[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[DRAFT BILL] H.R._, ``NATIONAL FOREST COUNTY REVENUE, SCHOOLS, AND
JOBS ACT OF 2011''; AND H.R. 2852, ``ACTION PLAN FOR PUBLIC LANDS AND
EDUCATION ACT OF 2011''
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS
AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, September 22, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-63
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
68-509 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jeff Denham, CA CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Martin Heinrich, NM
David Rivera, FL Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC John P. Sarbanes, MD
Scott R. Tipton, CO Betty Sutton, OH
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Niki Tsongas, MA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Kristi L. Noem, SD John Garamendi, CA
Steve Southerland II, FL Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
Charles J. ``Chuck'' Fleischmann,
TN
Jon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director
David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Martin Heinrich, NM
Mike Coffman, CO John P. Sarbanes, MD
Tom McClintock, CA Betty Sutton, OH
David Rivera, FL Niki Tsongas, MA
Scott R. Tipton, CO John Garamendi, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Kristi L. Noem, SD
Bill Johnson, OH
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, September 22, 2011..................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
DeFazio, Hon. Peter A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, Statement submitted for the record........ 45
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Tipton, Hon. Scott R., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado, Statement submitted for the record...... 49
Young, Hon. Don, the Representative in Congress for the State
of Alaska, Statement submitted for the record.............. 50
Statement of Witnesses:
Alberswerth, David, Senior Policy Advisor, The Wilderness
Society.................................................... 28
Prepared statement on H.R. 2852.......................... 29
Sherman, Harris, Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural
Resources and Environment, U.S. Forest Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture.................................. 7
Prepared statement on Draft Bill......................... 8
Prepared statement on H.R. 2852.......................... 10
Stahl, Andy, Executive Director, Forest Service Employees for
Environmental Ethics....................................... 19
Prepared statement on Draft Bill......................... 20
Swanson, Steve, President & CEO, Swanson Group, Inc.,
Glendale, Oregon........................................... 11
Prepared statement on Draft Bill......................... 13
Urquhart, Hon. Stephen H., State Senator, Utah State Senate.. 25
Prepared statement on H.R. 2852.......................... 26
Walter, Ron, Commissioner, Chelan County, Washington......... 16
Prepared statement on Draft Bill......................... 17
Additional materials supplied:
McMorris Rodgers, Hon. Cathy, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington, Statement submitted for the
record on Draft Bill....................................... 49
U.S. Department of the Interior, Statement submitted for the
record on H.R. 2852........................................ 46
HLEARING ON [DRAFT BILL] H.R._, TO INCREASE EMPLOYMENT AND
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES IN, AND IMPROVE THE ECONOMIC
STABILITY OF, COUNTIES CONTAINING FEDERAL FOREST LANDS, WHILE
ALSO REDUCING THE COST OF MANAGING SUCH LANDS, BY PROVIDING
SUCH COUNTIES A DEPENDABLE SOURCE OF REVENUE FROM SUCH LANDS.
``NATIONAL FOREST COUNTY REVENUE, SCHOOLS, AND JOBS ACT OF
2011''; AND H.R. 2852, TO AUTHORIZE WESTERN STATES TO MAKE
SELECTIONS OF PUBLIC LAND WITHIN THEIR BORDERS IN LIEU OF
RECEIVING 5 PERCENT OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF PUBLIC LAND
LYING WITHIN SAID STATES PROVIDED BY THEIR RESPECTIVE ENABLING
ACTS. ``ACTION PLAN FOR PUBLIC LANDS AND EDUCATION ACT OF
2011''
----------
Thursday, September 22, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, McClintock, Tipton,
Labrador, Johnson, Hastings [ex officio], Grijalva, and
DeFazio.
Also Present: McMorris Rodgers, Walden, and Gosar.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. The Subcommittee will come to order. You heard
the gavel bang. The Chairman notes the presence of a quorum.
The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands is
meeting today to hear testimony on two pieces of legislation, a
discussion draft of the National Forest County Revenue,
Schools, and Jobs Act of 2011, and H.R. 2852, a brilliant piece
of legislation called the Action Plan for Public Lands and
Education Act of 2011, as well. Under Committee Rules, the
opening statements are limited to the Chairman, the Ranking
Member of the Subcommittee; however, I ask unanimous consent to
include any other Member's opening statement in the hearing
record if they are submitted to the clerk by the close of
business today.
