[Senate Hearing 110-60]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-60
SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY SELF-DETERMINATION REAUTHORIZATION
ACT OF 2007
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 380
TO REAUTHORIZE THE SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY SELF-
DETERMINATION ACT OF 2000, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
MARCH 1, 2007
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
36-027 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)
512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202)512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
RON WYDEN, Oregon CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado BOB CORKER, Tennessee
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
JON TESTER, Montana MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Frank Macchiarola, Republican Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Jeff Bingaman and Pete V. Domenici are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Scott Miller, Counsel
Frank Gladics, Republican Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 1
Burr, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator from North Carolina............. 4
Cantwell, Hon. Maria, U.S. Senator from Washington............... 19
Francis, Michael A., Director, National Forests Program, The
Wilderness Society............................................. 36
Jacobson, Julie, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals
Management, Department of the Interior......................... 9
Kusel, Jonathan, Director, Sierra Institute for Community and
Environment.................................................... 25
Rey, Mark, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and the
Environment, Department of Agriculture......................... 6
Robertson, John Douglas, Chairman, Board of Commissioners,
Douglas County, OR............................................. 33
Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator from Colorado.................... 4
Tester, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from Montana...................... 4
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from Oregon........................ 1
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 49
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 55
SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY SELF-DETERMINATION REAUTHORIZATION
ACT OF 2007
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH, 1, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden,
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. The subcommittee will come to order. This is
the first hearing of the subcommittee and I'll have an opening
statement and then I think since Senator Burr is not here, our
ranking minority member. Senator Craig, why don't you make the
opening statement, if it is all right with you? Let's both
allow Senator Bingaman to proceed. I know he's on a very tight
schedule.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to
you and Senator Craig both for your leadership on this
important issue. I know that this County Payments program was
created by you--and Senator Craig with his help--and I know
it's been a great benefit for your States and other States as
well. I commend you for that.
I think the issue of course that we're dealing with now,
and it's one we talked to Secretary Rey about at the hearing--
was it yesterday? Time flies around here; I don't know, it
seems like yesterday.
At any rate we talked about where we go from here. My own
sense, and I've expressed these views before, is that it is
very difficult to get the support to proceed with the program
as it's currently structured. I favor trying to do a multi-year
reauthorization, but I think to do so, we need to look at some
restructuring of the program, and clearly the cost of the
program is a substantial factor as well.
I'm informed that we're talking about $3 to $4 billion in
order to get this reauthorized for the next several years in
any form, so changing the formula so that other States realize
a more substantial benefit from it, I think is essential. I
think at the same time it can be a substantial benefit to the
States that are currently benefiting and I hope we can find a
way to move ahead and do that.
As I say you deserve tremendous credit for getting us to
this point, and I know that you and Senator Craig have worked
hard over the last couple of years to try to get this program
reauthorized and moving forward. We're closer to agreement on
this than we've been in a long time so I appreciate that very
much.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and we look forward
very much to working with you on it. As Chairman Bingaman
noted, the purpose of today's hearing is to receive testimony
on S. 380, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Reauthorization Act of 2007--a bill that I
introduced and is also co-sponsored by 11 other Senators,
including a member of this subcommittee, my colleague and
friend, Senator Smith.
Before I turn to the legislation, this is our first hearing
of the subcommittee and I want to note that for almost a decade
Senator Craig and I have worked together on this. I am looking
forward to continuing that particular tradition.
I also want to welcome an old friend. Senator Burr is the
new ranking minority member of the subcommittee regardless of
whether an issue involves Federal land in the eastern or
western part of the State. If the bill is going to be approved
by the Senate, final passage almost always requires very strong
bipartisan support.
I'm been very proud in this subcommittee of being
influential on both of the major forestry bills that have
passed the U.S. Senate and been signed into law in the last 20
years--the County Payments Legislation and the Forest Health
Legislation--and we want to continue that strong bipartisan
tradition.
For 6 years, the legislation we consider today has been
nothing less than a lifeline for forest-dependent communities
in more than 40 States and in more than 700 counties
nationwide. I'm honored by the distinguished representatives
from the administration, Sierra Institute, Wilderness Society
in the State of Oregon whose participation here today
underscores the importance of the County Payments Program.
It is essential to recognize that as this hearing is held
the future of rural communities literally hangs in the balance.
Sheriffs, cops on the beat, those who are running search-and-
rescue missions, teachers, students, parents, they're all
watching--probably a lot of them live on streaming video--in
order to find out whether their small rural community is going
to survive or whether the Federal Government is going to
dishonor an almost 100 year obligation to rural communities.
As today's witnesses will attest, there is both a moral and
historic imperative to continue the critical safety net
program. In 1908 in consideration for consenting to the
creation of a National Forest System, forested counties in
Oregon received revenue directly from Federal timber harvests.
The Congress did this because it understood that in protecting
the country's forests, counties would be saddled with land that
could neither be developed nor taxed. Those fees paid for
schools and essential county services.
Neither the counties nor the Federal Government could have
envisioned 100 years ago that environmental laws enacted by
future Congresses would impinge on this funding obligation to
rural communities, but a future Congress had to address that
very scenario last decade when timber harvest precipitously
dropped in counties who were not only hit by the loss of timber
harvesting jobs, they lost the Federal payments that were
essential for services in their communities.
It was in this crisis in 1999 that Senator Craig and I
authored the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act, which despite partisan legislation, brought
concrete relief to suffering rural communities. For 6 years it
has meant essential funding for those law enforcement programs,
for schools, for roads programs and critical services.
In addition, the County Payments Law is widely recognized
as an extremely successful statue fostering all-too-rare
cooperation between counties, timber interests and
environmentalists. There are folks, who before this law, could
rarely be seen speaking to each other about natural resources,
let alone coming together to work together at the same table.
For 2 years now, I and others have been trying to sound the
alarm bell about the urgency of reauthorizing County Payments
and attempting to move forward with a long-term reauthorization
of the Secure Rural Schools Law. Yet neither the administration
nor this body was willing to move forward on legislation. As
chair of this subcommittee, with the help and the commitment of
the chairman of the full committee, Senator Bingaman, the
passage of the Secure Rural Schools Statue is my top priority.
I cannot predict or promise an outcome, but I can promise
my State that this Senate is going to vote on whether or not it
will honor its obligation to forested rural communities. If we
do not choose to honor our obligation those critical programs
could all unravel scores of small communities in rural
counties.
Just last week the sheriff in Grants Pass, Oregon told me
that his police force is being stretched so thin that he is
looking at the prospect of calling out the National Guard in
order to protect the lives of citizens in his community. My
State is not alone in this fate. The law supports rural
communities across the country, and that is why there are
sponsors of the reauthorization from around the country.
The National Education Association has found 18,379 schools
and 557,000 teachers will be affected by not reauthorizing the
County Payments Program. Schools are expected to be closed,
teachers laid off, school weeks shortened and numerous programs
canceled. Some counties have suggested that they will have to
release prisoners from their law enforcement programs and
eliminate other vital services.
With all due respect to a committee alumnus, Secretary Rey,
the Bush Administration has consistently refused to make the
Secure Rural Schools Act a funding priority. I will note
briefly that the administration again proposes to sell off
almost 275,000 acres of public land as a way to fund the
program. A proposal distinguished primarily because it has
brought a tidal wave of bipartisan opposition in both the House
and the Senate. I hope that we're not going to waste time
discussing an idea that cannot pick up even one Republican
United States Senator as a supporter.
Today we're going to hear more about the urgent need for
the program. It is my hope that we can focus the committee and
the Senate on the need to finally work together and reauthorize
this program so as to prevent needless suffering.
We've got a superb group of witnesses, people with strong
views who are extremely knowledgeable. I'm especially pleased
that Doug Robertson of Douglas County in my home State will be
here. He's joined by a number of county officials from around
the State. I want to recognize the ranking minority member at
this time to just take care of a few administrative matters.
We're asking all of our witnesses to summarize the key
points of their testimony to limit their remarks to no more
than 5 minutes. We can have, I think, several rounds for the
Senators. All of the witnesses' written statements will be made
a part of the record. We're also expecting to get a letter of
support for the legislation from Governor Kulongoski of Oregon.
Senator Burr.
[The prepared statements of Senators Salazar and Tester
follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ken Salazar, U.S. Senator From Colorado
Thank you Chairman Wyden, Senator Burr.
During the 109th Congress I came to just about every hearing of the
Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee, even though I was not a member,
because the hearings almost always focused on issues important to my
State of Colorado with approximately 35% of our land under the control
of the Forest Service, BLM, Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife
Service.
This Congress, I am an official member of this subcommittee and I
am excited to join Chairman Wyden at the first hearing of the year.
I'd like to say thank you to our witnesses for coming today. I look
forward to hearing your testimonies and hearing your views on
reauthorizing the county payments legislation.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jon Tester, U.S. Senator From Montana
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing today.
While the west as a whole has experienced rapidly changing
demographics over the last two decades, the economies of many of our
rural communities have not. The Secure Rural Schools program is vitally
important to communities in Montana that are most in need of funding
for schools and county services because of the safety net that it
provides. I intend to work with my colleagues in the Senate to find a
workable solution to extend this program and maintain this necessary
safety net for rural communities.
In regard to the President's proposal to phase out the Secure Rural
Schools program, I am particularly troubled by the proposal to sell off
hundreds of thousands of acres of land including 11,159 acres in
Montana, and use a portion of revenues for a few remaining years of the
program. Montanans demand more access to public lands, not less, and
more recreation opportunities, not fewer. The Administration's
assertion that these lands are isolated and difficult to maintain is
false in too many instances to warrant serious discussion of the
proposal's few merits. I will fight the sale of our public lands under
this proposal, because I do not believe it is in the best interests of
our nation as a whole, or for Montana's rural communities that use
these lands for hunting, fishing and access to other recreation sites.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, U.S. SENATOR FROM
NORTH CAROLINA
Senator Burr. Mr. Chairman, thank you and it's certainly a
pleasure to work once again with my good friend, Senator Ron
Wyden, and more importantly for scheduling this hearing.
I understand the issue is very important to your State. I
know that you and Senator Craig have been leaders on this
issue. I want to tell you that I'm pleased to be your ranking
member. I think this subcommittee has important work to do and
this is a start of that important work today. Some might think,
``What's the interest in North Carolina?'' North Carolina has a
proud history of public land management, and it's home to
Nantahala, Pisgah and Croatan and Uwharrie National Forests,
with approximately 1.2 million acres of National Forest in
North Carolina, covering approximately 25 percent of our entire
State.
Mr. Chairman, Asheville, North Carolina is known as the
cradle of American forestry. I know that's hard for you to
believe, but the first college of forestry in our country was
located in the Biltmore estates outside the city of Asheville.
It was established by Clifford Pinchot, the first chief of the
United States Forest Service and run by Dr. Carl Schenck, who
took over as the chief forester for George Vanderbilt's
Biltmore estate.
While we don't have the wildfires that many of the western
national forests do, we do experience two fire seasons per year
and in times have suffered tremendous damage to our forest and
the forest infrastructure from hurricanes, ice storms, and wind
storms. Like your forest, insects play havoc on some species of
trees in our forest. Like your forest, recreation is crucial
resource that the people of North Carolina depend upon, and
like your forest, timber harvesting has and continues to play
an important role in the economy of many towns in western North
Carolina.
Reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Community
Self-Determination Act may not have the scope of importance it
does to Oregon, but there are 25 counties in my State that
receive a little over a million dollars a year in county school
payments. In fact counties in North Carolina first began
receiving forest service 25 percent payments in 1916 and have
received payments every year since. You may be interested in
knowing that the counties in my State put 100 percent of these
funds toward paying for school operations. In 2005, they
received approximately $5 per impacted student. Believe me, Mr.
Chairman, I'm envious of the $433 per student that Oregon
counties received on average each year, and can understand why
some Senators complain about how these funds are distributed.
I want to conclude by telling you how happy I am to be
serving on the committee, how much I look forward to the issues
that are in front of the committee and I want to apologize to
the chair that I've had an intelligence meeting call for 2
o'clock and I'm going to have to cut out, but I feel like I
leave both sides in good hands.
[The prepared statement of Senator Burr follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Richard Burr, U.S. Senator From
North Carolina
I want to start by thanking you, Senator Wyden, for scheduling this
hearing. I understand that this issue is very important to your State
and I know you and Senator Craig have been leaders on this issue.
I also have to tell you how happy I am to be serving as Ranking
Member on this important Subcommittee and to be working with you on all
of the important natural resource issues this committee deals with.
North Carolina has a proud history of public land management and is
home to the Nantahala, Pisgah, Croatan and Uwharrie National Forests.
We have approximately 1.2 million acres of National Forests in North
Carolina which is approximately 25% of our State.
Mr. Chairman, Asheville, North Carolina is known as the ``Cradle of
American Forestry'' because the first college of forestry in our
Country was located at the Biltmore Estate outside the City of
Asheville. It was established by Gifford Pinchot, the first Chief of
the United States Forest Service, and run by Dr. Carl Schenck, who took
over as the chief forester for George Vanderbilt's Biltmore Estate.
While we don't have the wildfires that many western National
Forests have, we experience two fire seasons per year and at times have
suffered tremendous damage to our forests and the forest infrastructure
from hurricanes, ice and wind storms. Like your forests, insects play
havoc on some species of trees in our forests. Like your forests,
recreation is a critical resource that the people of North Carolina
depend upon and, like your forests timber harvesting has and continues
to play an important role in the economy of many towns in Western North
Carolina.
Re-authorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act may not have the scope of importance it does to
Oregon, but there are 25 counties in my state that receive a total of a
little over a million dollars per year in County School payments. In
fact, counties in North Carolina first began receiving Forest Service
25% Payments in 1916 and have received payments every year since.
You may be interested in knowing that the counties in my state put
100% of these funds towards paying for school operations. In 2005 they
received approximately $5 per impacted student. Believe me Chairman
Wyden, I am envious of the $433 per student that Oregon counties
received in 2005 and can understand why some Senators complain about
how these funds are distributed.
I want to conclude by telling you again how happy I am to be
serving with you on this Committee and that I am committed to working
with you and other Senators to ensure this important program is re-
authorized in a manner that is equitable to all involved.
Finally, I look forward to helping focus some of this
Subcommittee's attention on issues that we face in our Eastern National
Forests.
Senator Wyden. We're glad to have you here. Secretary Rey.
STATEMENT OF MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND
THE ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee, and thank you for the opportunity to provide the
Department's views on S. 380, as well as the efforts to
reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools legislation.
The administration continues to support the reauthorization
of the 2000 Secure Rural Schools legislation. The
administration also continues to support a 1-year extension of
the Act for fiscal year 2007 as an interim step so long as
there are agreed-upon offsets. The administration would support
S. 380 with agreed-upon offsets for the payments authorized by
the bill, and an eventual phaseout of payments as the bill is
amended, to incorporate a number of technical changes as
specified in our statement for the record, which I will simply
summarize.
To assist in offsetting the cost of reauthorizing the
legislation, the administration is proposing the National
Forest Lands for Rural Communities Act. This proposal supports
the President's fiscal year 2008 budget by authorizing the
Secretary to sell certain identified National Forest Systems
lands in an amount not to exceed $800 million.
Under the proposal, half of the land sales would be
available to make payments under the reauthorized School Act
for fiscal years 2008 through 2011, and half will be available
in the States in which they were collected for the acquisition
of land and other conservation purposes. States would benefit
from 4 additional years of payments, 2008 through 2011, and
would also benefit from ecologically important land to the
National Forest System.
Our proposal provides for up to $400 million a year over a
4-year period to be made available for acquiring lands and
interest in lands for national forest purposes from receipts
obtained from selling National Forest System lands that are
identified for conveyance.
Implementing our proposal will result in acquiring lands
that are better-suited for National Forest System purposes, and
additionally could result in a net increase in lands acquired
verses those conveyed, because under our existing land exchange
program, for the past 10 years, there's been a 2\1/2\-to-1
ratio in lands acquired versus lands conveyed. Over the past 5
years, as property values have risen, for un-developable tracts
that ratio has expanded to 3 to 1. The net increase is because
the lands conveyed are more economically valuable and less
environmentally desirable than the lands which are acquired,
which are less economically valuable and more ecologically
desirable.
Additionally, purchase and sale of tracts is an inherently
more efficient means of adjusting ownership in exchange,
because it does not require a 1-to-1 correlation in Federal
Government and private landowner objectives over two specific
tracts. I proposed legislation and submitted it to Congress
formally today, and I will provide a copy for the committee's
record.
The 2000 legislation provided for the establishment of
resource advisory committees. Those committees would increase
the level of interaction between the forest service, local
governments and citizens, resulting in greater support and
understanding of the agency's mission, as well as oversight and
supervision of a number of important projects on the ground.
The authority under the 2000 legislation for these advisory
committees to meet, has expired effective as of September 30,
2006.
I'm pleased to also announce today that we will be
extending the role of these committees for an additional year
by amending their existing charters, to allow them to be
authorized as discretionary committees under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act. That will allow the resource advisory
committees to continue to oversee the expenses associated with
the 2000 legislation while we and the Congress work to
reauthorize that legislation. So there will be no interruption
in the meeting of these advisory committees.
Now I have been haunted by your comments about the
controversy associated with the proposal that we've put forward
and the contrast to the bipartisan nature with which the 2000
legislation was enacted, but let me relive a bit of our common
history together. When the 2000 legislation was first
introduced by you and Senator Craig in 1999, it was
extraordinarily controversial. You'll have a witness on the
next panel who called that bill ``Clear Cuts for Kids''. It was
first enacted by the House of Representatives, not the Senate,
in the fall of 1999. After an extended negotiation and even
after that negotiation, about 150 House members still voted
against it, including six members who are now in the U.S.
Senate and the present speaker of the House of Representatives.
The bill became a bipartisan touchstone over time, not
initially, as a result of a good faith effort on the part of
the then-Clinton administration and the majority and minority
Members of Congress to work together. Now we've been doing
that, we've met with your staff repeatedly last fall to look at
alternative offsets in the course of those discussions; as many
as ten different offsets were discussed. None of them were
uncontroversial and the administration only had problems with
one of the ten.
So our proposal, we've never said is the only proposal that
we could accept. It is presently the only offset available but
there are other options, but those options are going to be
hard-won if they're going to succeed, and they're not going to
be adopted without controversy. We're not going to see
enactment or reauthorization of this legislation without at
least as much effort as went into authorizing it in the first
place.
In the spring of 2000, I can recall coming to your office
and deciding to divert because in your anteroom a group of
environmental evangelists were praying over one of your staff
members to try to convince that person not to proceed with the
Craig-Wyden legislation. I diverted because I didn't want to
see what would happen if holy water was, if by accident, was
splashed on me. That's an indication that this bipartisan
solution, as worthy as it is, wasn't a bipartisan solution as
an initial matter. I think that's what we're going to have to
hear today and this year to see this bill reauthorized.
The administration remains committed to working with you to
that end and to see if we can find a solution that meets, if
not everyone's needs, at least silences everyone's objections.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Rey, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
the Environment, Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide the Department's views on S. 380, a bill to
Reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination
Act (SRS Act).
S. 380 would reauthorize payments under the SRS Act (P.L. 106-393)
for an additional seven years, beginning with the payment for fiscal
year 2007, and would amend other provisions of the Act. The bill would
provide a one-time opportunity for a county to resume receiving the 25
percent payment or 50 percent payment if they wish to do so. The bill
would clarify that States must notify the Secretary of Treasury of a
county's election.
Additionally, S. 380 would add a provision regarding the source of
funding for payments and require that certain funds be reserved to make
payments to the states. The bill would provide for reappointments of
Resource Advisory Committee (RACs) members for more than one term to
provide greater flexibility in staffing committees. S. 380 also would
revise the merchantable material pilot program to authorize projects
under this program if they are recommended by a RAC. Finally the bill
would add notification and reporting requirements for the Secretary
regarding county projects under Title III.
