Figure 13. — Stand improvement includes proper spacing of trees. These two lodgepole pine 

 cross sections came from the same area. The section with wide annual rings was cut from a 

 17-year-old tree established in an opening created by timber harvest. The section with 

 narrow rings was cut from a 105-year-old tree growing in an overcrowded stand. 



ministration and management (Tj ) at the 99 

 percent level, but forwarded only 81 percent 

 of agency requests for Reforestation and 

 stand improvement (T 2 ). The other two levels 

 of the budget process present similar pictures. 

 The Bureau of the Budget supported Tj at 93 

 percent of agency requests, but forwarded 

 only 67 percent of suggested funding levels 

 for T 2 . Many people, both in and out of the 

 Forest Service, would like to know what tech- 

 nical information was available to these higher 

 level budget makers which continued to elude 

 the agency itself. 



It is interesting to note in figure 15 that 

 greater emphasis was given to the Reforesta- 

 tion and stand improvement item before the 

 MU-SY Act was passed than after, by both 

 the Congress and the Bureau of the Budget. 

 The charts show the support levels for the 

 period prior to the MU-SY Act, the period 

 after its passage, and the entire 18-year 

 period. 



The discussion above has established a 

 basis on which the relative priorities assigned 



to the FOREST resources by the three higher 

 levels in the budgetmaking process can be esti- 

 mated. Relative priority ranking here is prob- 

 ably best evidenced by the willingness to 

 either accept or cut the original budget re- 

 quests of the Forest Service. If budget cuts 

 are necessary, or full financing deemed unwar- 

 ranted, then seemingly, cuts should appear 

 more often and to a greater extent in the 

 low-priority items. If the priority rankings are 

 consistent with those of the Forest Service it- 

 self, there should be little variation, if any, in 

 the percentage of separate line items funded, 

 even though the total budget request is cut. 



The year-to-year fluctuation in funding 

 levels as set by the higher budget review 

 bodies (fig. 15) reveal an unmistakable and 

 consistent emphasis on two of the resources 

 in the FOREST. Without exception, over any 

 period measured, all three budget levels place 

 Timber sales administration and management 

 (T! ) as the number one priority. Again, 

 without exception, all three budget levels 

 place Range resource management (R) as the 



62 



