The 2010 CFLRP allocation matched non-USFS sources at a 1:1 ratio. The total dollar amount of planned restoration actions in the ten projects for 2010 is $75 million.  The total  Includes forest restoration activity on the National Forest System (NFS) lands and off NFS lands - a landscape scale consistent with the Chief's All Lands approach to conservation.  The distribution of funding sources for 2010 are:  partner contributions (9%), other (16%), off NFS (24% - BLM, other DOI, and private), and forest products (1%).  The 16% in the category of "other" benefited in 2010 from stimulus dollars (another federal government source).  In addition to the CFLRP contribution of $10 million, the other  USFS funding sources are sourced from the following accounts:  appropriated, permanent, and trust funds. 

 In addition to the mandated 50% match, other factors will likely reduce the magnitude of the federal dollars available.  Pressure to reduce Department of Agriculture budgets will likely increase due to the magnitude of federal deficit spending and the national debt.  The FY 2010 federal deficit estimate published by the Congressional Budget Office was $1.3 trillion, roughly 10% of GDP.  The federal debt climbed to $14 trillion, approaching total GDP.  Forest Service budgets fall in the category of discretionary spending which means the odds of the CFLRP dollars increasing by 150% compared to first year distribution is optimistic.  The size of the non-federal pieces of the pie will need to increase in order to meet project projections and advance forest restoration on 100 million acres of public lands.

The forest products contribution to restoration, as documented in the ten approved projects, is  only 6%.  The bubble chart (below) places the percentage contribution of forest products for each project (size of the bubble) by referencing the relative contribution of matching (labeled Other on the  Y-axis)) and USFS funds (X-axis).  Two projects forecast zero forest products revenue for the first year; only eight bubbles appear in the figure instead of ten.

Although forest products revenue offers potential for growth, several factors constrain that potential.  Biomass removal is often a cost to a landscape scale project, and not a source of revenue.  Particularly in regions where sawlogs dominate, markets limit chips to a secondary status.  Unless, or until, demand for biomass reflects the energy value of the material, removals will be a cost or break-even.  Sawlogs, by contrast, can contribute to the restoration revenue, even in suppressed lumber markets.  To increase the pace of restoration progress, forest product supply will need to be produced at an annual harvest volume adequate to compensate for the likely decrease in Forest Service funding.  The level of harvest also must consider the impacts of increasing the restoration footprint (i.e., the scale of the treatment activity).  Analogous to marginal analysis in microeconomics, a collaboration will want to increase areas treated as long as the restoration benefits exceed costs and negative impacts of treatment disturbance.

Each of the  ten project descriptions offers an example of successful forest landscape collaboration.  (The ten project proposal documents are available from the Map Index heading below).  The Tapas Landscape Project on the Okanagon-Wenatchee National Forest in Washington tells an intriguing story from the perspective of financial  constraints and economic objectives.  The  project design treats CFLRP as a short-term financing mechanism and not as a long-term  entitlement.  The partners have combined ecological objectives with utilization revenue and economic development.  Landscape investments from partners and revenue derived from forest products produce a pro forma distinct among the projects.  Forest Service dollars provide seed money in the first five years.  In year one, partner investments are also a significant proportion of the total restoration financing.  Forest utilization revenue builds in 2015, and for the years 2016-2017 the CFLRP request is zero!  An analysis of the local economic impact of the scheduled treatments is 376 part and full-time jobs.

The Tapas  collaboration's project  represents a substantial history of time and  energy to  propose a strategy.  Consensus recommendations involve long meetings between diverse interests in order to reach a common vision of a restored landscape.  The reward is a Forest Service proposed action that goes unchallenged due to its merits, and restores the landscape to a more resilient pattern of forest conditions.  Successful implementation of the project not only requires a Record of Decision that goes unchallenged, the financing must also be sufficient to implement the proposed action.  The Tapas Landscape Restoration strategy is work that merits monitoring.  It just may be a template  that the rest of us can follow.  Under Secretary Sherman and the public have 100 million acres waiting.