The Administration continues to support a one-year extension of the
SRS Act for FY 2007 as an interim step, so long as there are agreed-
upon full offsets. The Administration could support S. 380 with agreed
upon offsets for the payments authorized by the bill, an eventual phase
out of payments and if the bill is amended to incorporate other
changes.
To assist in offsetting the cost of reauthorizing the SRS, the
Administration is proposing the National Forest Land Conveyance for
Rural Communities Act. This proposal supports the President's FY 2008
Budget by authorizing the Secretary to sell certain identified National
Forest System lands in an amount not to exceed $800 million. Under the
proposal, half of the land sales proceeds will be available to make
payments under a reauthorized SRS Act for FY 2008-2011, and half will
be available in the States in which they were collected for the
acquisition of lands or interests in land for National Forest purposes,
improvement of fish and wildlife habitat, restoration of National
Forest System land, and conservation education. States would benefit
from four additional years of payments (FY's 2008-2011), and would also
benefit from the addition of more ecologically important land to the
National Forest System.
Our proposal provides up to $400 million over a four year period to
be made available for acquiring lands and interests in land for
National Forest purposes from receipts obtained from selling National
Forest System lands that are identified for conveyance. Implementing
our proposal will result in acquiring lands that are better suited for
National Forest purposes and additionally, could result in a net
increase in acres of land under federal ownership. For instance, the
ratio of lands acquired versus conveyed under our ongoing land exchange
program for the past ten years has been a two and a half to one ratio.
The net increase is because the lands conveyed are more economically
valuable then the lands acquired which are more ecologically valuable.
Additionally purchase and sale of tracts is an inherently more
efficient means of adjusting ownership than exchange, because it does
not require a one-to-one correlation in federal government and private
landowner objectives over two specific tracts. Our proposed legislation
will be transmitted to Congress in the very near future for your
consideration.
The Administration would like to work with the subcommittee on
additional amendments to S. 380 that will improve the legislation. For
example, we recommend that sections 2(c)(1)(C) and 2(c)(2)(C) of the
bill be deleted as the Department believes these sections are not
needed. We are also concerned about the inclusion of the notification
and reporting requirements regarding county projects under Title III in
section 2(f) of the bill. This provision requires the Secretary to
monitor and report on the use of these funds by local units of
government which would require detailed reporting that many local
governments might find onerous. We would like to work with the
committee on alternative methods for insuring accountability for Title
III funds. For example, it may be appropriate to require RAC review and
approval of expenditures of any funds under Title III. The Department
of the Treasury advises that the bill would improperly assign certain
duties to the Secretary of the Treasury that would be more properly
assigned to the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior. We would
like to work with the Committee on these and other technical and
substantive amendments.
The SRS Act provided transitional assistance to rural counties
affected by the decline in revenue from timber harvests on federal
lands. Traditionally, these counties relied on a share of receipts from
National Forest System lands to supplement local funding for schools
and roads. Payments made under the SRS Act have been used to support
more than 4,400 rural schools and to help maintain county road systems.
In addition, the SRS Act provided for the establishment of RACs.
RACs have increased the level of interaction between the Forest
Service, local governments, and citizens, resulting in greater support
and understanding of the agency's mission. A total of 55 RACs in 13
States have proposed more than 4,500 resource projects on National
Forests and adjacent non-federal lands under Title II. Funds allocated
under the SRS Act for Title II projects ($185 million) have been
leveraged by more than $192 million in funds from other non-federal
sources.
The last payment authorized by the SRS Act was for fiscal year 2006
and was made in December of 2006. Additionally, the authority for RACs
to meet and propose projects expired on September 30, 2006. These
committees have improved relationships by: broadening their
connections, increasing access to resources and information, building
trust, and providing active discourse on public policy issues. We need
the support and assistance of these RACs in completing Title II
projects that are in progress.
I am pleased to announce today that we will be extending the role
of these committees for an additional year by amending the existing
charters to allow them to be authorized as discretionary committees
under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This will enable them to
continue to meet in order to monitor and track the implementation of
approved projects as well as to make recommendations regarding changes
or adjustments that may be necessary to the projects they are
monitoring.
This concludes my statement, I would be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
Senator Wyden. Ms. Jacobson.
STATEMENT OF JULIE JACOBSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
LAND AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Jacobson. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on
S. 380. The underlying act, the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self-Determination Act, expired on September 30,
2006.
The Department recognizes the impact the expiration of the
Act is having on counties that rely on the payments to fund
important local programs, and the administration continues to
support a 1-year extension of the Act as an interim step, so
long as there are agreed-upon offsets.
S. 380 extends the reauthorization of the Secure Rural
Schools Act from 2006 to 2013. The Department of the Interior
could support S. 380 if amended with agreed-upon offsets and
eventual phaseout of payments, and if the bill is amended to
incorporate other changes. The administration would be pleased
to work with the subcommittee and the appropriations committees
to address these and other amendments.
The BLM manages 69 million acres of forest and woodlands,
of which 2.5 million are located in western Oregon counties and
are covered by the O&C Act. Of the public lands managed by the
BLM, the Secure Rural Schools Act applies exclusively to those
18 O&C counties in western Oregon.
Congress set a stage for the long and close association
between the BLM in these counties when, in the O&C Act of 1937,
it directed these lands to be managed for the purposes of
providing a permanent source of timber supply, protecting
watersheds, regulating stream flow and contributing to the
economic stability of local communities and industries and
providing recreational facilities.
In addition the O&C counties receive approximately 50
percent of their receipts from timber harvested from public
lands in these counties. By the late 1980's and early 1990's,
litigation regarding the northern spotted owl resulted in steep
reductions in timber harvest and therefore steep reductions in
income to these counties. In response to this, Congress enacted
safety net payments to stabilize income flow to timber-
dependent communities. In 2000, Congress repealed the safety
net payments and enacted the Secure Rural Schools Act to set a
stable level of payments to counties.
Also title II of the Act has brought about $50 million for
cooperative projects to restore the health of public and
private lands under the guidance of the resource advisory
committees. These projects have included wildlife hazard
reduction, stream and watershed restoration, control of noxious
waste, and improvement of fish and wildlife habitat.
The RACs authorized by this Act have brought together
diverse groups and individuals with the shared goal of
improving the conditions of our public lands. Reauthorization
of the act under S. 380 will strengthen these efforts.
Under title III of the Act, counties may use the funds for
such purposes as emergency services, community service work
camps and the purchase of conservation easements.
In closing, the BLM has a long history with the O&C
counties and we look forward to continuing this relationship.
In fact the BLM is currently working on revisions to the
western Oregon resource management plans, 17 of the 18 O&C
counties, as well as the State of Oregon and cooperating
agencies in this important effort which will include much
public input. This effort will serve as the basis for land
management decisions and will be critical to the counties and
communities.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jacobson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Julie Jacobson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Land and Minerals Management, Department of the Interior
Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today's hearing on S.
380, the ``Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination
Reauthorization Act of 2007.'' The underlying Act, the Secure Rural
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-393)
(the Act) expired on September 30, 2006. The Department recognizes the
impact the expiration of the Act is having on the counties that rely on
payments to fund important local programs, and the Administration
continues to support a one-year extension of the SRS Act as an interim
step, so long as there are agreed-upon full offsets. S. 380 extends the
authorization of P.L. 106-393 from 2006 until 2013. The Department
could support S. 380 if amended with agreed-upon full offsets, an
eventual phase out of payments, and if the bill is amended to
incorporate other changes. The Administration would be pleased to work
with the Subcommittee and the appropriations committees to address this
and other amendments to improve the bill.
background
In addition to the rangeland managed by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) manages 69 million acres of forests and woodlands on
the public lands, some 2.5 million of which are located in the 18
western Oregon counties covered by the ``O&C Act'' (Revested Oregon and
California Railroad and Reconveyed Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act
of 1937.). Of the public lands managed by the BLM, the Secure Rural
Schools Act applies exclusively to the 18 O&C counties in western
Oregon.
Congress set the stage for the long and close association between
the BLM and the O&C counties when, in the O&C Act, it directed the
Department of the Interior to manage the O&C lands for ``the purpose of
providing a permanent source of timber supply, protecting watersheds,
regulating stream flow, and contributing to the economic stability of
local communities and industries, and providing recreational
facilities.'' The O&C counties receive approximately 50 percent of the
receipts from timber harvested from public lands in the counties.
By the late 1980s and early 1990s, litigation regarding the
northern spotted owl resulted in steep reductions in timber harvests in
the Pacific Northwest, and correspondingly steep reductions in income
to counties that depended on revenues from timber harvests on public
lands to fund essential local government services. In the years between
1989 and 1993, income to O&C counties from timber harvests dropped by
nearly 30 percent, to approximately $79 million. In response to this,
Congress enacted ``safety net payments'' to stabilize income flow to
timber-dependent counties during this tumultuous period, through the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-66).
In 2000, Congress repealed the ``safety net payments'' and enacted
the Secure Rural Schools Act to set a stable level of payments to
counties. The Act provided the O&C counties with the option of
receiving a full payment amount equal to the average of their three
highest timber receipt years from 1986 through 1999. In addition, under
the Act the counties elect the percentage of the payment (80-85
percent) to be distributed directly to the counties (Title I), and the
remaining percentage (15-20 percent) to be allocated between Title II
projects (administered by the BLM), Title III projects (administered by
the counties), or returned to the Treasury.
Under Title II, funds are used to support cooperative projects,
under the guidance of Resource Advisory Committees (Committees), to
restore healthy conditions on public lands or on private lands for the
benefit of public land resources. Such projects include wildfire hazard
reduction, stream and watershed restoration, forest road maintenance,
and road decommissioning or obliteration, control of noxious weeds, and
improvement of fish and wildlife habitat. Under Title III of the Act,
counties may use funds for emergency services, community service work
camps, purchase of easements for recreation or conservation, forest
related after-school programs, and fire prevention activities.
The Resource Advisory Committee process authorized by the Act has
served as a catalyst to bring together diverse groups and individuals
with the shared goal of improving the condition of our public lands. In
projects selected through collaborative decision-making, the BLM has
worked in partnership with state and local governments and stakeholders
to improve the condition of the O&C lands and support the development
of community-based strategies to protect these communities from
catastrophic wildfire.
To date, the BLM's five Resource Advisory Committees have
recommended for approval over $50 million in Title II restoration
projects on public lands or for projects on private lands that enhance
public lands. The Act has allowed the BLM to undertake a greater amount
of on-the-ground restoration activities than would otherwise have been
possible. Reauthorization of the Act, under S. 380, will strengthen
these efforts.
s. 380
Section 2(a) of the bill extends the payments authorized under all
three titles of the Act from 2006 to 2013. As amended, the payment
authorities would sunset on September 30, 2013, and any funds not
obligated by September 30, 2014, would be returned to the Treasury.
Section 2(b) of the bill amends, among other things, Section
103(b)(1) of the Act to extend the counties' election to receive 50
percent payments through fiscal year 2013, and adds language to that
Act that authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to give counties the
opportunity to elect in writing during the last quarter of fiscal year
2006 to begin receiving the 50 percent payment effective with the
payment for fiscal year 2007.
Sections 2(c)(1)(C) and 2(c)(2)(C) of the bill amend the Act to
state that if the Secretary of the Treasury determines that a shortfall
in revenues is likely, all revenues, fee, penalties and miscellaneous
receipts, subject to certain limited exceptions, shall be reserved to
make payments to the counties for that fiscal year. We believe these
sections are unnecessary and recommend that they be removed from the
bill. Also, the Department of the Treasury advises that the bill would
improperly assign certain duties to the Secretary of the Treasury that
would be more properly assigned to the Departments of Agriculture and
the Interior.
Section 2(e) of S. 380 amends the ``Merchantable Material
Contracting Pilot Program'' authorized by Section 204(e)(3) of the Act
to authorize the Secretary to establish a pilot program at the request
of a Resource Advisory Committee to implement one or more the projects
recommended by the Resource Advisory Committees. While we have no
objection to the amendment, we urge the Subcommittee to consider
whether the goals of the Pilot Program can be more effectively reached
using Stewardship Contracting authority to implement Title II projects
with merchantable materials.
Section 2(f) of the bill amends the Act to add notification
requirements by counties receiving funds under the Act. Specifically,
it requires participating counties to submit to the Secretary written
notification specifying each project for which the county obligated
funds during the fiscal year. The Secretary is then required to review
the notifications to assess the success of participating counties in
achieving the purposes of the bill. Additionally, Section 2(f) amends
the Act to require the Secretary to prepare an annual report containing
the results of the most recent reviews conducted by the Secretary. We
have concerns about this provision as it requires the Secretary to
monitor and report on the use of these funds.
To address these and other concerns, the Administration would like
to work with the Committee on other technical and substantive
amendments. As stated earlier, the Department could support S. 380, if
amended with agreed-upon full offsets, an eventual phase out of
payments, and if the bill is amended to incorporate other changes.
In closing, the BLM has a long history with the O&C counties, and
we look forward to continuing this relationship. In fact, the BLM is
currently working on revisions to the Western Oregon Resource
Management Plans. Seventeen out of 18 O&C counties, as well as the
State of Oregon, are cooperating agencies in this important effort
which will include public input. This document will serve as the basis
for land management in these areas and will be critical to the counties
and communities.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
Senator Wyden. A land-speed record for finishing testimony.
We thank you. Senator Smith, I know, has a tight timeline. If
all of us take 5 minutes, I think we'll be in good shape for
you, Senator Smith.
Mr. Rey, Doug Robertson is going to testify in a few
minutes. He's the commissioner of Douglas County and he is
going to say that a catastrophe is about to befall rural
America. That there're going to be thousands of termination
notices going out, counties prepared to declare bankruptcy, and
I'd like to know whether, in your judgment, Doug Robertson is
wrong with respect to that assessment.
Mr. Rey. No, I don't think so. I think we've acknowledged
that there are a number of counties who are still in need of
this assistance. Not all the counties who were in need of it in
2000, but certainly a large number, and I think his county is
among those.
Senator Wyden. Now, with respect to the funding issue, as I
have looked at the budget, it does seem that the administration
can find money for its priorities, the values that it's most
concerned about. For example, the budget includes proposals to
raise money by improving tax compliance that are similar to
what Senator Baucus and I have proposed to pay for County
Payments last year. So they said we'll take this money that
Senator Baucus and I talked about for County Payments. We'll
use it for something else.
Don't you think that if this were a priority for the
administration, this method of financing the program, it would
be possible to find somebody in the Senate to be willing to
sell off our national treasures? I mean in the last Congress
the administration offered a proposal that nobody would
support. This is our second hearing now, and I don't exactly
see my colleagues on the other side of the aisle tripping over
themselves to support land sales again. How can it be this is
the only thing the administration offers up?
Mr. Rey. Well, the proposal this year is not the proposal
we offered last year. We listened intently to those comments
that were substantive--as opposed to those ad hominem in
nature--to see what the nature of those objections were, and
responded to them accordingly.
The primary nature of those objections were No. 1, that
people were uneasy about the idea of losing part of the Federal
estate; and No. 2, that there was an inequity associated with
the States that were going to be donors and the States that
were going to be recipients. In other words, there was an
unhappiness with the idea that we were going to sell national
forest lands in Missouri to fund Oregon's schools. The proposal
this year responds fairly to both of those concerns. We're
going to use half of the money raised to acquire new land. By
the time we're done we'll end up with more land acquired than
we sold and that land is going to be acquired proportionately
to the States that were donor States because they had
developable tracts. So if we sell 2 million acres of national
forest land in Missouri, a million acres will go into schools
and a million acres will go back to Missouri to buy national
forest lands that are more ecologically valuable in that State.
But more broadly, I think a more accurate description of
your assessment is both the Congress and the administration
have a number of funding priorities.
Senator Wyden. Not me, I have one, getting this program,
and that's why I offered an alternative.
Mr. Rey. The chronology of last year's debate is that the
House budget resolution already used the alternative that you
and Senator Baucus subsequently offered for a different
purpose. So at the time that it was offered it was already in
conflict with the House budget resolution.
The administration didn't oppose your proposal, so
presumably if the Congress had passed the budget resolution
there would have been an opportunity to sort out how that
funding should be used. But the fact that the Congress didn't
pass a budget resolution isn't a reflection of a lack of
commitment on the part of the administration.
Senator Wyden. All I can tell you is, there was another tax
legislation from the administration. That seemed to go forward,
but there's no money for County Payments.
Ms. Jacobson, nothing in the original legislation says the
program was intended to be temporary. Can you explain why the
administration supports terminating now a program that's been
considered one of the most successful forestry laws in the last
30 years?
Ms. Jacobson. It is a 6-year authorization.
Senator Wyden. But you all want to terminate it. You want
to close a program described as one of the most successful in
decades, at a time when clearly it's not going to be possible
to make up the revenue in these rural communities that say
they're going to die. Why is that a priority for you?
Ms. Jacobson. What the administration has said is that we
support your bill as long as there are mutually agreed-upon
offsets and that there is an eventual reduction in payments,
but we support the reauthorization for 6 years.
Senator Wyden. You also didn't propose a funding mechanism.
Again, you've got vast amounts of BLM timber lands and you
didn't propose a funding mechanism. It's very hard to take
these statements with a straight face. I mean no funding, no
comment with respect to what's going to happen to these
communities, and yet somehow administration priorities like tax
cuts can get funded.
Ms. Jacobson. Mr. Chairman, the administration did fully
fund the Secure Rural Schools Act within the President's
budget.
Senator Wyden. By selling off something a republican
Senator would go along with. That's the position of the
administration.
Mr. Rey. We're putting a lot of them as leaning against.
Senator Wyden. That's what happened; I wanted to pass it
the last Congress. No republican Senator would support your
funding proposal. Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, because I want to make a
statement, why don't I turn to my colleague from Oregon? You
mentioned a time crunch he's under, to proceed, and then I'll
come back, and that could well include our colleague from
Alaska. Then I'll come back and make a brief statement and
offer some questions.
Senator Wyden. Senator Smith.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Senator Craig and thank
you, Mr. Chairman, we're proud of you for holding the gavel in
this committee, and doubly proud that we share as our No. 1
priority in this session of Congress, the extension of the
Secure Rural Schools Act.
I've spent a lot of hours in hearings on this issue, a lot
of hours speaking about this issue on the Senate floor. I don't
think I need to redo that filibuster here, but what I do want
to say is there's an enormous community of interest here--in
fact there are communities in 39 States that need help. My
State of Oregon just simply leads the list because it has the
most Federal land.
It's an amazing thing though, when the Federal Government
owns over half of your State and under our Constitution, local
communities have no ability to develop or tax that land. So we
have with the Federal Government built up a great region of the
country, and specifically the State of Oregon, that was built
by timber. The environmental ethic of this country has changed,
shifted, as it relates to the management of public lands. That
leaves stranded some communities that I care deeply about.
This fight cannot evolve into a dispute between States,
between Republicans and Democrats or between branches of
government. We owe the American people, and the people we
represent deserve something better than that, so we've got to
get together at the highest levels. Because the dollars are
running out and so is the time available to structure a new
agreement.
I listened with interest to the chairman of the committee,
Senator Bingaman, and I truly do understand why other States
don't like the formula, when you look at over half of the money
going to Oregon.
Senator Wyden and I could have settled this issue a long
time ago if we were willing to walk away from a formula that
was based on history. A formula based on historic timber
harvest, because that is the economic realities that underpin
this discussion of a formula. But we haven't been able to walk
away from that. I understand, however, that other States would
like more of this money, to have a larger share, and Oregon
take a lesser share.
I actually don't oppose them getting more money. What I've
opposed is our taking less. I'm wondering what the rationale of
the formula would be. It would help Oregon if they got more
money, but Senator Wyden and I can't go home and say why we got
less. I don't understand how we would explain that other than
that this just didn't work out and that somehow we're revising
history.
