Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Some pros and cons on new Forest Service budget process

U.S. Forest Service officials directing big projects on the Bridger-Teton National Forest are no longer confined to drawing money from specific program budgets.  By pooling budgets, officials say, they can direct funds to where they’re needed. That means the national forest has been able to treat more acreage for invasive weeds, decommission more miles of unwanted roads and restore more aquatic habitat. The retooling is part of the Forest Service’s “Integrated Resource Restoration” program, which is being used by a dozen forests in the Intermountain Region. It includes the Bridger-Teton and Caribou-Targhee national forests. “It’s a difference in the way that they fund the forest,” said Travis Bruch, the Bridger-Teton’s silviculturalist.  Under the Integrated Resource Restoration approach, “instead of taking seven pots of money, they’re putting it all into one pot. The idea is that all the groups will work together to accomplish more forestwide, landscape-level goals,” Bruch said.  Program budgets that have been combined include those for timber, wildlife, range, soil and watershed, Bridger-Teton spokeswoman Mary Cernicek said...more

Can you think of a range improvement project that fits in to "forestwide, landscape level goals"?  

Here's another article on IRR, this time based out of Montana.  It says, "The concern moved to a higher level last week, when the Obama administration called for expanding the IRR budgeting system nationwide. Currently only Forest Service regions 1, 3 and 4 are using the method."

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The only range improvement project at that level is probably the complete removal of all livestock from the N.F. and the greenies would say that meets the intent of congress.