Hearing no objections, that will be so ordered. I also ask
unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Washington, Ms.
McMorris Rodgers, as well as our colleague from Oregon, Mr.
Walden, be allowed to participate on the dais. Without
objection, so ordered. To both of you, we are happy to have you
here. If you do not want to actually sit that far down there,
you can come closer. You will have to sit by Doc, but you can
come closer. All right. This morning I am actually going to
postpone my opening statement to appear in the middle of the
panel over there when we actually talk about the APPLE bill,
but just as a preface, we are talking about two bills that show
the interrelationship between lands and schools. It will still
be somewhat of a paradigm shift in that education.
As we look at the Federal Government, which has more and
more become an absentee landlord of the third of the government
that it owns and spending most of its budget on wildfire
suppression with a maintenance backlog that would make your
head spin. Left out of this equation are schools and everything
else. What we tried to do in the first bill, the National
Forest County Revenue, Schools, and Jobs Act, which deals with
SRS, Secure Rural Schools, as we know, is to give the Forest
Service some direction and ability to actually manage a portion
of land for the benefit of those real communities. I will note
here for the Committee and also for those witnesses, there are
a number of issues that need to be resolved with this proposal
to ensure that it is going to be feasible and sustainable, so
we are doing this very methodically. This is the way we have
this legislative process here. I look forward to hearing the
testimony that will address those issues that still need to be
resolved in this particular piece of legislation. With that, I
would like to recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Grijalva, for
his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
This morning we will look at two pieces of legislation that
represent a much-needed and important paradigm shift in federal lands
policy. Public lands policy through much of our history and right up
into the second half of the 20th century focused on developing our
resources and utilizing public lands for the benefit of a growing and
prosperous nation.
Through that time, our national forests were managed for a variety
of purposes, including secure water flows, a continuous supply of
timber, recreation opportunities and the perpetual protection of forest
resources. Furthermore, the federal government also recognized an
obligation to counties when it agreed to share revenues from the
federal lands in their backyard as well as proceeds from the sale of
the public domain.
Since then, we have tragically seen the federal government become
an absentee landlord on the third of our country it currently owns.
Instead of managing healthy and productive lands, the federal land
management agencies now see nearly half of their budget going to
wildfire suppression and the federal estate has a maintenance backlog
in the billions. This lack of management has left our counties and
schools holding the bag for the consequences of this inaction.
The first piece of legislation we will consider today is a draft
proposal put forth to address the expiration of the Secure Rural
Schools program. This proposal is by no means intended to return our
national forests to the days of being a `timber factory' as some may
like to spin it. The draft ``National Forest County Revenue, Schools
and Jobs Act'' is about giving the Forest Service a clear direction and
the ability to actually manage a portion of its land for the benefit of
rural communities while beginning to improve forest health in the
process. For too long we have managed our national forests in a way
that is completely devoid of the social and economic realities facing
the counties and states that host the public's lands. There are a
number of issues that need to be resolved with this proposal to ensure
that it can be feasibly and sustainably implemented, but that is why we
have this legislative process and I look forward to working to ensure
these issues are addressed.
The second bill is one I have introduced to address a longstanding
issue with the federal government's abandonment of land disposal and
fiduciary responsibility to Utah and twelve other Western States. The
``Action Plan for Public Lands and Education Act of 2011'' would allow
those States to select five percent of the federal land within their
border to manage for educational purposes in lieu of the five percent
of proceeds it was supposed to receive under the federal government's
previous disposal policies. The APPLE Act will give these States much-
needed certainty in providing basic funding to education in response to
a reversal of previous federal policy.
Opponents of these two solutions have so far offered plenty of the
usual criticism of multiple-use and upholding the sacred cow of federal
ownership, yet conversely have offered no concrete alternatives for how
to address the underlying problems beyond continuing to write a check
cashed from the People's Republic Bank of China. By looking at these
two proposals, this committee is taking an important step towards
changing this course and reinstating a purpose of scientifically
managing our land and resources for the greater good and not left to be
locked away at the whim of a few who think they know best. I thank our
witnesses for being here. I look forward to hearing their testimony and
discussing the issue of making our public lands once again work for the
public who live among them, taxpayers nationwide and the long-term
health of our renewable resources.