I guess Mark, my question to you is really based on, not
any disgruntlement with the effort I know that you have made to
increase timber harvest. I know President Bush has taken a lot
of arrows in his back to defend the timber industry, seeing it
as valuable to Oregon's history and to its continued vitality.
But the facts are, that we're producing less timber now than we
were under President Clinton, and I can't explain that at home.
I know it's not entirely your fault because I think the
Federal courts have something to do with that. But what I'm
saying in summation is, Mark, if we're going to ramp down the
dollars, can you ramp up the timber harvest? Because these
folks have no choice.
Mr. Rey. That's part in parcel of what we're proposing this
year. We're proposing to increase funding for the northwest
forest plan, which will go predominately to Oregon. We will do
that in fiscal year 2007 and we're proposing to do it again in
2008, but it's depending on which years you use as a basis for
comparison.
It's not accurate to say that there's less timber being
harvested, less timber being sold now than there was during the
Clinton administration, when in the first couple of years of
the operation of the northwest forest plan the commitments that
were made to the timber-dependent communities in Oregon,
Washington and northern California were, to a considerable
extent, met. But by the time that plan had been in operation
for 5 years, the sales levels were down to zero, which is where
they were in 2001 when we walked in the door.
So what we've had some success in doing is bringing that
back up again. Now if you want to average the 8 years of the
Clinton administration against the 8 years after we're done, of
how it ends up, you'll have a better gauge of who sold more
timber. If indeed the Clinton administration sold more timber,
well then I hope the National Wildlife Federation will make me
conservationist of the year, but that may not be the outcome.
Senator Wyden. The time of the gentleman has expired; the
Senator from Alaska.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Secretary
Rey; it's nice to have you here. Thank you for your focus on
Alaska.
I understand you're going up soon to meet with many in our
timber community and I'm curious to hear your response to
Senator Smith's question: if you can't ramp up the funding, can
we somehow ramp up more in timber receipts? As you know, we're
getting nothing out of the Chugach National Forest, and the
Tongass is a mess of litigation and snarls and politics and
great, great frustration, as well you know. I'm not convinced
that we see any level of optimism there to make a difference to
our communities that were once so dependent on the industry,
and now so dependent on these receipts from the Secure Rural
Schools.
In the Chatham school district in Angoon, they're on
Admiralty Island. They received $310,000, which might not seem
like a boatload of money to us here, but $310,000 is 10 percent
of their annual budget. I don't care whether you're a school,
or what business you're in, if 10 percent of your annual budget
is taken away, how do you move forward with dealing with the
next year?
I have folks that are here today that have come to hear
this testimony, have come to hear what the proposals and the
solutions are, because they are so desperate, truly so panicked
about the future, whether it's in Angoon or whether it's
Wrangell, Yakatak--you know the communities.
One of the problems, of course, that we're facing is we
have a difficult and a very challenging time in recruiting
educators to the State in the first place. If they are getting,
not necessarily the pink slip now, but hearing the word on the
street that we don't know whether we're going to have this in
our budget next year, these people leave. They not only leave
the community of Wrangell, but they leave the State. They can't
get in a car and drive back up, so we are extraordinarily
concerned about how we make it through.
I'm trying to understand what it means to the State of
Alaska if we go to that 25 percent funding level. Can you tell
me what that number would be in terms of receipts to the State
of Alaska, does anyone have that? I've been trying to track
that down.
Mr. Rey. I think it would drop from about $9 million in
annual payments to somewhat under $1 million in annual
payments, so it would be pretty precipitous, if you were back
at this moment in history to the 25 percent formula
exclusively. But to your immediate question, the pendency of
the crisis is one of the reasons that we support a 1-year
extension with mutually agreed-upon offsets on whatever near-
term mechanism is available to do that.
The broader question is: ``What do we do after this
reauthorization?'' It's answered in three parts. No. 1, there
are some areas where timber harvest levels are increased and
where we will get back to a stable timber sale program that
will provide enough revenues, with enough agreement among the
local people, to continue to make these guaranteed payments
unnecessary. I'm somewhat optimistic that this Tongass Plan
will hopefully get us there.
No. 2, there are other areas where the economies of the
counties either have already, or will, diversify, such that the
historic dependence on timber sale receipts is an artifact of
the past. Sure, it's nice for them to have the money, but do
they need it? No. Could they raise it on their own tax base?
Yes. I'm not going to single out any individual counties but I
am going to say that I know of a lot of them, in a lot of
States, that are getting a lot of guaranteed money under this
legislation.
The third way we're going to resolve it is to look and see,
5 years from now, where we're at and if we still have counties
that haven't been able to make a transition, or we still have
areas where the timber sale program is in great dispute and
hasn't regenerated to an agreed-upon sustainable level. Then,
as we are discussing now, we will look to an extension for
maybe a limited number of counties to get our way through this
transition. Those are the three ways I see forward from here.
Senator Murkowski. Well, of course we just hope that in
that ensuing 5 years, you're going to have your communities
still alive, still around. Of course when you're dealing with
some of the land ownership issues that we have in our western
States--when you're an island that is surrounded by national
forest, and your ability to diversify is just a nice term but
not something that has practical applications in your
community, you know the challenges.
Mr. Rey. I wouldn't have said there were any counties in
Alaska per se that have hit that diversification plateau yet,
but there are a number of counties in other States that have.
Senator Wyden. The time of the gentle lady has expired; the
Senator from Idaho.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I missed
the opportunity to sit in that ranking seat and be your partner
on these issues before this subcommittee. The rules of the
Senate are strange. As a result of that uniqueness, I had to
put on another hat in another committee, which I think in the
end is going to be very valuable for everyone sitting in this
room: as the ranking member on the appropriating committee of
the Interior Committee from which, certainly, this wealth might
spring.
Now having said that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for
your effort, and the effort of your partner in Oregon for the
reintroduction of the bill itself. I have been silent too long
and in that silence I have received a level of criticism that
because of the silence might be justifiable. But there was a
reason, Mr. Chairman, why I did not co-sponsor Craig-Wyden.
There was a tendency to want to do that for a namesake purpose,
if for no other reason, but I think you heard it a few moments
ago when you heard the Chairman of this committee restate
something that he said a year ago. That was that a second look
is needed at the formula because of the disparity that some
States feel they are receiving versus that which we are
receiving and that for a reauthorization to occur--and a
multiple-year scenario--it would certainly require a different
view.
Having said that, it's been difficult for me to be silent
for a lot of reasons. One of the reasons is because of the
value of the resource advisory committees, when Mark Rey, as
you mentioned as an alum of this committee, staffed and helped
us write this bill, this law.
One of the things we were in search of was a bridge, to
bring parties together and stakeholders together for the
purpose of unity, not the kind of divisive character that
frankly brought us to the disparity we exist in today. While
none of us likes to remember the past, I think it was important
for the Secretary to recognize those who were our critics at
that time. I didn't take it on the chin too much, but Ron Wyden
did. There's no question about it, and he was a brave soul
during that time, and I think Mark raised a demonstration of a
fact at hand or a scene revisited in his mind in the Wyden
office, so it was one not untypical of that day. That was then;
this is now.
What was also then that is not now, was the time of surplus
in our country, budgetarily. While Mark Rey and I and Ron were
struggling to get this legislation together, I made a little
trip over to a guy by the name of Pete Domenici's office and I
said, Senator Domenici, chairing the subcommittee of
authorization or funding, here's what we have got to do and he
said, ``Oh, okay, here's $500 million a year, how's that?'' and
it was almost just that simple. That was then; this is now.
Why are we struggling to find a responsible longer-term
funding mechanism? Because of where we are today, and I don't
care who decides priorities. In this instance we have a
problem, and that safety net that you, Mr. Chairman, have
spoken so eloquently to, has been phenomenally valuable in my
State and will raise havoc upon some of my school districts. It
is something that I'm going to make every effort to resolve,
along with you.
In the end it will be bipartisan. I am confident that we
can create another safety net that will take us into the out-
years and then maybe allow us to, as the Secretary has just
mentioned, examine ourselves on a county-by-county basis. To
see those who have not been able to diversify versus those who
have. Some of my counties have been reasonably successful in
changing their economic base, some have not, and as a result of
that it becomes increasingly important that we evaluate this.
I have always said this was a transitional tool. I did not
see it as an ``in perpetuity'' entitlement. I recognize history
and it is wonderful history to talk about the 25 percent fund
and 1908, and that was then. But that is not now, and as a
result I think we have to be reflective upon that.
It is not to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in the O&C lands
or in other areas where we have communities that are so totally
locked within the public domain that to diversify is a near
impossibility, that we would not want to look at and reflect
upon a new formula to fund and assist them. I said some years
ago that with the demise of the timber side of the Forest
Services responsibility, I grew fearful of a day when those who
were the advocates of that demise would disappear from the
scene and leave the responsibility of the funding mechanisms or
the funding downstream that that timber program offered, in the
lurch. Sure enough they not only have left the scene, they have
become our critics at a time when we are trying to save the
scene that many of those would choose to live in.
So, it is with frustration that I attend this hearing
today. I wish it were easy to just simply wave a magic wand,
find well over $400 million annualized and move on down the
road. It would be so easy to do that because if I were to miss
the havoc raised in the communities of interest, in the
counties and with the schools, I would be blind. And that Mr.
Chairman, I am not. But my silence has been only auditory. I
and my staff have worked for the last 6 months to try to bring
together in a bipartisan way a group of Senators to create the
60 votes necessary, by looking at different formulas that we
could come together on.
We are near. I think the chairman of the full authorizing
committee reflected that, but we are not there. I would also
suggest that I would not expect this chairman and Senator Smith
to, in any short term, want to--or find it necessary to--take
anything less then that which they received a year ago at this
same time.
In working through this process, let me only conclude that
that was then and this is now, and we're dealing with a
different world in a different environment trying to find our
way through it. I think we will, because I concur with you, Mr.
Chairman, we have to. Having said that, you've been patient
with your time. Our colleague from Washington is here. Let her
make her comments.
I would come back with only one question of Mr. Rey at the
time. Julie, thank you also for being here. Clearly the role
that your agency plays in southwestern Oregon is a major one
and it should not be unrecognized. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. I just want to say to my friend, I'm
interested in working with you as well, and I know that Senator
Smith is, and we're going to prosecute this bipartisan effort
very aggressively and I thank you. We'll have some additional
questions in a moment.
Senator Cantwell.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want to
work with you and Senator Craig on this important
reauthorization. We all know in the Northwest how vital this
program is and it's nearly 100-year-old policy is more
comprehensive than maybe people here in Washington understand.
But I know we have various county commissioners from some of
our rural counties in the audience today who are also going to
try to add to the perspective.
Simply put, without the support provided by laws like the
Secure Rural Schools and Self-Determination Act, many
communities in Washington State struggle to meet their basic
needs, such as good roads and good schools. It's imperative to
forest-dependent communities in over 40 States that more than
700 counties, nationwide, have this program fully funded, so I
applaud you, Mr. Chairman for your hard work and your effort.
I'd obviously like to thank the Senator from Idaho for his
leadership in co-sponsorship.
However, I fear that much of this progress is being put at
risk by the administration's latest misguided proposal where
they are outlining their fiscal 2008 year by budget selling off
270,000 acres of public land, but only partially funding the
County Payments program and $800 million. This funding level
only provides half of the necessary funding for this program
and provides for funding for the next 4 years. In short, this
proposal is underfunded, short-sighted and, I believe, a non-
starter. I think my colleagues will agree with us.
So I am very concerned about the precedent of selling off
public lands in order to cover short-term budget deficits. The
Federal forest land represents an irreplaceable public treasure
cherished by lots of hunters, fishermen, and recreational
users, and it is also used for education and a variety of
things essential to habitat for the future. So I hope that as
we work through this proposal, that we will be sure that the
County Payments program is sufficiently funded and is the
safety net. Otherwise without the safety net, Washington State
stands to lose $47 million in irreplaceable funding for
critical programs.
Skamania County in southwest Washington is a good example.
Almost 80 percent of Skamania is in the Gifford Pinchot
National Forest, making it non-taxable by the county. Other
large portions of land are owned by State or timber companies,
leaving only 2 percent of the county eligible to be taxed at
full valuation. However by leveraging funds from the County
Payments program, places like Skamania County are able to
provide critical public services like education, emergency
response and road maintenance. It can be a wonderful place to
live and provide services, but they have to have the resources.
So, I know, Mr. Chairman we are going to get to questions,
but ultimately I think this is about examining the priorities.
It's about an initiative that has succeeded for years in
supporting our communities and the co-existence with Federal
lands. So are we going to continue that process or will
Congress follow the administration's flawed proposal by placing
a price tag on our precious public lands? I look forward to
asking Mr. Rey some questions, but I'll yield back to my
colleague, either the Chairman or my colleague from Idaho who
wanted to ask questions. But I thank the chairman for allowing
me to have this statement and a longer statement inserted in
the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cantwell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator From Washington
introduction
Thank you, Chairman Wyden.
Thank you for holding this hearing, and thank you for continuing to
support and champion the Secure Rural Schools and Self-Determination
Act.
I appreciate you holding this hearing and look forward to working
with Senator Wyden and Senator Craig and to reauthorize this law.
As you know, this vital program continues a nearly one hundred year
old policy of providing fair and equitable compensation to the citizens
of forest counties for their coexistence with federal lands. Simply
put, without the support provided by laws like the Secure Rural Schools
and Self-Determination Act, many rural communities in Washington would
struggle to meet their basic needs such as adequate roads and good
schools. It is imperative to forest-dependent rural communities in over
40 states and more than 700 counties nationwide that this law continues
to be fully funded.
As you know, reauthorizing this program has strong bipartisan
support on this Committee. I'd like to publicly thank Senators Wyden
and Craig for their leadership and am proud to be a cosponsor of this
legislation. However, I fear that so much of this progress and
essential support will be put at risk as a consequence of the Bush
Administration's latest misguided proposal. The administration's plan
outlined in the fiscal year 2008 budget proposal would sell off around
270,000 acres of public land, but would only partially fund the County
Payments program at $800 million. This funding level only provides half
of the necessary funding for the program and only provides funding for
the next 4 years. In short, this proposal is under funded,
shortsighted, and is a non-starter for this Senator.
I am very concerned about the precedent of selling off public lands
in order to cover short-term budget deficits. Federal forest lands
represent an irreplaceable public treasure: cherished by hunters and
fishermen, used for recreation, study, and education. In addition to
these multiple purposes, these forest lands provide essential habitat
for fish and wildlife.
Since the Administration's proposal was developed in D.C. with
little or no input from the Forest Service's Pacific Northwest field
office, we are anxious to see maps of exactly what lands are on the
chopping block in Washington State.
These lands represent an important legacy, which we have chosen as
nation to protect for future generations. The proposal in this budget
seems to undervalue this legacy by proposing to sell off our children's
inheritance to pay down the debt. Such fiscal slight-of-hand won't fool
anyone.
To be sure, the County Payments program has proven effective,
responsive, and essential to so many counties across the nation. We
must support and sustain it with real funding in an adequate,
responsible manner. Without this vital safety net, rural counties in
Washington State will lose more than $47 million dollars in
irreplaceable funding for a variety of critical programs.
Skamania County in Southwest Washington is a good example. Almost
80 percent of Skamania is in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest,
making it non-taxable by the county. Other large portions of land are
owned by the state or timber companies, leaving only two percent of the
county eligible to be taxed at full valuation. However, by leveraging
funds from the County Payments program, places like Skamania County are
able to still provide critical public services like education,
emergency response, and road maintenance.
In addition, title two of this law has increased local community
involvement and empowered local citizens through Resource Advisory
Committees. These committees have helped cultivate a sense of
ownership, promoting involvement in important projects such as
improving wildlife habitat and water quality while reducing the threat
of forest fires through fuels reduction efforts.
Ultimately, I believe this is a time to examine our priorities. Do
we want to sustain a proven and balanced initiative that has succeeded
for years in serving, supporting, and valuing the citizens of forest
counties in their coexistence with federal lands? Or will Congress
follow the Administration's flawed proposal by placing a price tag on
our precious public lands?
I believe the answer is clear and I look forward to working with my
Committee colleagues on this issue.
Senator Wyden. I'm going to indulge both my colleagues.
Would you like to ask a question or two now? Then Senator
Craig. I had one as well. Go ahead.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Mr. Rey, have you looked at
how this partial funding and termination of the program will
impact Washington State?
Mr. Rey. Yes. What we would do would be to fully fund the
program in '07 and start to phase down the program in '08
through '11 and then at the end of '11, or not '11, at the end
of fiscal year 2011, we'd have the opportunity to look at what
the situation in individual counties is, to assess which of
them are still in need of support and which are not. There are
some who are presently not in need of support.
Senator Cantwell. Where do you think some of the poorest
counties in the State of Washington with 80 percent of their
land in Federal timber holdings could come up with $47 million
even if you gave them 3 or 4 years to come up with it?
Mr. Rey. Well, if we decide to look at the revenue
distribution formula as some members have suggested today, we
might consider taking the money that King County is getting
from the 2000 legislation and reallocating that to a county
that's in greater need.
Many now largely urban or suburban counties in the west are
getting a substantial amount of money in 2000 legislation's
formula because the formula was a reflection of the historical
timber receipts that those counties enjoyed in 1908 or at an
earlier time. Many of those counties, including the one I just
mentioned, are pretty vibrant right now. The fact that they're
getting several hundred thousand dollars or a million dollars
is a relatively small part of their budget. It's a big part of
the budget for some of the counties like Skamania County, but
that's not how the formula as it exists today distributes the
support. So that would be one option available to us, either in
the reauthorization of the bill now or as we look at the
situation.
Senator Cantwell. Do you think that's a revenue stream not
being used or not being planned on?
Mr. Rey. No, it's certainly being used and it's certainly
enjoyed but it's a different case for Skamania County then it
is for King County. You can make a very persuasive case that
Skamania County, given its situation today, is not
demonstratively better off than it was in 1999 and it ought to
benefit from an extension of this legislation. It's harder to
make that case today for King County, and there are other
comparable comparisons in other States throughout the west. So
that's one of the adjustments that seems to me that we might
make as we go forward.
Senator Cantwell. Did I understand from a previous question
before I got here by Senator Wyden that the administration does
support this program?
Mr. Rey. Yes. We support a 5-year reauthorization of the
2000.
Senator Cantwell. But a trailing off in several years and
looking for revenue from sources that are already dedicated to
other things. Is that right?
Mr. Rey. Not necessarily looking for other revenues, but
yes, trailing off on the premise that either one of two
occurrences taking place.
No. 1 would be that the timber sale revenues are back up,
so the need for a guaranteed payment is diminished. No. 2 would
be that the county has diversified its economy to the point
that it's no longer as dependent on historic levels of timber
receipts as it once was.
Senator Cantwell. Well, Mr. Chairman, I know my time is
expired but I'm all for creativity. I am not for curtailing a
program or shifting a focus to other revenue streams and not
looking at the larger policy, perhaps, Mr. Rey.
Mr. Rey. We'd be happy to talk to you about that.
Senator Cantwell. I share my colleagues' concerns and
frustrations over where this has been, and now is not the time
to hide the focus under some other hat, in a hat trick. This is
about finding the revenue and resources within the budget, and
so I thank the chairman.
Senator Wyden. I thank my colleague and for your co-
sponsorship of the legislation, all your advocacy and I
appreciate your involvement. Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Let me just pick up where the Senator from
Washington and the Under Secretary were dialoguing, because I
find it fascinating.
If timber receipts were to pick back up and we were to find
less of a need to fund the given program, it is interesting
that probably Douglas county's receipts would not pick back up
because of its urbanization, but Skamania because of its rural
forest base would. The formula would be working not unlike how
I think we've got to show some objectivity in looking at it in
the future years. I have similar counties. Some have been
reasonably successful in economic growth and development and
given another few years, my guess is, they will look at timber
as a part of their historic past, not as a future revenue base
simply because of the land base itself.
