation, according to an analysis by the Associated Press.

Forests in Alaska, Nevada, Utah, southern Idaho and western Wyoming join Midwestern and Eastern forests in getting the fewest dollars, the analysis found.

“Since most of the fights the Forest Service gets into have to deal with national forests in the western U.S., it has been difficult to get them to realize that forests in the Midwest and in the East need attention as well,” said Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee.

“Without adequate support from the Forest Service, we may find those western confrontations moving East,” he said.

The Forest Service, which oversees 192 million acres of national forests, is distributing more than $1.7 billion to nine regional offices this year for firefighting, road maintenance, recreation, timber sales and other programs. Forests nationwide get an average of $7.39 per acre for the programs.

California forests get the most, nearly $14 per acre. Washington and Oregon forests are not far behind at about $10 per acre.

Alaska forests receive the least--fewer than $4 per acre. Forests in part of the Intermountain West receive $5.50, and a swath of forests from Minnesota to Maine takes in just $6.20 per acre.

The lack of funds stalled plans to replant white pines in Ottawa National Forest in Michigan and delayed wildlife surveys in White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire, said Olwen Huxley, a policy analyst with the Northeast Midwest Institute, a nonprofit group that did its own forest funding analysis.

“It’s not fair, but it’s also not good management,” Huxley said of the Forest Service’s formula.

Had funding for forests in the Northeast and Midwest increased by the national average rate over the last six years, the forests would have an additional $24 million to spend this year, according to the analysis by the institute, which has a mission of seeking “regional equity” for states in the Northeast and Midwest.

Huxley said lawmakers in the best position to correct what she sees as an inequity--congressional appropriators--have little incentive to make changes because many of them are from regions in the West that do well under the current formula.

Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.) chairs the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that approves the Forest Service budget. The forests in his region rank second to California in the level of funding per acre this year.

Although Gorton likes to take credit for sending federal dollars to his region, the Forest Service came up with the method for distributing funds, not him, said Gorton spokesman Todd Young.

Young pointed out that the institute’s theory doesn’t hold up, anyway, because two of the states that do the worst under the formula have powerful lawmakers representing them.

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Rep. Ralph Regula (R-Ohio) chairs the House Appropriations subcommittee that crafts the Forest Service budget.

Obey joined 23 other Midwestern and Northeastern House members and senators last fall in asking Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman, whose department includes the Forest Service, to change the method for distributing the money.

Under the formula, the agency considers factors such as forest acreage, tourism, recreation, grazing permits and endangered and threatened species in deciding how much money a Forest Service region needs.

Congress and other groups have faulted the Forest Service for crafting budgets that rely too heavily on past funding patterns and that do not take into account what individual forests need, said Hank Kashdan, the agency’s acting budget director.

The new budgeting process being planned will allow individual forest managers to submit budgets more attune to their needs. For instance, managers may decide they need more money for endangered species and fewer dollars for recreation than the formula currently allows, Kashdan said.

However, top administration officials and Congress will still have the final say on the agency’s budget, Kashdan said.

Northeast Midwest Institute: https://www.nemw.org/

Forest Service: https://www.fs.fed.us/