While I know it's hard to give up revenue flows, if we
continue to tie this program to the resource and to a formula
that is tied to the activity of the resource itself, which I
have always believed we should, as a fair measurement of how we
got to where we were, then I think that kind of funding would
probably take care of itself. By its character it would pick
its winners and its losers and you and I would not necessarily
be caught in the political vise that we find ourselves in
today. I think that's a reasonably fair statement.
Senator Cantwell. If I could, in discussion with my
colleague, I think the issue is--and I think we're very proud
of--the economic development that's happened in our State. You
know the fact that Google has moved into The Gorge, or the area
is promoting an economic strategy of wind and wine.
We're, I think, on the cutting edge of a lot of new
developments and technology and job growth but, you can't have
these counties for the next 5 not have the revenue. When you're
80 percent timber-dependent or 80 percent of your land holdings
are in timber, there isn't a whole lot that you can do.
I think Skamania County has done well. They have some
innovative technology companies even within there, but there're
going to start basically at the same time they're trying to
promote in their business park, economic expansion to
companies. I can't keep the school open, I can't keep the
hospital open, I can't get the roads paved, we can't get the
infrastructure to the business park--then they're not going to
have that vision of economic development that I think you
suggest and I'd love to work.
Senator Craig. You and I have no disagreement with that at
all. I think that's a valid observation. The infrastructure
that Craig-Wyden has assisted in sustaining is critical in any
economic growth or economic development scenario.
My question, Mr. Chairman, is for Mark, or Under Secretary
Rey. Mike Francis of the Wilderness Society will be expressing
some concern about the modification that is made in S. 380 in
the use of pilot sort yard provisions. Is there anything wrong
with further empowering the RACs to make the decision of when
and where to use the sort yard pilot authority?
Mr. Rey. The administration doesn't object to that
provision in S. 380. I don't see any problems with that
proposal.
Senator Craig. Julie, a bit of an extension of that
question. You suggested that the goals of the pilot program
embodied in your testimony be met through Stewardship
contracting.
Could you discuss very briefly that issue a little more and
explain how this can be done, or might be done?
Ms. Jacobson. Senator, it was a suggestion that the
committee look at the language that we use under the
Stewardship contract upon whether it was an equal or better
tool, but we have used the provision in the Secure Rural
Schools Act.
Senator Craig. Fine, thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Wyden. I thank you; Senator Craig and Senator
Cantwell and I think that these comments, as we go to our next
panel, were very telling.
I just had a big round of town meetings when I was home and
I'm sure, like you, people say, ``Why does Oregon get this
money? Why doesn't anybody else get this money?'' Well, the
reason that Oregon gets this money and everybody else's is
about history, and essentially this is a 100-year-old formula
that is based on harvest and volume. Oregon gets this money
because this is where God decided to put the trees, beautiful,
wonderful trees, and we're thrilled.
There are more than 3 million Oregonians. This is what God
decreed and I appreciate the exchange between my friend from
Idaho and Washington. I happen to agree with both of you with
respect to the future of the rural communities. Once we get the
County Payments law passed and we ensure the survival of these
rural communities, I can ensure for example that Curry County,
beautiful spot on the Oregon coast, doesn't disappear, and
Grant's Pass doesn't have to call out the National Guard.
Once the rural communities survive, it is my intent, as my
friend from Idaho and I have done for a full decade now--it
seems incredible that it's gone by so fast--we're going to work
on biomass, which I know you're very interested in. We're going
to work on thinning issues. We have two major forestry bills
that the two of us were so heavily involved in, actually got
enacted into law; I think both of us said the only forestry
bills that got enacted in the last 20 years. Once we ensure the
survival of these rural communities, we're going to go on to
those other areas that I know that you're interested in,
Senator Cantwell is interested in, that we will have bipartisan
support for.
I'm not going to belabor the land sales issue any further.
Mr. Rey. We'll put you down as leaning against.
Senator Wyden. Pardon me?
Mr. Rey. We'll put you down as leaning against.
[Laughter.]
Senator Wyden. Put me down as especially curious to see if
one Republican Senator will announce their support for the
proposal as opposed to last time when there were no Republican
Senators.
Senator Craig pointed out he didn't want to be dragged into
that one. The point is we intend to work closely with you.
We're going to have to move on at this point. Let us call our
next panel. We'll excuse you both. I look forward to working
with you Secretary Rey, Ms. Jacobson.
Let's call our next panel if we could. The Honorable Doug
Robertson, chairman of the Board of Commissioners of Douglas
County, Mike Francis of the Wilderness Society, the National
Forests Program and Mr. Jonathan Kusel, Sierra Institute for
Community and Environment in Taylorsville, California.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, while our panel is coming up,
let me make a suggestion to you. I've been out in Idaho holding
town meetings. I've chosen not to hold town meetings in the
timber communities. I might suggest that of you. I'm going to
go back there.
Senator Wyden. That's because you're so popular.
Senator Craig. No, no, no, I'm going to go back there after
we fund Craig-Wyden, not before we fund it. I think it would be
safer to do that.
Senator Wyden. Very good. Let us go to our next panel. We
can begin with you Mr. Kusel and then we'll go to you, Mr.
Robertson and Mr. Francis.
Welcome to all of you and thank you for your patience and
involvement in this.
Mr. Kusel.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN KUSEL, DIRECTOR, SIERRA INSTITUTE FOR
COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Kusel. Senator Wyden, thank you very much for the
opportunity to testify to the subcommittee on S. 380.
It was 10\1/2\ years ago that I addressed the full Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee about community
involvement and natural resource management and the need for
collaboration. Senator Craig, you were a leader in that effort
and I appreciate it. It's a pleasure to come back now and talk
about collaboration and how it's played out over the last 10\1/
2\ years. I don't know if you remember the time that we all got
down on the floor here and off the dais and had a conversation
among a variety of interest groups. Again thank you for that.
I direct the Sierra Institute for Community and
Environment, a non-profit research and education organization.
The Departments of Interior and Agriculture contracted the
Sierra Institute to examine titles II and III of the 2000
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. In
my testimony I want to share a bit of what we learned in our
18-month study, and then offer a few recommendations based on
these findings, and conclude with just a brief view of the
future of the legislation. I refer you to my written testimony
in our reports for more specific findings and recommendations.
I think most of you know--and it's already been mentioned--
the stunning success of Pub. L. 106-393; the RACs were really
quite phenomenal in what they accomplished and this is true
across the country. We visited nine States in our study.
A key ingredient in the success of the RAC is that they
have money for projects and on-the-ground work, not just
talking about policy, but really doing things. In fact many
people mentioned that they knew if they couldn't come to
agreement, things weren't going to happen on the ground. RACs
recommended a wide variety of projects that improve watersheds,
habitats, and roads, and completed important forest management,
fuels, and thinning projects. There are hundreds of examples of
RAC funds being used to complete projects that the agencies
needed to do and that the public wanted.
Terribly important: the RAC-funded projects have leveraged
millions of additional dollars, many partnerships in the
thousands of volunteer hours, and in some projects actually
doubled the title II contribution. Interestingly and equally
impressive collaborations have taken place between RAC interest
group members and the Federal agencies. The RAC process helped
break through a grid lock that was decades thick and people
talked about truly improving the relationship with the Federal
agencies. Interesting also is that the Federal agencies talked
about doing business differently as a result of their exposure
to the various interest groups on the RAC.
RAC members not only just got along, but the interest
groups and the agencies turned the RACs into what I've talked
about as ``learning laboratories,'' and quite powerful learning
laboratories. One of the truest markers of the RACs' success,
and I know you've heard this before, is that at least at the
end of our study, no RAC project had been appealed or
challenged. There's been a couple since.
Title III dollars have accomplished a lot of good work, but
there were two primary problems with title III. Approximately
half the funds were allocated through administrative processes
and there was little to no oversight. In a few cases some of
the funds of title III were used inappropriately. I say a few,
not extensive. More open, competitive and transparent processes
for project solicitation review and approval are needed, making
clear, as S. 380 begins to do, what a project is, will help
address this.
I want to just conclude by saying with title III, there
were problems, but these really are quite fixable. Should the
program be continued based on our work? The answer is a
resounding yes.
I want to respond to a couple of issues. What's the
formula? Behind this question is another question about what
the Federal obligation is. Mr. Chairman, you mentioned a number
of times about a Federal obligation. I'm a firm believer that a
Federal obligation to rural communities and people exist. At
the same time I don't believe counties should expect funding
from the Federal Government based on a high 3-year harvest
average to continue in perpetuity.
So how do we fund it? This is obviously a huge challenge
and I know better at this point then to go there right now, but
let me point out that what people have argued--that
collaboration is time-consuming and expensive. I offer that
this legislation is a great example of where we've actually
saved money through collaboration. Six years of Secure Rural
Schools legislation has saved an enormous amount of money in
litigation that hasn't taken place, projects that have not been
tied up in courts and then, of course the leverage in Federal
dollars. Just as importantly, as already mentioned, this
legislation has significantly reduced gridlock that has
characterized resource management over the last two decades.
One last comment if I may, and that is where it might go. I
suggest if we talked about looking to the future,
reauthorization should be viewed as a bridge to the future and
a program that combines deriving revenue from resource
production a la timber products and forest products with equal
system services. We're increasingly talking and hearing about
ecosystem service work, and I think revenue from both ecosystem
products and services can and should be part of this bridge
which lends to a more sustainable future funding of this
legislation.
An ecosystem products and services approach can be watched
by identifying ways to secure resources, support management
that contributes to improvements in water quality and quantity,
as well as generating wood products.
Two very quick examples in the Sierra Nevada ecosystem
project, of which I was one of the scientists: we identified $2
billion worth of water value coming off of the forest. One
doesn't have to take in much of that to contribute tremendously
to that system. On a small scale OHV permits their collecting
money at the State level, returning it to the forest to improve
OHV trails.
Finally by adopting a broader approach that is ecosystem
products and services, I think there's an opportunity to extend
the range of this program which has been hugely successful.
Extend the range in terms of the geographic range, bring in the
south more, bring in the east, bring even in the Midwest as
well and offer an opportunity for them to share in what I think
is a tremendously successful program and--it has already been
mentioned, and Chairman you've said it--one of the most
successful pieces of legislation in quite a number of years.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kusel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jonathan Kusel, Director, Sierra Institute for
Community and Environment
Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony to the
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests regarding Senate Bill 380 to
reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination
Act of 2000.
I direct the Sierra Institute for Community and Environment. The
Sierra Institute is a non-profit research and education organization
that works locally, regionally, and nationally. The Departments of
Interior and Agriculture contracted the Sierra Institute to examine
Title II and Title III of the 2000 Secure Rural Schools and Community
Self-Determination Act (P.L. 106-393). My testimony will focus on key
findings from our 18 month study, offer some recommendations based on
these findings, and conclude with a view of the future for this
legislation.
the study
Methods and County Participation
To give you a sense of the breadth and depth of our study, we
conducted 16 case studies in nine states. A case study includes an
analysis of the Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) and the projects they
approved and that were funded, as well as Title III projects in the
associated county areas. The 16 case studies themselves include over a
third of all Title II and a fifth of all Title III allocations for the
first four years of the program.
To improve our understanding of Title III, as part of the
Mississippi case study we reviewed the Title III expenditures for the
entire state. We also examined Title III expenditures for all of
California for the first three years to track patterns across 32
counties.
Nationwide, a total of 85% of all counties eligible to opt into the
secure payment program have done so. The high proportion of counties
that opted into the program is an indication of the difficulties
counties and forest-dependent communities have faced in providing road
and school services based on a tax base that is constrained sometimes
by poverty, always by the tax-exempt status of the public lands within
their boundaries, and by declining revenues due to reduced timber
harvests. Difficulties counties face in serving their own citizens are
compounded by increased settlement adjacent to wildlands and by their
obligation to provide further services such as search and rescue and to
assist with fire prevention on public lands within the county
boundaries. Secure payments under P.L. 106-393 have been an essential
source of revenue allowing counties to meet these obligations.
Title II and Resource Advisory Committees
One of the most important findings from our study is RAC success.
There are few pieces of legislation that exceed the expectations of
even the most optimistic supporters, but the collaborative
relationships established and learning among RAC members, and between
RACs and the counties and the federal agencies has, in general, been
exceptional. As the first legislation to require multi-stakeholder
collaboration to advance resource management projects, few would have
predicted the breadth and depth of success it achieved.
The initial trepidation and skepticism among environmentalists,
timber industry, and other interest group representatives over simply
sitting in the same room together after years of conflict gave way to
joint work and learning. RACs have supported a plethora of projects
that are now improving forest and watershed health on federal lands and
enriching education and services associated with the counties' natural
resource endowments.
A key ingredient of success is that RACs have money for projects
and on-the-ground work.
RAC members know that unless they can come to an agreement, no
projects will be funded. This proved to be a powerful motivator to work
together and is different from coming together to talk policy. While
the money was critical, members of many RACs reported an increasing
openness among representatives from the different interest groups to
consider projects that would previously have been anathema to them. One
environmentalist said that had someone in the past suggested she would
support the old growth thinning project she did as a RAC member, she
would have dismissed that individual as ``crazy.''
RAC-funded projects have leveraged millions of additional dollars,
many partnerships, and thousands of volunteer hours.
Many projects have been implemented that demonstrate the power of
multi jurisdictional and public-private partnerships. All of the RACs
funded some projects that leveraged additional resources, partnerships,
and volunteer work. Some of the largest projects were the most
leveraged, including funds from other federal programs. Project record
keeping was insufficient to determine the precise number of dollars and
volunteer hours, but by all reports it was impressive.
Similar to interest group collaboration, an equally impressive
collaboration has taken place between RAC interest groups and the
federal agencies.
The RAC process has led to a new and qualitatively different kind
of interaction between the RAC interest groups and the agencies. As a
result of their participation, many RAC members have a greater
appreciation for agency constraints, processes, and requirements for
engagement with the public. In a similar vein, agency representatives
spoke of their enhanced and more nuanced understanding of interest
group perspectives. In many cases Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management personnel have become more responsive to public concerns as
a result of interactions with the RAC. Agency representatives
acknowledged that work with the RAC has helped them learn new ways of
doing business.
By the close of our study, no RAC project had been appealed or
challenged, confirming the success of Title II. Two other indicators of
the success of RACs came from members reporting that they are learning
from each other and collectively generating new ideas. This was not
just ``happy talk.'' These same members often expressed surprise at how
well things were working. Many RAC members reported that relationships
are being carried into other collaborative endeavors.
Additional evidence of RAC success is the shift in funding: as
counties grew more comfortable with RACs and their accomplishments, we
saw a significant increase in the amount of funding allocated to Title
II from early to later years, a pattern slightly more pronounced with
Forest Service RACs.
Collaboration is fertile ground for more collaboration.
Previous experience with collaborative approaches in local
government and with natural resource management has helped RACs to
become operational sooner. In the West, the history of community
involvement with the federal agencies has speeded RAC development. For
example, in the Northern Panhandle of Idaho, years of working together
as a five-county region not only helped the RAC get started, but also
helped its members avoid the temptation to negotiate to receive project
support equivalent to their Title II allocations--as many RACs did--and
to focus more on the quality of and regional need for individual
projects. The Southwest Mississippi RAC, whose members lacked a history
of resource-based collaboration, is proving more successful in those
counties that have had successes in overcoming a historic legacy of
racial conflict. These RAC members are still learning about how best to
use RAC funds, but they already view their work as positive and
offering unique future possibilities.
Despite RAC successes, the general public is still in the dark
about RACs and RAC work.
In most of the RAC areas, there remained a disappointing lack of
knowledge among the general public about the RAC. The wider population
simply knows little about RAC work. Project and collaborative learning
was primarily confined to members of the RAC, with one key effect being
a reduced number of non-agency and non-county applications for RAC
funding.
RAC Membership and ``Replacement'' Members
For the most part, interest group representation on RACs is sound,
although some interest categories are filled with inappropriate
representatives.
Some interest group designations like ``wild horse and burro'' do
not fit the diversity of environments, regional economies, or
sociodemographic conditions found in all regions of the country. Other
categories like ``organized labor'' have proven difficult to fill.
The wild horse and burro position reflects an idealized west and is
relevant only in certain regions; it was the most difficult category to
fill in the RACs we examined in our study. The labor category has also
proven difficult to fill in part because of the general decline in
organized labor and in part because of the decline in the number of
timber industry jobs, a sector that at one time historically
constituted the highest number of unionized workers in forest dependent
rural areas. Where other labor organizations exist they should be
considered appropriate surrogates when traditional organized labor
representatives are unavailable.
Despite their historic and continuing relationship to natural
resources, including those on federal land, Native American groups are
under-represented or not represented on some RACs and do not receive
project support to the degree that might be expected.
Filling the Native American position on RACs proved difficult for a
number of RACs. Reasons varied. In some cases tribes had little
experience with collaborative groups, and, federally recognized tribes
may view collaboration with a RAC as inappropriate given their unique
relationship to the U.S. government. In areas with multiple tribes,
obtaining representation is further challenged by the fact that a
tribal member may not speak for more than one tribe. One solution to
this is to recognize that participation by tribal members should not be
limited to one reserved position on the RAC. Tribal members are often
well qualified to serve in other positions such as an environmental or
industry group representative or as a public official, and should be
invited to do so. Tribes have participated effectively on some RACs,
but more consistent attention by the agencies and by RAC members alike
are needed to engage more tribal members.
Some RAC members and agency officials misunderstand the role of
``replacements.''
Many RAC members and officials spoke of replacement and alternate
members interchangeably. They felt a ``replacement'' could step in as
an alternate at meetings, filling in for an absent member. Replacement
members are appointed to move into an interest group position within
their subgroup when one of five positions is vacated. While perhaps
assuring continuity in RAC functioning, this process can lead to
inappropriate filling of interest positions since there is no way to
ensure that the replacement fits the vacated interest position.
RAC Projects
The largest category of spending for the 15 case study RACs we
examined is roads, representing 26% of total RAC expenditures (see the
attached Figure 1). This category also includes culvert replacements.
The second largest category of RAC expenditures is for projects that
restore, maintain, or improve wildlife and fish habitat totaling nearly
17% of all RAC expenditures. A total of 9% was allocated for watershed
restoration and maintenance-related projects such as upslope
stabilization efforts, downslope sediment reduction projects, and
estuary-related projects, such as fish-friendly tidegates. Given that
most habitat projects involved watershed improvement, project work in
these three categories met the legal requirement that 50% of all Title
II projects be used to fund road maintenance/obliteration or watershed
improvement/restoration.
Forest health-related projects constitute the third largest RAC
categorical expenditure, with 95% of these expenditures concentrated in
three Oregon RACs. A total of 13% of total Title II expenditures for
the 15 case study RACs was allocated in this project category. Most
forest health projects involve pre-commercial thinning. Few RACs have
supported forest health projects that involve extraction of
merchantable timber. At 9% of total expenditures, fuels reduction
projects represent the fourth highest categorical expenditure. Noxious
weeds were the fifth highest, receiving just under 8% of the funds.
Given the budget shortfalls the agencies are experiencing, RAC
dollars have enabled the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land
Management to implement projects that would otherwise not be done.
There are hundreds of examples of RAC funds being used to complete
projects that the agencies need to do and that the public wants. RAC
money represents a new source of funds for the agencies to do needed
work, and to do so through partnership with a RAC.
RAC Administrative Fees: The Cost of Collaboration
Agency administrative fee charges for RAC support and project
administration have been confusing, shifting, and inconsistent. First,
it is important to recognize that good RAC support and coordination is
no accident: it consumes considerable agency personnel time and
dollars. Second, agencies need to establish clear and simple guidelines
for charging and ensuring that administrative expenses are covered.
Funding the RACs
A common challenge of multi-county RACs is the demand by some
county officials that each county should receive project dollars
commensurate with their RAC contribution. This has sometimes led to
project approval processes that respond primarily to county priorities,
with a few county officials threatening to reduce or terminate Title II
allocations when they are dissatisfied with the distribution of project
dollars between counties. This form of control over RAC decisions is
relatively uncommon, but where it occurs it can be destabilizing.
There has been concern about Title III, and this is discussed
below, but it is important to note that there is an important
relationship established between county commissioners or supervisors
and the RAC and federal agency as a result of local officials having
the choice to allocate dollars to Title II. This provides additional
pressure on the RAC and the federal agencies to support and implement
good projects and equitably distribute Title II dollars.
Title III
Title III funds have proved to be most valuable to counties in
covering services they are expected to provide to their citizens and
the general public: search and rescue on public lands, fire prevention,
and county planning.
The highest funded category of Title III expenditures in the case
studies is ``search and rescue and emergency services,'' totaling 34%.
``Fire prevention and county planning'' at 24% and ``forest-related
education'' at 22% were the next highest funded categories.
Title III funds have been used successfully to develop community
wildfire protection plans and other capacity building work that has led
to effective leveraging of Title II and National Fire Plan dollars, and
other resources.
Considerable sums of Title III funds have been used for planning
and for building the capacity of communities to engage in fuels
reduction and forest thinning, qualifying them for National Fire Plan
funds as well as other funding. This kind of leveraging has been an
extremely effective tool for developing fire plans in the wildland-
urban interface and in completing fuels thinning projects. Title III
projects that build local capacity and leverage funds are even more
important in light of declining National Fire Plan funding, the loss of
Economic Action Programs of the Forest Service, and other funding
shortfalls. Title III funds have also been used productively to
implement a multitude of educational projects. County support for these
programs has allowed local people and others to learn about forest
communities, and the role and importance of stewardship of a working
landscape.
Up to half the study counties did not disburse funds through open
and competitive processes of project solicitation and approval. Roughly
half of all Title III funds were allocated through administrative
allocations. This had the effect of restricting the diversity of groups
and projects receiving Title III project support.
On the whole, the majority of Title III funds appear to have been
used for authorized purposes, but some clearly did not meet the spirit
and intent of the act. Unacceptable allocations included payment for
county officials' salaries and for reimbursement of PILT funds lost as
a result of Title III payments. Administrative allocations and lack of
oversight contributed to funds being allocated in ways that did not fit
approved categories. Senate Bill 380 begins to get at this issue with
the call for Secretary review of Title III projects, but more is
needed.
In addition to Secretary review, the study team learned that many
counties sorely needed an authoritative source for information about
Title III. There was no agency or entity designated to provide Title
III oversight or offer Title III consultation. As a result, county
officials had no one to call if they had questions or needed an
interpretation about a project's fit with the legislation. Bureau of
Land Management and the Forest Service officials informally provided
information, but this exceeded their responsibilities and many
officials were clearly uncomfortable in this role. Some state-level
associations of counties provided information, but it was not always
consistent from one state to another and sometimes questionable with
respect to how well recommendations fit with the spirit and intent of
the law. This was complicated by the fact that Title III was not as
clearly written as Title II.
Employment
Across almost all of the cases, RACs and Title III projects have
supported youth employment projects.
Millions of dollars have been invested in Youth Conservation Corps
(YCC) or similar employment programs, as well as programs for at-risk
youth. Almost all RACs examined supported one or more youth employment
projects. RACs in general are quite pleased with experiences projects
have offered youth, the benefits youth have gained from working on the
land, as well as the landscape improvements. These programs have
improved trails, reduced fire risks, and removed noxious weeds, among
their many accomplishments. They are also developing the human capital
needed for continued management of forests and watersheds as
participants move into resource-related jobs or educational programs.
Job creation, beyond youth employment, has been indirect and
piecemeal, despite this being a goal of P.L. 106-393. Most projects
offer only part-time or short-term work.
In a few cases the RACs or the agencies have attempted to provide
projects that bridge seasons and slow-work periods in order to offer
year-round work. While a number of RAC members expressed interest in
generating employment, they quickly learned how difficult this is and
how limited a project-by-project approach to this issue is. Some RACs,
like the Siskiyou County RAC in California, have actively discussed
funding large projects. They recognize, however, that tradeoffs involve
reduced funding for other worthwhile and needed smaller projects, and
are accompanied by the risk that large projects provide no guarantee of
providing long-term, family wage employment. Lack of good monitoring
and review prevents RACs and others from building a knowledge base of
successful approaches to employment generation.
Monitoring
Monitoring of both Title II and Title III has been inadequate and
needs to be improved.
A few RACs and counties took it upon themselves to monitor funded
projects, but even the best of them focused primarily on general
project reporting and implementation monitoring, not on outcome-based
or project effectiveness monitoring. To be fair, given the relatively
short duration of the legislation, effectiveness monitoring is
difficult if not impossible with many projects. P.L. 106-393 also did
not specify an entity responsible for monitoring. The Forest Counties
Payments Committee in its 2003 report identified this issue. Good
monitoring builds accountability, contributes to program learning and
project development, and ultimately improves resource management.
Title III lacks a coherent system of project recording and
monitoring. It proved difficult for the study team to locate reliable
data on how Title III money was spent, what projects were funded, and
on project success. Like Title II, there was no effectiveness
monitoring, and in a few cases there were only informal records of
Title III use. Requiring a review by the Secretary as SB 380 does
places federal officials in an awkward position of reviewing county
expenditures.
conclusions and some recommendations
Given the successful collaboration, learning, and on-the-ground
project accomplishments, P.L. 106-393 has exceeded expectations and
accomplished more than most thought possible. The work that counties
and RACs have accomplished during the first five years of the
legislation has laid the groundwork for continued and improved future
collaboration and learning. This work has accomplished valuable
projects that are restoring health to working, forested landscapes, as
well as a variety of other important work. This legislation has also
significantly reduced gridlock that has characterized resource
management over the last two decades. Below are some recommendations
from our study about how to improve Secure Rural School and Community
Self-Determination Act legislation.
1. RACs, the agencies, and possibly third parties need to do
more outreach and education to inform others about the work and
lessons of RACs and to encourage more project applications from
non-agency groups.
2. RAC interest categories should be changed to reflect
changing demographics and to enable them to respond more
effectively to issues facing forest communities across the
country (bolded words are our recommended changes to P.L. 1-06-
393 RAC interest categories):
A. (i) represent organized labor, another labor
organization, or non-timber forest product harvester
groups,
(iii) represent energy and mineral
development, or commercial and recreational
fishing, interests
(v) hold federal grazing permits, or other
land use permits within the area for which the
committee is organized, or represent non-
industrial private forest land owners.
B. (v) nationally or regionally recognized wild horse
and burro interest groups, wildlife organizations, or
watershed associations.
3. Eliminate use of replacement members associated with the
RAC subgroups since there is no way to assure that one
individual can ``fit'' in all five vacated interest group
positions. If they're retained, replacements should not replace
a RAC member unless the individual can appropriately represent
an interest group and receive Secretary approval.
4. The meaning of ``project'' in title III needs to be made
consistent with title II. More open, competitive, and
transparent processes for project solicitation, review, and
approval by the counties are needed.
5. A single organization or entity should have responsibility
for ensuring accurate and timely recording and possibly
monitoring of title III projects. This entity could also
provide training for counties to improve project development,
selection, and implementation.
looking to the future
Findings from the Sierra Institute study strongly support
continuing P.L. 106-393, and Senate Bill 380 is a step in the right
direction.
While it is widely recognized that fuels and forest management must
continue and even be expanded, and products can be produced that will
provide revenue, counties should not expect harvest totals and timber
revenues to return to levels of the 1980s. Similarly, counties should
not expect funding from the federal government based on the high three-
year harvest average to continue in perpetuity. This is brought home by
the current federal budget limitations and the challenges in finding
funding for re-authorization. Other revenue streams need to be
developed to support forest and watershed management and respond to the
federal commitment to rural communities and landscapes.
Re-authorization should be viewed as a ``bridge'' to a program that
combines deriving revenue from resource production with ecosystem
services. Revenue from both ecosystem products and services can and
should be part of sustainable funding of the legislation.
An ecosystems products and services approach can launched by
identifying ways to secure resources to support management that
contributes to improvements in water quality and quantity as well as
generating wood products. Services can be expanded to carbon credits
and payment for habitat, as these are quantified and equitable
mechanisms are developed to collect revenue. An ecosystem products and
services approach will result in the inclusion of other areas with
national forests, like the Northeast, the South, and the Midwest, that
have not participated because they lacked sufficient historic timber
revenue.
We recommend building on RAC collaboration to develop this new
``ecosystem products and services'' approach.
This leads to one final recommendation: should the legislation be
extended by five to seven years--and my study team believes it should--
where the combined total of Title II and Title III funding exceeds
$200,000 yearly in a RAC area, there should be a requirement that 3-5%
of these funds be dedicated to projects examining how forest products
and ecosystem services can provide a future stream of revenues to
replace the current P.L. 106-393 funding mechanism.
Any period of re-authorization of the Secure Rural School and
Community Self-Determination Act should be used as a time to not only
focus on the work at hand, but to identify ways ecosystem products and
services or some other funding can be tapped to ensure program
sustainability, and expansion of the program into new geographic areas
to expand a powerfully successful program across the country.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Figure 1 graphic has been retained in committee files.
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much. Mr. Robertson, welcome.
I was in your beautiful county just last week and we're glad
you're here.
STATEMENT OF JOHN DOUGLAS ROBERTSON, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, DOUGLAS COUNTY, OR
Mr. Robertson. Mr. Wyden, thank you very much. I want to
begin by thanking you Senator Wyden and you Senator Craig, for
your effort. I can't tell you how encouraged all of us are to
hear you make the public commitment to come together once again
and bring this reauthorization to fruition.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I come before
you today in an effort to provide information and answer
questions that will hopefully be of assistance as you consider
the reauthorization of Rural Schools and Communities Self-
Determination Act of 2000.
On September 30, 2006, the act expired, leaving over 700
counties and 4,400 school districts in 39 States in financial
limbo as they approached the end of their fiscal year. It was
hoped when the original safety net was passed in 1993 and then
updated in 2000, that the forest service, the BLM and various
stakeholders involved in Federal forest management issues would
be able to move forward with new plans and solutions. It was
the intent of Congress that these updated plans and solutions
would provide stability for rural communities, counties and
schools while improving forest health and strengthening
environmental values we all support.
While some progress has been made, the communities of rural
America continue to struggle as a result of the precipitous
decline in forest management jobs and revenue combined with the
grim prospect of the future in which there are no safety net
dollars to fill the gap.
What are some of the factors that have contributed to the
current conditions faced by our rural counties? Consider the
significant increase over the last decade in visitor days to
our national parks and Federal forests. This increase alone has
put an enormous strain on local governments in the form of
search-and-rescue responsibilities, on public works departments
that are responsible for road and bridge maintenance, and on
local law enforcement. Recent multimillion dollar search-and-
rescue efforts on Forest Service land performed by local
counties in Oregon have been well-covered in the national
press. Adding to the burden of rural counties and communities
has been a significant increase in the size, number, and
intensity of forest fires. If that weren't enough, a recent
audit by the USDA Office of Inspector General suggests that the
Federal Government will expect even more from rural communities
and counties in the form of resources and assets to fight these
fires.
While rural counties and communities continue their
struggle to meet these challenges, there are few components of
rural America more impacted by the loss of safety net dollars
than rural education. I think most people can agree with the
concept of ``no child left behind''. Consider this: over 8
million youngsters in rural schools throughout our country will
potentially be hurt by the loss of Pub. L. 106-393. That's a
lot of youngsters to leave behind. Those kids attend 18,000
schools in 4,400 school districts, and are taught by thousands
of teachers in rural communities.
If there is not significant progress made toward
reauthorization by March 14 of this year, 7,000 of those rural
educators will receive layoff notices. Add to that the
thousands of termination notices being prepared by rural
counties and the loss of critical public services supported by
those county employees, and you begin to get a sense of the
breadth and depth of the catastrophe about to befall rural
America.
One of the greatest setbacks, as already been noted, if
reauthorization does not occur, will be the loss of the
Resource Advisory Committees. Over the last 6 years we have
seen communication and cooperation among stakeholders who,
prior to Pub. L. 106-393, had never been in the same room
together and had little interest in even speaking to each
other. Because of opportunities to make meaningful
contributions to land management by serving on RACs, interest
groups which formerly shunned one another are now collaborating
and starting to find common ground. In addition to these
developing relationships, we have also witnessed thousands of
projects nationwide that have greatly improved forest health
and made meaningful contribution to local economies.
Many of our States have been blessed with natural resources
in the form of rich deposits of oil, gas, coal and other
minerals. Other States like California, Oregon, Washington and
Idaho have been similarly blessed with high-value timber lands.
These natural resources, to a large extent, were the driving
force for the development of the west. The social, physical,
and cultural infrastructures that were developed around these
federally controlled assets are now at risk.
What does ``at risk'' really mean? Well again, consider
Curry County in southern Oregon that has approached the
Attorney General seeking advice on how a public entity files
for bankruptcy. Without reauthorization, they will become
insolvent.
Consider the situation in Greenlee County, Arizona where
the school that accommodates the special needs of severely
physically and mentally challenged children will be closed. Add
to that the dozens of counties and school districts in
Mississippi, where they are already struggling to recover from
Hurricane Katrina, who will lose an additional $8,457,000. As
you can imagine, the list of what ``at risk'' means could go on
all day. Suffice it to say, the loss of the resources provided
to rural counties and schools would be devastating.
In closing, let me ask, on behalf of thousands and
thousands of counties, communities, and schools in rural
America, that you reauthorize this legislation and that you do
so quickly. We, who inhabit the more remote areas of this
country, don't want a handout or welfare. We want the
opportunity to solve the issue of Federal payments to rural
counties and schools. While progress has been made, 6 years was
simply not enough time. By working with us as full
participating partners, we can improve forest health, stabilize
rural economies, strengthen our system of rural education, and
save the Federal Government money. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Robertson follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Douglas Robertson, Chairman, Board of
Commissioners, Douglas County, OR
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I come before you today
in an effort to provide information and answer questions that will
hopefully be of assistance as you consider the reauthorization of the
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.
On September 30, 2006 that Act expired, leaving over 700 counties
and 4,400 school districts in 39 states in financial limbo as they
approach the end of their fiscal year. It was hoped when the original
safety net was passed in 1993 and then updated in 2000, that the Forest
Service, the BLM and various stakeholders involved in the federal
forest management issues would be able to move forward with plans and
solutions. It was the intent of Congress that these updated plans and
solutions would provide stability for rural communities, counties and
schools while improving forest health and strengthening the
environmental values we all support. While some progress has been made,
the communities of rural America continue to struggle as a result of
the precipitous decline in forest management jobs and revenue, combined
with the grim prospect of a future in which there are no safety net
dollars to fill the gap.
What are some of the factors that have contributed to the current
conditions faced by our rural counties and schools? Consider the
significant increase over the last decade in visitor days to our
national parks and federal forests. This increase alone has put an
enormous strain on local governments in the form of search and rescue
responsibilities, on public works departments that are responsible for
road and bridge maintenance, and on local law enforcement. Recent
multimillion dollar search and rescue efforts on Forest Service land
performed by local counties in Oregon have been well covered in the
national press. Adding to the burden of rural counties and communities
has been a significant increase in the size, number and intensity of
forest fires. If that wasn't enough, a recent audit by the USDA OIG
suggests that the federal government will expect even more from rural
communities and counties in the form of resources and assets to fight
these fires.
While rural counties and communities continue their struggle to
meet these challenges, there are few components of rural America more
impacted by the loss of the safety net than rural education. I think
most people can agree with the concept of ``no child left behind''.
Consider this: Over 8 million kids in rural schools throughout our
country will potentially be hurt by the loss of P.L. 106-393. That is a
lot of kids to leave behind. Those kids attend 18,000 schools in 4,400
school districts, and are taught by thousands of teachers in rural
communities. If there is not significant progress made towards
reauthorization by March 14th of this year, 7,000 of those rural
educators will receive layoff notices. Add to that the thousands of
termination notices being prepared by rural counties and the loss of
critical public services supported by those county employees, and you
begin to get a sense of the breadth and depth of the catastrophe about
to befall rural America.
One of the greatest setbacks, if reauthorization does not occur,
will be the loss of the Resource Advisory Committees. Over the last 6
years we have seen communication and cooperation among stakeholders
who, prior to P.L. 106-393, had never been in the same room together
and had little interest in even speaking to each other. Because of
opportunities to make meaningful contributions to land management by
serving on RACs, interest groups which formerly shunned one another are
now collaborating and starting to find common ground. In addition to
these developing relationships, we have also witnessed thousands of
projects nationwide that have greatly improved forest health and made
meaningful contributions to local economies.
Many of our states have been blessed with natural resources in the
form of rich deposits of oil, gas, coal and other minerals. Other
states like California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho have been
similarly blessed with high value timber lands. These natural
resources, to a large extent, were the driving force for development of
the west. The social, physical, and cultural infrastructures that were
developed around these federally controlled assets are now at risk.
What does ``at risk'' mean? Consider Curry County in southern
Oregon that has approached the Attorney General seeking advice on how a
public entity files for bankruptcy. Without reauthorization, they will
be insolvent.
Consider the situation in Greenlee County, Arizona where the school
that accommodates the special needs of severely physically and mentally
challenged children will be closed. Add to that the dozens of counties
and school districts in Mississippi, where they are already struggling
to recover from Hurricane Katrina, who will lose an additional
$8,457,000. As you can imagine, the list of what ``at risk'' means
could go on all day. Suffice it to say, the loss of the resources
provided to rural counties and schools would be devastating.
In closing, let me ask, on behalf of thousands and thousands of
counties, communities, and schools in rural America that you
reauthorize this legislation and that you do so quickly. We, who
inhabit the more remote areas of this country, don't want a handout or
welfare. We want the opportunity to solve the issue of federal payments
to rural counties and schools. While great progress has been made, six
years was simply not enough time. By working with us as full
participating partners, we can improve forest health, stabilize rural
economies, strengthen our system of rural education, and save the
federal government money.
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much and we'll have some
questions in just a moment.
Mr. Francis.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. FRANCIS, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL FORESTS
PROGRAM, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY
Mr. Francis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for this opportunity
to testify on S. 380. The Wilderness Society supports permanent
reauthorization to the County Payments law provided it is a
clean bill with no changes except for housekeeping measures.
The Wilderness Society has one major concern with S. 380,
as introduced, which is the elimination of the merchantable
materials contracting pilot program of title II. It is
premature in our opinion to eliminate the pilot program. The
program has not yet had a chance to have results, enough
results, to make an informed judgment about the usefulness of
the separate contract procedure.
Giving RACs an added responsibility of requesting a pilot
program without, would inject new and needless controversy into
the title II processes. As everyone on this committee is aware,
the Wilderness Society was originally skeptical of title II
when it was being written, believing it could promote
unsustainable development of national forest; however, based on
our research, done before the night before the 2005 testimony,
title II projects have been successful so far in achieving
resource stewardship objectives established under the law. We
believe the success of these title II projects, along with a
lack of controversy about them, is due in part to the pilot
program, which would create incentives for the RACs to
recommend projects with goals of conservation and restoration.
By all accounts the Resource Advisory Committee process has
been very successful in bringing together community members
with diversity and strongly-held views, helping them interact
with, understand, and accommodate each other's needs and
approaches, and helping them work together to achieve an
agreement on project proposals that benefit the community as a
whole. This is a very considerable achievement that should not
be lost.
Removing the break of separate contracting is likely to be
perceived by some in the community as a signal from Congress
that it finds the stewardship and restoration components of
title II to be less than compelling.
Mr. Chairman, for the second consecutive year, the
President's forest service budget includes a proposal to sell
off up to $800 million of national forest land. A similar
proposal announced last year met with strong widespread
opposition from hunters, anglers, locally elected officials,
businesses, Governors, and both Democrat and Republican Members
of Congress. The proposal to sell public lands to fund other
government programs sets a dangerous and an irresponsible
precedent, especially in times of budget pressures and
deficits.
This proposal marks a significant change in forest service
policy. Never in the history of the agency has land been
auctioned off to raise revenues for other government programs.
The administration's claim that many of these lands are
isolated, difficult to manage or simply not important, is
misleading. In many ways the lands proposed for sale are some
of the most critical places to protect either because they
provide hunters and anglers access to larger tracts of public
land, for their proximity to watersheds or other private
developments.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, the
Wilderness Society strongly supports permanent reauthorization
of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination
Act and we are equally opposed to the sale of national forest
lands. We stand ready, as we stated in 2005, to work with the
committee about our concerns about the merchantable contract
provisions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Francis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael A. Francis, Director, National Forests
Program, The Wilderness Society
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank you
for this opportunity to testify on S. 380--the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self Determination Reauthorization Act of 2007. PL 106-393
has proven to be successful in stabilizing payments to rural school
systems and county governments and funding many environmentally
beneficial projects on national forests. We commend the members of this
Committee who helped to craft this law.
The Wilderness Society concurs with the conclusion of a study of PL
106-393 conducted by Boise State University that the legislation is
effectively meeting its stated purposes. Payments have been stabilized,
investments in Federal lands have increased, and cooperative
relationships have improved since passage of the Act. More than 85% of
the eligible counties have opted to participate in the guaranteed
payments program established under Title I. Title II of the legislation
has funded hundreds of environmentally beneficial and non-controversial
resource projects on the National Forests. Funding through Title III
has allowed many counties to begin developing community fire protection
plans as well as perform other important government services. The Boise
State study found overwhelming support for renewal of the legislation
among Resource Advisory Committee members and county officials that
oversee use of the Title II and III funds.
The Wilderness Society supports reauthorization of the county
payments law, provided that it is a clean bill, with no changes except
for housekeeping provisions that are clearly necessary to ensure the
continued success of the program. Section 2(d) of the bill apparently
removes the Secretary's current explicit role in reappointing members
of a Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) and removes the prohibition on
non-Agriculture Department employees serving more than six consecutive
years on an advisory committee. These proposed changes address a need
identified by conservationists and other members of the RACs to enable
them to continue their work.
The Wilderness Society's one major concern with S. 380, as
introduced, is the elimination of the merchantable materials
contracting pilot program in Title II. Under Section 204(e)(3) of PL
106-393 the Secretary ``shall'' establish a pilot program for
implementing Title II projects involving the ``sale'' of merchantable
trees. The pilot program required that increasing proportions--up to
50% by 2006--of such projects, on a national basis, be implemented
using separate contracts for (a) the harvesting, and (b) the sale, of
such material, commonly known as ``separating the log from the
logger.''
Under the proposed language in section 2(e) of S. 380, the
Secretary ``may'' establish a pilot program in response to a request
from a RAC to establish such a program for the purpose of implementing
a project proposed by that RAC.
This change is problematic for three main reasons.
First, it is premature to eliminate the pilot program: the program
has not had a chance to yield enough results to make an informed
judgment about the usefulness of separate contracts. In a written
response to Senator Bingaman's question in the February 8th, 2005
Subcommittee hearing, the Forest Service responded that the less than
seven percent of the 1300 projects under Title II had any merchantable
materials associated with them may indicate that the pilot program is
helping to deter federal land managers from using Title II funds to
conduct potentially controversial and inappropriate logging projects.
If so, this is a very salutary effect.
Second, the new language eliminates the current requirement in Sec.
204(e)(3)(B) that a certain percentage of merchantable tree projects be
conducted with separate contracts for logging and selling the wood. The
federal land management agency would have full discretion to deny any
request from a RAC.
Third, giving RACs the added responsibility of requesting a pilot
program would inject new and needless controversy into the Title II
process. The current RAC decision-making process requires all three
subcommittees--industry, environmental, and government--to approve any
projects. Under the proposed change, a request by the environmental
subcommittee members for use of separate contracts on a particular
project could be vetoed by either the industry or government
subcommittees. That, in turn, could compel the environmental members to
veto a project that they otherwise might have approved under the
current law.
title ii
The Wilderness Society was originally skeptical of Title II when PL
106-393 was being written, believing it could promote unsustainable
development of national forests; however, based on our research, Title
II projects have been successful so far in achieving the resource
stewardship objectives established under the law.
We believe that the success of these Title II projects, along with
the lack of controversy about them, is due in part to the pilot
program, which creates incentives for the RACs to recommend projects
with the goals of conservation and restoration. Title II projects that
The Wilderness Society has reviewed implement stewardship-type
practices which benefit forests, as well as improve the overall health
of the land. For some examples of ecologically beneficial Title II
projects, please refer to our March 8, 2005 testimony before this
Subcommittee.
merchantable materials pilot program
There does not seem to be a clear and compelling rationale for
changing the pilot program, especially when considering The Wilderness
Society's findings, and a preliminary status report from the Government
Accountability Office (GAO).
The Wilderness Society's review of Title II projects and pilot
program projects in 2005 revealed significant support from the
conservation community where the pilot program projects we reviewed are
located (all of them in Oregon and California). It is crucial to
recognize and value the opinions of people involved in project
implementation. RAC members representing local, regional, or national
environmental groups are in strong support of keeping the pilot program
as a requirement in the new law. They believe that the program
facilitates decision making between the timber industry and
environmentalists, especially on projects that would have originally
been difficult to approve (i.e. fuels reductions). In addition, they
feel that without the program there would be greater emphasis on
commercial values instead of conservation, making it more complicated
to achieve any outcomes authorized by Title II. For example, the RACs
may be presented with projects that would thin large natural stands
that are economically more attractive than the plantations of smaller
trees now being thinned. Conservationists strongly believe that the
current merchantable materials pilot program will be essential to the
continued success of Title II.
An interim status report from the GAO in 2003 on the merchantable
materials pilot program stated that out of the approximately 1,300
forest-related projects at the time, 13 were expected to generate
merchantable material, and six of those were to be conducted within the
pilot program. The report stated that none of those six projects had
been implemented at that time. However, our research in 2005 found that
one project had successfully been completed, and others were to be
completed by the end of the year. Please refer to our March 8, 2005
testimony before this Subcommittee for details about these projects.
Mr. Chairman, as a matter of principle The Wilderness Society is
concerned that the Forest Service has largely ignored the congressional
directive to establish and monitor a pilot program. Section 204(e)(3)
directs the Forest Service to establish a pilot program for the purpose
of assuring that, for Title II projects generating merchantable
material, a graduated percentage of such projects would be implemented
using separate contracts for (a) the harvesting, and (b) the selling,
of the material. The intent of the sponsors was to establish an
important safeguard insulating Title II ecological restoration projects
from economic incentives that could cause them to become ecologically
damaging. Using separate contracts removes the profit motive from the
design and placement of the project and helps retain the proper focus
on restoration.
The national office of the Forest Service simply never set up such
a pilot program, and has failed to assure compliance with the law's
separate contracting requirements. The agency's written response to
Senator Bingaman's query shows that of 88 Title II projects generating
``merchantable materials,'' only six were implemented using separate
contracting. Further, the Forest Service seems not to have
institutionalized consistent criteria for the term ``merchantable,''
thus making it difficult to evaluate on a region-wide basis which
projects have generated only incidental ``merchantable'' materials, and
which generated saw-timber or other non-incidental materials, or in
what amounts. But even allowing for projects generating only incidental
materials, the agency seems to have fallen far short of implementing
the law.
the role of separate contracts
When a project is implemented utilizing a single contractor for
removal and sale of merchantable trees, the economics of the project
are tied to the value of the trees on the stump. This situation--
present in the normal timber sale--inevitably militates towards pushing
the project into areas of higher commercial value and into potential
conflict with ecological values.
But with separate contracts, the harvester has no incentive to
remove materials of higher commercial value, since he will not be
realizing any of that value, and the project can thus focus on its
proper restoration mission. The existing law's percentage requirement
is a brake, allowing half of all such projects to be implemented with a
single contract, but preventing the program from lurching onto a
largely commercial course.
the achievement of the racs should not be lost
By all accounts, the Resource Advisory Committee process has been
very successful in bringing together community members with divergent,
strongly held views; helping them interact with, understand and
accommodate each other's needs and approaches; and helping them work
together to achieve agreement on project proposals that benefit the
community as a whole. This is a very considerable achievement, and
should not be lost.
However, the proposed changes in the law removing the pilot program
and separate contracting percentage requirements threaten to sow
dissension in the RACs. Removing the brake of separate contracting is
likely to be perceived by some as a signal from Congress that it finds
the stewardship and restoration component of Title II to be less than
compelling. It is likely to increase proposals for projects generating
merchantable materials--that is, for projects whose community benefit
is more closely tied to cutting and selling saw-timber. And because of
their perceived economic benefits, such proposals will be strongly
supported by some RAC members and by some in local communities.
On the other hand, such project proposals are likely to be even
more strongly opposed by RAC members for whom conservation is a more
important goal. As we discussed above, given the voting structure of
the RACs, wherein a majority of the members of each of the three
recognized categories of community interest is required for project
approval, the proposed change in the law could polarize RAC members,
undermine the law's most impressive accomplishment, and significantly
hinder the program from going forward.
The Wilderness Society recommends that S. 380 be amended to strike
Section 2(e) and replace it with the language of Section 204(e)(3) of
PL 106-393. The goal of this amendment is to restart the Merchantable
Materials Pilot Program in Fiscal Year 2007 for the authorization
period covered by the bill in the same manner as contained in Public
Law 106-393.
land sales proposal
For the second consecutive year, the President's Forest Service
budget includes a proposal to sell off up to $800 million of National
Forest lands. A similar proposal announced last year met with strong
and widespread opposition from hunters, anglers, locally-elected
officials, businesses, governors, and both Democratic and Republican
Members of Congress.
The Administration has failed to listen to the American people and
their overwhelming opposition to selling off National Forest lands.
It's a sad commentary that the Administration would completely ignore
the vehement opposition that this misguided plan created last year, by
releasing a nearly identical proposal to sell the country's public
lands to help remedy their poor fiscal decisions.
The Administration's claim that many of these lands are isolated,
difficult to manage, or simply not important is misleading. In many
ways the lands proposed for sale are some of the most critical places
to protect, either because they provide hunters and anglers access to
larger pieces of land or for their proximity to watersheds and other
private development.
The Administration's FY 2008 budget has set its sights on selling
over 270,000 acres of Forest Service land in 35 states and possibly as
many as 500,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management lands in the West.
The state hit hardest by the Administration's Forest Service proposal
is California, where they are targeting over 65,000 acres for possible
sale. National Forests in the Southeast (Forest Service Region 8),
where private forests are rapidly being lost to development, account
for over 50,000 acres of the land sales.
The following information comes from media coverage from last
year's proposed land sales in some of the states that are represented
on this Subcommittee:
North Carolina--5,685 acres.--Sixth graders at a middle
school that backs into the Croatan National Forest in North
Carolina wrote letters to Mark Rey in opposition to last year's
land sale proposal. In reaction to the proposed sale of 900
acres in the middle school's own backyard, sixth grader
Stephanie Rose asked Mark Rey, ``Wouldn't you rather be known
for helping save our national natural beauty, instead of
helping to destroy it?'' Another sixth grader, Jamie Lewis,
told Rey, ``I don't think that we should put it up for sale
because not only are we losing beautiful land that is great for
outdoor activities, but we are also losing part of North
Carolina.'' Another sixth grader, Will Holloway, said, ``The
government has been saving this forest and if we sell it there
is no way to get it back.'' North Carolina's Governor, Mike
Easley, issued a formal protest against the Bush
administration's plan to sell nearly 10,000 acres of national
forest land in North Carolina last year, saying ``selling our
valuable natural land is not the answer'' to the long-term
challenge of financing rural schools. He also wrote to Mark
Rey, ``[w]ith all due respect, this proposal violates all the
tenets of good public policy . . . You are proposing to sell
9,828 acres in North Carolina, or nearly 9 percent of our total
National Forest acreage. This proposal comes at the very time
when North Carolina is in the midst of a decade-long effort to
conserve land and add to our system of public parks and
forests.''
Oregon--7,591 acres.--Kevin Gorman, a resident of Oregon,
found fault with last year's proposed land sale. ``The Forest
Service's rationale for the sell-off is that these lands are
`disposable' because they are isolated, inefficient and often
right next to urban areas. As my family and I walked through
the Balfour Klickitat area to the eagle-viewing site, it
occurred to me that this particular Forest Service property
also is isolated, certainly inefficient and adjacent to the
town of Lyle. Under slightly different circumstances, it, too,
could have been put on the list to sell. What are they
thinking?"
Idaho--26,021 acres.--Republican and Democratic leaders in
the Idaho Senate joined to introduce a resolution opposing any
sell-off of Idaho's federal lands, as proposed by the Bush
administration in 2006. The Idaho legislature is considered the
most Republican in the nation, yet it was critical of the White
House on the issue of land sales. ``There's not that much
daylight between the Republicans and the Democrats on this
issue,'' said Senate Majority Caucus Chairman Brad Little, R-
Emmett. ``The Democrats obviously want to stir the pot a little
bit, but there's pretty good agreement on both sides.'' Senate
Minority Leader Clint Stennett, D-Ketchum, added, ``This is of
grave concern to a large number of people.'' Larry Craig was
quoted as saying ``Heck No'' to the proposal.
Colorado--21,699 acres.--The Colorado House stood in
opposition to the ill-considered federal plan to sell off
chunks of national forests and other public lands in response
to last year's land sale proposal. Fully two-thirds of the
state's representatives signed on as co-sponsors to a
resolution opposing the land sale plan, and it passed without
dissent. Sen. Ken Salazar has said that selling land as a one-
time budget fix is short-sighted and not in the best public
interest.
Kentucky--3,843 acres.--In an op-ed, U.S. Representative Ben
Chandler found that Kentucky schools would lose a net total of
$257.9 million in federal education dollars for K-12 and
vocational education programs over the next five years under
the Bush budget. However, the President's proposal would set a
dreadful precedent of trying to fund education by selling
federal land instead of practicing fiscal responsibility.
Fiscal responsibility and being good stewards of our land are
two of the most important lessons we can pass on to future
generations. This proposal stomps on both principles and begs
the question--how is auctioning off our children's land
investing in their future?
Washington--5,549 acres.--Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said
in response to last year's proposal, ``Our state's forests are
an important legacy. We shouldn't throw them away to make up
for this administration's mixed-up priorities.''
South Carolina--4,656 acres.--In South Carolina, the
Charleston County Council adopted a resolution urging Bush and
Congress not to sell off any parts of the National Forest. The
resolution was added to ones from Berkeley County and others
who oppose plans to sell off some of the 250,000-acre forest
that covers the northeastern parts of Charleston and Berkeley
counties.
South Dakota--13,310 acres.--``Funding our rural schools is
very important, but it would be inappropriate to do so by
selling parts of the Black Hills,'' said Sen. John Thune, R-
S.D. ``The Senate is already working on an alternative proposal
that would reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools law, and I will
work to pass this viable option that does not include selling
off our nation's public lands.''
Wyoming--15,498 acres.--In response to last year's proposal,
Sen. Michael Enzi, R-WY., called the land sales proposal a
``ridiculous idea.'' He added, ``There are towns that are
hurting, there are ways we ought to take care of them, but
selling off the public lands isn't one of them.'' Rep. Barbara
Cubin, R-WY., said in a statement that she's ``not convinced''
federal land sales are the best way to fund the rural schools
act and will watch the process. Sen. Craig Thomas, R-WY.,
questioned Rey at the hearing about the need for land sales.
After the hearing, Thomas said he remains concerned that people
have enough time to examine the proposal and added that while
some lands need to be sold, others shouldn't. ``About all they
did (at the hearing) was say that they're going to have lots of
opportunity for people to see what lands they're talking about,
have some local input, so I really think they do understand
that it's going to be very important to do that,'' Thomas said.
Mr. Chairman, millions of Americans who rely on their National
Forests and other public lands and for clean water, recreation, and
hunting and fishing opportunities will not tolerate the selling of
these lands. Instead of such an unpopular proposal, we should be
looking to assist rural schools and counties through alternative
funding sources that do not include selling off America's natural
heritage.
conclusion
The Wilderness Society strongly supports reauthorization of Public
Law 106-393, including the current merchantable materials pilot
program. Congress should expeditiously debate and pass a solution that
supports rural schools and communities while protecting our public
lands for their enjoyment and use by all Americans.
In closing, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, The
Wilderness Society stands ready to work with the Subcommittee on our
strong concerns about certain provisions of S. 380 in order to
reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination
Act (PL 106-393) this year.
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much to all three of you. As
usually is the case when it comes down to County Payments, my
friend Senator Craig and I remain trying to figure out how to
forge the coalition, and that's really what I wanted to start
with you, Mr. Robertson, about. I felt when I had the honor of
being chosen Oregon's first new United States Senator in 30
years that what I wanted to do, as much as anything else, was
to try to bring people together in the natural resources area.
What we have seen again and again is this polarizing battle
that basically means we don't get much of anything that
Oregonians want. Almost everybody I meet in Oregon says,
``Protect our treasures, but also make sure that rural
communities can prosper economically.'' That's what they want,
and unless you find a way to bring people together, instead of
that win/win, what you get is inevitably a lose/lose. You don't
protect your treasures, nor do you address economic needs. My
sense is there is no other Federal program that relates to
natural resources that has done as much to bring people
together as the County Payments legislation.
I know in Lane County one of the former commissioners who
was quite close to the forest products industry said, ``I
couldn't even imagine sitting there, as I did, with
environmental people.'' Is that true, is this program really
making a difference in terms of bringing people together and
helping us build that kind of western coalition that finds
common ground, the ways communities want so much?
Mr. Robertson. There's no question, Senator Wyden that the
title II aspect of the Public Law 106-393 has been a success
beyond anybody's expectations. It was an experiment, as you so
aptly coined the phrase, when this bill was first passed, in
hopes that it would do exactly what it's done, by putting money
on the table and allowing the different stakeholders to discuss
openly what ultimately resulted in forest health. We've seen
achievements that just simply would not have been so otherwise
and had not been so up to that point. It has brought
communities of interest together. It has brought stakeholders
together like nothing else that has occurred up to this point.
There's no question about it.
Senator Wyden. The reason why I ask is because we are going
to go on to these other areas that Senator Cantwell and Senator
Craig talked about, in fact we touched upon them in Douglas
County. I mean we have hundreds of thousands of acres that need
to be thinned, over-stocked stands. That's something that
environmental folks and people in the timber industry and
communities can come together on. What we're going to have to
do is keep this coalition of people together who want to find
common ground.
I think my friend from Idaho and I can even remember how we
came up with the resource advisory committees. We were in that
period right after we had had the debate about sufficiency
language and locking people out of the courthouse and the like,
and we were looking for something else that might bring people
together. Somehow that managed to do it and I'm just not going
to let it go by the boards.
I thank you for all of your work. Rural communities could
have chosen a lot of people to come today and represent them,
but they really chose the very best. We're really proud that
you came, and it's a long trek, and we thank you for it.
Mr. Francis, your views with respect to what this has done
to bring people together: I know you have a debate about one
provision or another, but I would like your views with respect
to what this has done to get beyond this sort of litigation
derby that we had so often in the past.
Mr. Francis. It's phenomenal, in a sense, from where I sat
back in 2000. Mr. Rey did accurately quote me at one point,
although I don't remember that one, but I remember a lot of
other times.
Mr. Rey. That was a pretty good one though, Mike.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Francis. It got quoted, was the point. The issue here
is what has happened. It seems that based on the research--when
we came to look at the 2005, when the bill was introduced--so
we actually put some staff on it. We researched the projects
and at the start of that research I was kind of saying, ``Okay,
what's happened, I haven't had a chance to pay attention to
it,'' and I was stunned by the results that came in on the
projects and everything that was going on.
I went out and talked to a lot of my colleagues who
participate on the RACs and a lot of my colleagues who are in
the communities not on the RACs, and hardly anybody came back
to me and said, ``Oh, this has been a bad idea.'' They all said
it's been a lot of work. It has been important to our
development in the community. It's been important here. They
all felt that it was the part of the law--next to making sure
that school children in rural communities had money so they
could go to school--that was the most significant thing that
happened. So from our point of view, this is a success, and we
would hope to be able to see this thing continue.
Senator Wyden. My 5 minutes is up. I'm going to recognize
Senator Craig, and then I'll come back with another question or
two for you, Mr. Kusel.
Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Michael,
let me stay with you for a moment. The last time in discussing
the success of the RACs, we also discussed the pros and cons of
the pilot program. This time, I would like to ask you just one
question. Is there something fundamentally wrong with putting
the decision on sorting yards in the hands of RACs that you
yourself have testified are working so very well?
Mr. Francis. It is our feeling that these decisions in the
RAC could cause a new level of controversy injected into the
RACs, which are working so well right now. But the actual pilot
projects that we wanted to see happen during the first part of
the enactment of the 2000 law have never taken place. The
administration just pretty much ignored them and didn't provide
any real definition to the RACs. How do you define what is
merchantable material, and what are you looking at in a project
that would fit this kind of demonstration project?
So, I don't think there's enough evidence out there to say
whether that type of decision could be moved down to a lower
level and not cause some controversy and contention inside,
which I think is a very delicately-balanced process that's now
happening in the RACs. That has developed over the last several
years.
As you and I discussed the last time, we would support the
idea of restarting the projects, with a few projects, and
building back up to get some kind of track record to see how
the decision process is made, how it is impacted. Then we would
have a better idea for the future about whether a decision can
and should be moved to a different level.
Senator Craig. Okay, thank you for that. Dr. Kusel, first
and foremost, I appreciate the work you have put into this
issue. Your report highlighted many important aspects of the
Act that are working and are proof of the clear need for the
Act to be reauthorized. In short, I think you've confirmed what
we all know is true, and the studies show that.
In your testimony, you state reauthorization should be
viewed as a bridge to a program that combines driving revenue
from resource production with ecosystem services. I wrote that
down with a mark to ask you about it. Could you please further
elaborate on this point before the committee? What do you mean
in the context of how you understand it?
Mr. Kusel. Senator Craig, in our work on this it became
clear that there still was quite a bit of contention on how to
fund this. We also identified that in this interim period,
there is an opportunity to begin to examine the ecosystem
services. By that I mean, things other than standard timber
products. It's not doing it to the exclusion of those, it is in
fact looking at products, timber--forest products including
timber--but in addition to that looking at the full array of
values the forests offer. So again by ecosystem services, we
are talking about the water that's produced, talking about
recreation opportunities, talking about carbon sequestration,
and habitat. The challenge of course, is identifying: first,
how we value those; and second, how we establish mechanisms
that will actually generate dollars that can be returned to the
forest for continued improvement in the forests.
So by ecosystem services, what we're saying within this
bridge to the future is to begin to look at ways to derive
additional funding that goes back to the forest and continues
to support resource management, as well as the sorts of things
that secure rural schools supports.
Senator Craig. Thank you. My last question, Mr. Chairman,
of course is of Doug. We've always had a great working
relationship, this subcommittee, with you and all who you
represent, as we've struggled through these issues over the
last several years. You've obviously traveled a long way to
this hearing as many do, out of the most rural parts of our
States, and thank you for that kind of dedicated work.
What, if anything, has Douglas County and other counties in
Oregon and elsewhere for that matter, done to promote active
forest management and to generate receipts to support community
services and infrastructures?
Mr. Robertson. Well, several things, Senator Craig, as has
been mentioned before and elaborated by Julie Jacobson. There's
an effort going on, on the O&C lands, with the resource
management planning process. Our county, along with the
Association of O&C counties--of which I am the President--is a
cooperator in that process. We're moving along with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, or the Department of Fish and
Wildlife in the State of Oregon, to update those plans and take
into consideration the protection of the listed and threatened
species.
The progress that has been made up to this point has been
very positive in terms of a larger output of timber on those
lands while at the same time, being able to hold the
environmental indicators for threatened or endangered species
either neutral or actually improve them. We have modeled that
at Oregon State University and it's a type of new forestry that
is emerging that is very interesting. That's one thing we've
been involved in.
As you know, we were deeply involved in the Federal
legislation on the House side. Recovering areas that have been
the subject of catastrophic events--whether it's wind, whether
it's fire, whether it's insect infestation--is something that
we have worked very hard on. Walking away from those areas of
devastation, allowing that material to become the next source
of the next fire, we find is not acceptable and it's not
acceptable to the public. So we work very hard with Congressman
Walden and others to provide information that helped in that.
That bill has come to you for consideration as you know, and we
continue to work in other areas.
We are particularly proud of the fact that we were able to
identify title III and title II dollars to come together to
help implement the community wildfire protection plans that
were part of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act that you passed
with great success. There was a requirement, as you know, for
rural communities to identify community wildfire protection
plans, but no resources to do it. We have found a way through
combining title II and title III dollars to help communities
with that, with some success.
Senator Craig. How many of these projects that you talked
about were in part, an activity of the RAC?
Mr. Robertson. Many of them, many of them. The RAC, the
title II dollars helped to a large degree with the
implementation of many of the community wildfire protection
plans.
The combination of some title III dollars and title II
dollars and the RACs working together in that regard, as other
have pointed out, has been an enormous step forward. That, as I
mentioned in my testimony, would be one of the most noticeable
casualties in the loss of this legislation, because there's
nowhere else to go.
What made it work to a large extent, as I mentioned before,
was the fact that there were resources to work with. It enabled
the agencies to come forward with projects resulting in forest
health and a variety of other things that they otherwise would
not be able to do and would not have gotten done.
Senator Craig. Thank you all very much for being with us
this afternoon. Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling and
holding this hearing. I think it's been very valuable.
Senator Wyden. I just want to tell my friend, I'm going to
ask another question or two. I'll also check if you want to say
anything else.
Mr. Kusel, you did a number of case studies of forests in
Oregon. Were there some that you thought would be particularly
helpful? I know you talked to the staff; you mentioned a couple
that you thought really were illustrative of the potential of
the law. Were there a couple you wanted to give us a brief
explanation about?
Mr. Kusel. Would you like me to restrict those to the
Oregon examples?
Senator Wyden. Yes.
Senator Craig. Unless there's a good Idaho example.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kusel. There are some wonderful Idaho examples. The
Fremont-Winema has done some wonderful work. Actually I'm
reluctant to talk to about a single RAC simply because there
was exceptional work done by so many, and I feel that by
talking about one, I slight them. But let me add that the
Fremont-Winema did some exceptional projects and I love telling
the story of one of the projects that involved students coming
back, monitoring a watershed, doing extensive work that was
really quite helpful in understanding the dynamics. The RAC
contributed a fair bit of money to that project.
I can say that the Fremont-Winema, the Medford RACs were
really quite successful in how they operated and how they
worked with one another. The way the people spoke about the
projects that they had accomplished was really quite
exceptional. Again, it's hard with the vast numbers of projects
that were accomplished by the RACs in Oregon, but I pick this
one project just because it involved kids and they did
exceptional work. The RAC was thrilled with what they were
doing.
I feel compelled also to add an Idaho example here; in that
there were a couple that we looked at in Idaho and the
Panhandle RAC in the southwest Idaho RAC. The Panhandle
exhibited a wonderful example of counties coming together and
really working toward, or really working for, the entire area,
as opposed to dividing dollars and thinking about, ``What do I
get for my particular county?'' It's, ``What can we do for this
particular area, for the whole area?'' and we were quite
impressed with that particular perspective with the Panhandle
RAC.
Senator Wyden. You all have been very patient and it's been
an excellent panel. I think you have given us a sense of what
can be done if we can come together once more, and I'm
committed to that. I can tell from Senator Craig's comments
that he's committed to doing that. What is always so striking
to me as I move around my State and get out to the rural
communities and have these town halls, is how so much of this
is interrelated.
For example in Douglas County, Mr. Robertson, I went and
met with students who have a terrific program, an anti-
methamphetamine program, doing a terrific job, really model
programs. I could see in Douglas County how committed they were
to stepping up the fight against meth and then I went off and
met with the sheriff who was talking about how he was concerned
about whether or not he'd be able to have a plain vanilla law
enforcement program, be able to keep prisoners there.
That sheriff and all the other sheriffs throughout rural
Oregon, throughout the rural west, want to do more to win this
fight against meth. They want to step up the offensive against
meth and they're going to be in a situation where they're going
to have difficulty funding the essential services they have
today. I see that in the school districts as well, with school
districts telling me they're going to be at school 3 days a
week.
So I want it understood that this is my top priority as it
relates to this session of Congress, and we are going to get
this law reauthorized and insure that our rural communities can
survive.
When we do that we're going to go on to touch on many of
the issues that you all have been talking about, starting with
the chance to increase a clean energy source through biomass.
We'll also touch on rural communities, bringing people together
around a thinning program, overstock stance, something people
talked about in Douglas County, and we'll look at a variety of
other areas where there can be bipartisan cooperation.
So, Senator Craig and I helped to bring about two major
initiatives in forestry, and hopefully we're going to be able
to bring about several more. It will be easier with the
excellent cooperation you all have shown today.
I want to give Senator Craig the opportunity for the last
word, if he'd like it, then we'll wrap up.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. The subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of the Sierra Institute for Community and Environment to
Questions from Senator Domenici
Question 1. Mr. Kusel, understanding your support for the re-
authorization of this law, how should a Senator from New Mexico feel
when he sees the counties in Oregon, Washington and California get so
much more funding per student or per mile of road, when our State gets
so little?
Answer. You are correct in your understanding that I support re-
authorization of P.L. 106-393; however, as stated in my written
testimony I am not in support of a simple re-authorization. There are a
number of important modifications that ought to be made to improve
Title II and Title III. I will not recite specific changes here because
they can be accessed in my written testimony and in our research report
to the Departments of Agriculture and Interior for the study they
funded (Assessment of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act, Sierra Institute for Community and Environment,
2006).
I believe two key issues lie at the heart of this question: federal
obligation to rural counties and the funding mechanism of P.L. 106-393.
I also believe that the funding mechanism for P.L. 106-393, while
initially reasonable, needs to be changed.
Federal land in rural counties creates a unique federal obligation.
These lands cannot be taxed and often generate a variety or uses that,
in turn, generate costs for a county. The 1908 legislation (16 USC 500)
affecting national forest land and the 1937 Oregon and California Act
for Bureau of Land Management land area affirmed this commitment
through the sharing of revenue with counties.
Asking if it's fair that students in three states receive more than
those in New Mexico is, of course, on its face, reasonable, but at its
core questions whether the principles underlying P.L. 106-393 should be
modified. That is, should the basic relationship between the federal
government and rural counties (and communities) and a long-established
revenue sharing formula be changed from one based strictly on natural
resource product receipts to one in which distribution among counties
is linked to social criteria? I do not believe that shifting receipt
payments based on natural resource product revenue to a distribution
scheme based on a per student or per mile of road is consistent with
the basic principles that informed the drafters of the 1908 or 1937
legislation.
I am not in any way suggesting that students from New Mexico should
not receive needed funding. But I do not believe it sound to change
long-established relationships between natural resource production and
revenue sharing on O&C and national forest lands to a socially-based
program, which would be the result if funding is based on per student
or per mile of road.
That said, I believe that the high three-year average (1986-1999)
as a basis for revenue sharing with national forest and O&C counties in
perpetuity needs to be changed. It was justifiable to launch a program
using this formula given the hardships rural timber-dependent
communities were facing. And rather than simply stopping the program in
2006, it makes eminent good sense to slowly ramp down the program. Some
have suggested that six years is plenty long for economic re-
adjustment. We learned from our assessment of the $1.2 billion
Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative that communities take far
longer to develop a new economic base as they transition from
longstanding timber-based economies (see our report, Assessment of the
Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative, December 2002: http://
www.sierrainstitute.usineai/NEAIindex.html).
I believe there is a better solution for all, one that preserves
the long-established principle of revenue tied to resource management,
and offers opportunity for New Mexico and its students, as well as
numerous counties and states across the country to derive more benefit
from federal land and participate in other benefits, like Resource
Advisory Committees (RACs), of P.L. 106-393.
As I suggested in my testimony, re-authorization should be viewed
as a ``bridge'' to the future and to a program that combines deriving
revenue from resource production and ecosystem services. Revenue from
not just products but from both ecosystem products and services can and
should be part of this bridge to a program that generates more revenue
and leads to more sustainable future funding of the powerfully
successful P.L. 106-393 legislation.
An ecosystem products and services approach would increase the
revenue forest counties in New Mexico receive as a result of revenue
generated from water flowing off national forests in New Mexico, along
with revenue from wood products. Ecosystem services could eventually be
expanded to include carbon credits and payment for habitat, among other
``services,'' as these are quantified and equitable mechanisms
developed to collect revenue.
I don't believe that funding school children in New Mexico needs to
be seen as a zero-sum game. The Secure Rural School and Community Self-
Determination Act legislation has proven to be so successful that it
should be continued and expanded. The challenge, of course, lies in
securing the funds needed for a five to seven year re-authorization
that will support the program where it has existed, as well as launch
the building of a program that has both the incentives and a mechanism
(as I described in my written testimony) that advances an ecosystem
services approach.
The bridge to the future that I am advocating ramps down the
required dedicated federal funding and ramps up funding from products
and services to support projects like the many outstanding projects
already developed through the legislation. It will also expand the
reach of the legislation by providing funding or increased funding
where the legislation has had little impact because the three-year
average timber harvest was low. Funding from ecosystem services would
be provided by beneficiaries of those services, such as downstream
municipalities using water flowing off national forest lands. In
addition to preserving the original intent of national forest and O&C
receipt sharing, it will also lead to long-term stable funding to more
rural areas, not less, thereby benefiting far more people. Hence, in
addition to including rural communities in the East, the South, and
elsewhere, this approach will result in more benefits being secured for
and going to the students of New Mexico.
Question 2. I am told that your report documented a fair amount of
spending of Title III funding for projects that didn't conform to the
six areas for which those funds could be spent for.
What would you recommend we do about this problem?
Question 4. What would you recommend to avoid the misappropriations
of those Title III funds in the future?
Answer to Questions 2 and 4. It is important to first note that in
our study we were not asked to nor did we make a determination about
strict conformance of Title III projects with the law. We did, however,
in our research report point out instances in which Title III
expenditures were questionable with respect to conformance with the six
approved areas. I would not characterize the total number or amount of
questionable expenditures that we found constituting a ``fair amount''
of all Title III spending. Labeling this total a ``fair amount''
suggests a level of misuse beyond what we did in fact find. I believe
the nonconformances that could be identified as clear violations
represent perhaps roughly five percent of the total expenditures we
evaluated.
I believe the ``fix'' to the problem is relatively straightforward.
I offer the following seven suggestions to this end.
A) Make the meaning of ``project'' in Title III the same as
it is in Title II.
B) Require all counties to disburse Title III funds through
open and competitive processes involving project solicitation
and approval.
C) Prohibit administrative allocations (half of all Title III
funds were distributed this way, contributing to, if not actual
noncompliance, the appearance of noncompliance).
D) Provide an authoritative source of information for Title
III. Too often agency personnel were asked to provide
information, which was inappropriate. (Throughout the research
project the Sierra Institute for Community and Environment was
regularly asked by counties about what was appropriate for
Title III expenditures.)
E) Require at minimum yearly reporting of project
expenditures, the Title III category(ies) under which the
expenditures are made, and project accomplishments. (The Sierra
Institute found that our collection of data compelled internal
review on the part of a number of counties and, in a few cases,
modification of spending.) SB 380 begins to address this issue
by calling for Secretary review.
F) Spot monitor projects through project visits and through
phone interviews with project leaders and/or funding
recipients. More monitoring might be conducted in counties
where there have been previous questions or perceived problems.
G) Consider using a third-party organization (like the Sierra
Institute) to assist with management of D, E, and F. This will
help avoid conflict of interest issues associated with agency
monitoring of county projects. This, in turn, will help avoid
retribution by counties affecting Title II allocations. As P.L.
106-393 is currently written, counties allocate Title II funds;
if they are displeased with agency action regarding Title III
they may restrict Title II allocations.
Question 3. Since the old formula is based on the sale of timber,
something that no longer has the political and social support that it
once had on the West Coast, why should Congress continue to base the
formula on that old paradigm? And why on the highest three years of
receipts the high-end states received?
Answer. As I stated in my answer to question number one, I do not
believe it makes sense to base funding of the legislation on an
inflation adjusted high three-year timber harvest average in
perpetuity. However, I do believe that the historic relationship
established between the federal government and rural communities in the
1908 and 1937 receipt sharing formulas should be maintained. Adding an
ecosystems services component to the legislation offers the opportunity
to replace the old paradigm and the opportunity to place the
legislation on more secure financial footing, as funding is obtained
from a more complete array of benefits (or services) that forests
provide. Because of its focus on timber receipts, the 1937 O&C
legislation will require expansion to bring it in line with the more
expansive national forest legislation. (The seeds of this expansion,
however, already exist in the 1937 O&C Act language that states the
lands `` . . . shall be managed . . . for the purpose of providing a
permanent source of timber supply, protecting watersheds, regulating
stream flow, and contributing to the economic stability of local
communities and industries, and providing recreational facilities.'')
The short-term challenge lies in building the bridge to the future,
both funding the legislation in the short-term and developing the
financial and institutional mechanisms that will supplement forest
product receipt payments. I support P.L. 106-393 re-authorization for
five to seven years to allow for the development of mechanisms that
will augment payments for forest products and support P.L. 106-393
legislation in the future. I also support some decline in payments to
make clear that this legislation will sunset in its current form, as
well as to provide incentives to both identify and implement
appropriate ecosystem service funding mechanisms. As I suggested in my
written testimony, RACs receiving $200,000 or more should be required
to dedicate three to five percent of their total funding to projects
evaluating ecosystem services.\1\ Using the RAC as learning
laboratories will help generate ideas about how to implement an
ecosystem products and services approach and will help build a
constituency to advance what truly is a paradigm for the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rather than focus only on RACs, this could be applied to
counties that are part of a RAC collectively receiving $250,000 or more
in order to prevent them from limiting their RAC contribution to less
than $200,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The federal budget constraints make clear that other revenue
sources need to be developed to support forest and watershed management
and respond to the federal commitment to rural communities and
landscapes. While my suggestion does not identify a source of funding
for the needed near-term re-authorization, it does construct a bridge
to the future that extricates the federal government from funding this
program in perpetuity, while preserving the historic relationship
between the federal government and rural communities, and truly
developing a new paradigm for the future.
______
Responses of the Wilderness Society to Questions from
Senator Domenici
Question 1. I note that S. 380 includes a provision to allow the
Resource Advisory Committees to decide whether or not to require that a
certain percentage of projects involving the sale of merchantable
material will utilize separate contracts for (1) the harvesting or
collection of the material and (2) for the sale of such material.
Mr. Francis, if the section on sort yards that is currently in S.
380 is maintained, does your organization support or oppose the overall
bill?
Answer. Since The Wilderness Society believes that the Merchantable
Materials Contracting Pilot Program is helping to deter federal land
managers from using Title II funds to conduct potentially controversial
and inappropriate logging projects and giving Resource Advisory
Committees the added responsibility of requesting a pilot program would
inject new and needless controversy into the Title II projects, we
would have to reevaluate our support for S. 380. It would be very
difficult for The Society to support S. 380 without the Merchantable
Materials Contracting Pilot Program.
Question 2a. Mr. Francis, recently American Lands, the Cascadia
Wildlands Project and several other groups released a proposal that
asks Congress to establish, initially endow, and periodically fund an
``Western Oregon Old-Growth Protection and Rural Investment Fund'' to
permanently end the linkage between the management of BLM federal
public forests in Western Oregon and the provision of essential local
government services.
Are you aware of this proposal and what does the Wilderness Society
think about the proposal?
Answer. The Wilderness Society has concerns about the proposal.
While we do support the transfer of the O&C Lands from the Bureau of
Land Management to the U.S. Forest Service, we are opposed to the
proposal on two other issues. (1) The Society supports a permanent
authorization for the Secure Rural Schools and County Self
Determination Act and the proposal would phase out funding for rural
schools over the several year life of the trust fund. (2) The
Wilderness Society opposes the use of very limited Land and Water
Conservation Fund dollars to support this proposal.
Question 2b. Do you read this proposal to mean that only the
counties in Western Oregon would be benefited by this proposal?
Answer. Based on my limited knowledge of the proposal only the
Western Oregon counties would benefit.
______
Responses of the Department of the Interior to Questions From
Senator Domenici
Question 1. I note that the Bureau of Land Management's budget does
not include a proposal to sell BLM lands to help pay for the cost of
the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act.
The BLM hasn't included a request similar to the Forest Service's
request to sell lands to pay for these payments in either of its last
two budgets. Why is that?
Answer. During the formation of the FY 2008 Budget, the
Administration looked for a mandatory offset for the Secure Rural
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. The Administration
determined that the land sale proposal referenced in the U.S. Forest
Service Budget to be most appropriate.
Question 2. Do you think it fair for the Forest Service to shoulder
the entire burden of generating the funds to make these payments?
Answer. During the formation of FY 2008 Budget, the Administration
looked for a mandatory offset for the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self-Determination Act. The Administration determined that
the land sale proposal referenced in the U.S. Forest Service Budget to
be most appropriate.
Question 3. Ms. Jacobson, recently American Lands, the Cascadia
Wildlands Project, and several other groups released a proposal that
asks Congress to establish, initially endow, and periodically fund a
``Western Oregon Old-Growth Protection and Rural Investment Fund'' to
permanently end the linkage between the management of BLM federal
public forests in Western Oregon and the provision of essential local
government services.
Are you aware of this proposal and what does the Bureau of Land
Management think about the proposal?
Answer. As stated in the Budget, the Administration could support
an extension of SRS provided that it is fully offset, targeted to the
most affected areas, capped, adjusted downward each year and eventually
phased out.
We recently became aware of the ``Western Oregon Old-Growth
Protection and Rural Investment Fund'' proposal, but have not fully
analyzed it. Our preliminary understanding is that the proposal would:
establish an endowment that would at least partially provide
funds to the 18 O&C Land Grant Counties;
transfer the O&C and Coos Bay Wagon Road lands from the BLM
to the Forest Service; and
sever the link between sustainable management of the O&C
forest lands and county services.
We also understand that these checkerboard lands would be managed
as an old growth preserve,
Transferring the lands to the Forest Service would not eliminate
the need to fund the management of the lands, Congress and the
Administration would need to find the funds to establish the endowment.
Question 4. Is it something that you think Congress should spend
time on?
Answer. It is up to the Congress to set its priorities and
schedules.
Question 5. Do you read this proposal to mean that only the
counties in Western Oregon would be benefited by this proposal?
Answer. As we understand the proposal from an initial reading, it
would apply only to the 18 western Oregon Counties included in the
original O&C Land Grant.
______
Response of Mark Rey to Question From Senator Maria Cantwell
Question. Mr. Rey, in your remarks you suggested that we reevaluate
the revenue distribution formula from timber proceeds as set in the
Secure Rural Schools Act of 2000. You stated that the formula for
payments to counties, including to large economically vibrant counties
like King County in my state, as set in the 2000 legislation was a
reflection of historical timber receipts they received in 1908 or in an
earlier time. Yet, the formula--as set in the 2000 legislation for
payments to counties like King--is actually based on the average of the
highest three-years of timber receipts from 1985-1999. Even so, you
suggested that we take money from those counties that are more
economically vibrant and reallocate to counties that are in greater
need. How would you propose evaluating the relative need of particular
counties that are eligible to receive payments under this program? How
much economic development is enough to disqualify counties that are
currently eligible to receive payments under the 2000 legislation?
Answer. The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination
Act of 2000 (SRS Act) legislation was intended to be a transitional
solution to allow states and counties to readjust their priorities and
programs so that they are less dependent on timber receipts. Some
counties and States in the intervening years have accomplished this and
others have not. The Administration's FY 2008 Budget supports the
President's continuing commitment to States and counties impacted by
the ongoing loss of receipts associated with lower timber harvests on
Federal lands. In its budget and in congressional communications, the
Administration has indicated it could support an extension of the SRS
Act provided it is fully offset, targeted to the most affected areas,
capped, adjusted downward each year, and eventually phased out. The
Administration has not adopted a position on SRS payments based on a
county's total of acreages or income. However, these types of payments
would represent a shift in the program's purpose away from receipts
transition and towards an entitlement funding approach. We have not
advocated ``disqualifying'' counties that have received payments in the
past.
Responses of Mark Rey to Questions From Senator Domenici
Question 1. You want to sell almost 7,373 acres of National Forest
lands in New Mexico. Under the distribution formula in P.L. 106-393,
the counties in New Mexico received about $9 per impacted student and
the students in Oregon received more than $430 per impacted student.
Can you assure me that none of the funds generated from the sale of
lands in New Mexico will be used to pay for county payments in counties
outside New Mexico?
Answer. Our proposal does not address how payments would be
distributed to States and counties. The fifty-percent portion of
National Forest System land sale receipts available for funding
payments to States and counties will be available for whatever funding
distribution is authorized in subsequent legislation.
Our legislative proposal provides that half the receipts from the
sale of National Forest System lands will be used to make payments to
States and counties. The other half would remain within the State from
which the land sale receipts were derived for National Forest purposes,
including the acquisition of land, conservation education, improved
access to public lands, wildlife and fish habitat improvement, and
restoration.
Question 2. The data shows that over the last four years, the gross
receipts on the National Forests in New Mexico have been slowly
decreasing. I also see from the 1996 Timber Sale Information Program
Reporting System (TSPIRS) that the Forest Service timber sale program
in New Mexico generated over $9.6 million of direct and indirect
employment income and nearly a $650,000 in 25% Payments to the counties
in my state and over $1.5 million in federal income tax revenues.
Looking at the difference between the $2 million federal payment
made to New Mexico counties under P.L. 106-393 and the $9.6 million in
employment income, plus nearly a million dollars of 25% payments made
to the State as recently as 1999, can you help me understand why we
aren't focused on getting the revenues back up to levels in the 1990's
in my State along with the economic activity it generated?
Answer. The national trend for all national forest timber sale
receipts has been on the increase since 2002. We expect the upward
trend in receipts to continue as we implement additional thinning
projects to improve the health of forested stands, increase the amount
of hazardous fuel treatments, and improve our efficiency in conducting
vegetative treatments across the country. We do not expect a return to
the level of timber harvesting and associated receipts that were
prevalent during the decades of the 80's and 90's.
The national forest timber sale program in New Mexico changed
emphasis in the 1990's from harvesting mostly mature, over-story trees,
to one of thinning from below to reduce wildland fire risk and restore
fire-adapted ecosystem function.
Currently, National Forests in New Mexico are implementing the
National Fire Plan, and are utilizing the Healthy Forests Restoration
Act, and stewardship contracting to restore fire dependent ecosystems.
However, there is little industry left to pay for the forest products
that are available and often appropriated funds must be used to treat
and remove small diameter logs. The Southwest Region of the Forest
Service is encouraging new and appropriately scaled industry that could
utilize and pay for the many small and some larger trees that will
become available through restoration efforts.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees
This statement is submitted on behalf of the American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). The Union strongly
supports S. 380 which would reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-393). P.L. 106-393
expired last year, and the law's expiration has already had adverse
consequences for rural and forest communities all across the nation.
Over 775 counties in 42 states will be impacted if this law is not
renewed. AFSCME represents public employees in many of these states
whose livelihood is being jeopardized as a result of Congress'
inability to reauthorize and fund P.L. 106-393.
More than half of the land in the State of Oregon is owned by the
federal government making it exempt from property taxation. The loss of
revenue resulting from the inability to impose taxes or to develop the
land led to the Congress enacting P.L. 106-393 in 2000. The expiration
of this statute will have a devastating effect on Oregon because
funding for essential government services will be drastically reduced.
Some counties in the State will lose more than half of their
discretionary general operating and road funds. Important government
services, including health care, law enforcement, disaster relief,
homeland security and tax collection, are threatened.
AFSCME members in Oregon are already facing tremendous hardship.
Local government employees have already been given lay-off notices
because the various counties who depend on this funding can no longer
afford to pay their salaries.
Important public services in other states are also being
threatened. In some forest communities across the country, schools are
scheduled to close and young students may be forced to take school
buses as far as 90 miles each way. Communities are also reporting that
they will be forced to eliminate teaching and administrative jobs in
the schools and that they will be unable to purchase classroom supplies
including computers. Other communities are concerned about road safety
because they will be forced to reduce their road maintenance personnel
resulting in service cutbacks threatening snow and vegetation removal,
ditch cleaning and repair and other road safety functions.
The federal government must continue to compensate forest and rural
communities for the revenues local governments lose as a result of the
federal government's control of these lands. P.L. 106-393 appropriately
provides payments to forest and rural counties in order to achieve this
goal. The federal government should not abandon rural America by
failing to renew this important law.
______
State of Oregon
Salem, OR, March 6, 2007.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, Dirksen 364, Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard Burr,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, Dirksen 364, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Wyden and Senator Burr: As you know, Congressional
failure to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act (PL 106-393, county payments) is threatening 33 of
Oregon's 36 counties with devastating budget choices right now. I am
writing today to support the passage of S. 380, a bill to reauthorize
this Act.
In the past two years, I and my fellow governors have passed
resolutions supporting reauthorization for the Western Governor's
Association and National Governor's Associations. In addition, given
the importance of this issue to my state, I have had many conversations
with our congressional delegation and have written letters urging
reauthorization to congressional leadership. In addition, I have called
other congressional leaders, including the Chairman of this Committee,
informing them of the dire consequences for Oregon if they fail to
reauthorize the Act.
Mr. Chairman, I am willing to work for reauthorization of this law,
at any time and any place, with anyone willing to work with me, Oregon,
our counties and our delegation.
If this law is not reauthorized, and quickly, no state in the Union
will suffer the impacts of the magnitude and severity that affect the
State of Oregon--because no state has a greater a share of its local
resources committed to federal forest lands. The current funding
formula that provides the much needed funding to Oregon is based on the
historic value and volume of timber that Oregon produced for the
nation. Quite simply, no other state has been blessed with the volume
or value of timber of Oregon. On the flip side, no other state has had
to suffer as much as Oregon with the environmental necessity and
societal acceptance of less timber management.
In addition to transportation and school funding that all the
states covered by this law, get from the Forest Service forest lands,
some Oregon counties, historically known as Oregon and California Lands
Counties (O&C Counties), get general funding from the only timber lands
owned by the Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior
(BLM). Out of the BLM funds those counties pay for public safety,
health and community services, as well as assessment and taxation and
other public functions.
A good example is Lane County, an O&C county and one of Oregon's
major recipients of county payments funding, which is the size of
Connecticut. Connecticut has 1,199 state troopers supported by a state
budget that is, in turn, supported, in large part, by property taxes.
Lane County, on the other hand, has 16 county police that are supported
largely, from BLM county payments. It has to be because over 55 percent
of the county is owned by the federal government and therefore not
taxable.
With limited places to turn for revenue, Lane County does the best
it can with what it has, but the result of having 16 police for an area
the size of Connecticut is that they often ignore property crimes as
they respond to more serious events. Recently, though, and this is not
the sort of advertisement a governor likes to make about his state, an
individual stole 28 cars from Cottage Grove, a community just south of
Eugene (home to the University of Oregon). This individual was
eventually apprehended--but, imagine what a person like this will be
able to get away with in Lane County if the county payments money
disappears or is decreased significantly and the 16 county police drops
to one or two?
I relate this story because it is important for the Committee and
for Congress to understand that Oregonians are not eating off of gold
plates because of county payments. In fact, some Oregonians won't eat
at all without county payments: Lane County will have to stop
supplementing Women Infant and Children (WIC) funds and the 8,000
people that were assisted last year will drop to 4,000 next year.
Mr. Chairman, we are barely hanging on now--please don't push us
off the economic cliff.
I stand ready to assist in reauthorization in any way I can.
Sincerely,
Theodore R. Kulogoski,
Governor.
______
Forest Counties Payments Committee,
Washington, DC, February 23, 2007.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen
Senate Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: The Forest Counties Payments Committee
(FCPC) has provided Congress with information related to implementation
of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-determination Act (P.L.
106-393), and recommendations for making long-term payments to states
and counties. The Committee is also aware there are efforts by others
to identify payment alternatives. The Payments Committee was recently
requested to consider alternatives to existing formulas for making
payments to states. Therefore, the members of the Forest Counties
Payments Committee believe it is important to provide some context to
these efforts.
Members of the Payments Committee understand there is a strong
desire by some to re-distribute the payments so some states and
counties will see an increase in their annual payments. This will
require that some States experience a reduction in annual payments. The
five States receiving the largest payments in order are:
1. Oregon
2. California
3. Washington
4. Idaho
5. Montana
States in the Pacific Northwest, and especially Oregon, receive the
largest payments for one primary reason. The method of making payments
to states and counties has historically been based on land productivity
and managed under a utilitarian concept. Because states in the Pacific
Northwest have some of the most productive forested lands, and public
ownership of those lands is so extensive, payments have historically
favored those states. This model holds true in the East as well. The
State of Pennsylvania has highly productive forests and valuable tree
species. As a result, it receives the highest payments per acre of
national forests of any state. However, because federal land ownership
in Pennsylvania is much less than in Western states, total payments are
less.
Purpose for 2008 25% Payments Act
Congress created the 1908 25% Payments Act to accomplish one
primary purpose--to compensate counties for the impacts created by
setting aside public lands. They were not considered payments in lieu
of taxes. If they had been, there would be justification for increasing
the current level of payments to counties based on a recent tax value
study conducted by the Payments Committee (2003 Report to Congress).
The purpose for creation of the 25% Payments Act can be found in
congressional records and opinions rendered through judicial review.
1937 O&C Act
The O&C Grant Lands are managed by the Bureau of Land Management in
Western Oregon, and receive payments from the sale of timber. However,
the O&C lands were once private lands that reverted into Government
ownership. The 18 counties within the original O&C Land Grant, managed
under the Act of August 28, 1937 (O&C Act), were to receive 75% of the
receipts from the sale of timber. However, the counties never received
more than 50% for various reasons including the counties ``investing''
25% of the receipts in the future productivity of the land. Unlike
receipts from Forest Service sales, O&C receipts serve a different
purpose and are deposited to the counties for use in their general
fund. Therefore, any formula change may want to consider the different
effect it may have on these counties.
Guidelines for Establishing a New Payment Formula
The Forest Counties Payments Committee recommends the following
guidelines for developing a new formula that would change current
payment amounts to states and counties. These guidelines are based on
the belief that the original purpose of the Payments Act should not be
changed, that the federal government has a long-term commitment to
public lands counties, and that education programs remain the highest
and best use of these funds.
Payment Amounts should be based on certain needs related to
impacts created from the presence of federal lands, not socio-
economic indicators.
There are at least 10 categories of fiscal impacts counties
experience from the presence of federal lands (FCPC 2003 Report
to Congress). At least five of these categories create
significant fiscal impacts to a large number of counties. They
are listed below.
1. Search and Rescue
2. Law Enforcement
3. Road Maintenance
4. Fire Protection/Control
5. Road Construction
It is reasonable to assume counties that have more acres of
public land within their boundary experience greater impacts
from the activities listed above. Therefore, acres of public
land in a county provide a legitimate indicator of fiscal need.
Two of the top five impact categories are related to roads.
Miles of road would seem like a good indicator of need, but
there are many variables that can influence this. A number of
states do not have county roads. In those cases all roads are
managed by the State Highway Department. Also, payments based
on road miles could create an incentive to add more roads to
the system in order to receive additional funds.
A payment formula based on needs defined by any number of
social indicators such as per-capita income, Free and Reduced
Lunch Program participants, or amounts of certain government
transfer payments can be misleading, and manipulated. These
social indicators may have no relationship to the purposes for
which the Payments Act was created, and a payment program based
on these criteria would appear more like some block grant
programs. Also, there are approximately 20 federal revenue
sharing programs that benefit some states more than others. Any
``needs test,'' or new formula, should include total payments
made to a state from all revenue sharing programs related to
natural resources, i.e. oil & gas, coal, etc..
A new payment formula could utilize an equalization approach
commonly used within the education system to provide a minimum
amount to each state, while reducing the larger funded states
by no more than a certain amount agreed to by policy makers.
This type of funding adjustment is common among some states
where smaller school districts are provided adequate financial
resource to operate their education programs when they don't
quite fit into a standard allocation formula. The Payments
Committee determined that at least 8 states who receive
payments from the Secure Rural Schools Program allocate those
funds under an equalization formula.
Total Payment Amounts could be reduced over time.
The Payments Committee believes there is sufficient
justification for maintaining current payment amounts (FCPC
2006 Report to Congress). However, if policy makers desire to
reduce the total amount paid to states and counties they could
adopt an approach recommended by the Payments Committee in its
2006 Report. In brief, total payments are reduced by 3% per
year for 10 years, after which a new base is established. This
strategy assumes a 3% increase in receipts and charging fair
market value for commercial uses of federal lands. Also, if it
is the intention of Congress to return to receipts only
payments, then recent decisions to exempt some programs from
making receipt contributions should be revisited.
As pointed out in past reports, changes to certain Bureau of
Land Management and Forest Service Programs have allowed
receipts to be retained instead of being deposited in accounts
used to make payments to states and counties. These decisions
should be revisited if it is the intent of Congress to
eventually phase out any guaranteed payment program.
Consider environmental services, or environmental
contributions to society from lands removed from timber
production.
While difficult to identify a specific monetary value, policy
makers need to recognize the benefits to society from the
reallocation of lands historically used for timber production
to other purposes, primarily protection of habitat for certain
federally listed wildlife and fish species. The original
purpose of the 1908 Payments Act was to compensate counties for
impacts created by the presence of public lands, and to do this
through revenue sharing. Congress did not foresee a time when
society would place a higher value on natural resources that do
not have an easily identifiable market value. Nonetheless, the
federal government should make every effort to identify what
these values are and compensate public lands counties
accordingly.
States that receive a significant increase in funds as a
result of a change in the payment formula should be required to
establish resource advisory committees as described under Title
II of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-determination
Act of 2000.
Many counties took the initiative to establish resource
advisory committees. This was influenced to a great degree by
the amount of funding they received. However, this was not true
in all cases. Results have been highly successful and
documented by several studies. The Forest Counties Payments
Committee previously recommended the creation of financial
incentives to increase the number of resource advisory
committees. Counties that benefit from an increase in payments
as a result of a change in the current payment formula should
be willing to maintain the natural resource focus of the Secure
Rural Schools Act by establishing resource advisory committees.
The Forest Counties Payments Committee is available to discuss
these recommendations, and provide additional analysis as determined by
your Committee. Please do not hesitate to contact the Committee's
Executive Director, should you need further assistance on these
matters.
Sincerely,
Mark Evans
Chair.