I now recognize the Ranking Member for his opening statement.
______
STATEMENT OF HON. RAUL GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In 2000, Congress
passed the Secure Rural Schools Act to provide rural counties
with a stable source of funding for schools and roads. The
stable funding provided the certainty these communities needed
to make important investments in transportation and education.
Unfortunately, the 109th Congress, under Republican leadership,
allowed the program to expire. The new Democratic majority
reauthorized the Secure Rural Schools program in the 110th
Congress by pursuing legislation that was both measured and
bipartisan. I am concerned that history is about to repeat
itself. The discussion draft that is the subject of today's
hearing is not measured, it is not bipartisan and it represents
a significant step back toward the old days when funding for
local school kids was directly tied to cutting down our
forests.
This approach will not work, but more important, it will
not gain enough support to pass, and thus, it will not lead to
the continuation of the program. We stand ready to work with
the majority on a more effective proposal. The second bill,
H.R. 2852, would require the American people to give away 24
million acres of public land that they own to state
governments. The bill is apparently based on the allegation
that Federal land ownership harms states and localities. This
claim overlooks the wide variety of Federal programs which
provide direct revenue to states, including payment in lieu of
taxes, impact aid, Secure Rural Schools, and many others.
Further, this claim ignores the significant indirect
benefits to states from Federal lands such as travel and
tourism dollars and the role these lands play in improving the
quality of life and the standard of living in communities
across the West. Our public lands are the backbone of the
outdoor recreation economy, which generates over $730 billion
in economic activity, 600.5 million jobs and $88 billion in
annual state and Federal tax revenue. Funding for public
schools is a complicated and difficult problem facing
communities across this country. H.R. 2852 is not an
appropriate or workable solution to these challenges. I thank
the witnesses for joining us today, look forward to their
thoughts and their proposals, and with that, I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Mr. Chairman, in 2000, Congress passed the Secure Rural Schools Act
to provide rural counties with a stable source of funding for schools
and roads. This stable funding provided the certainty these communities
needed to make important investments in transportation and education.
Unfortunately, the 109th Congress, under Republican leadership,
allowed the program to expire.
It took a new Democratic majority to reauthorize the Secure Rural
Schools program in the 110th Congress by pursuing legislation that was
measured and bipartisan.
I am concerned that history is about to repeat itself. The
Discussion Draft that is the subject of today's hearing is not
measured, it is not bipartisan and it represents a significant step
back toward the old days when funding for local school kids was
directly tied to cutting down our forests.
This approach will not work, but more important, it will not gain
enough support to pass and thus it will not lead to the continuation of
the program. We stand ready to work with the Majority on a more
effective proposal.
The second bill, H.R. 2852, would require the American people to
give away 24 million acres of the public land that they own to State
governments. The bill is apparently based on the allegation that
federal land ownership harms states and localities.
This claim overlooks the wide variety of federal programs which
provide direct revenue to states--including Payment In Lieu of Taxes,
IMPACT Aid, Secure Rural Schools and many others.
Further, this claim ignores the significant indirect benefits to
states from federal lands, such as travel and tourism dollars and the
role these lands play in improving the quality of life and standard of
living in communities across the West.
Our public lands are the backbone of the outdoor recreation
economy, which generates over $730 billion in economic activity, 6.5
million jobs, and $88 billion in annual state and federal tax revenue.
Funding for public schools is a complicated and difficult problem
facing communities across the country. H.R. 2852 is not an appropriate
or workable solution to these challenges.
I thank the witnesses for joining us today and look forward to
their thoughts on these proposals.
______
Mr. Bishop. Otherwise you are neutral, right?
Mr. Grijalva. I have not taken a position yet.
Mr. Bishop. OK. We also are happy to have the Chairman of
the full Committee, Mr. Hastings, here. By our Rules, Mr.
Hastings, if you have an opening statement, you are recognized
right now to give it.
STATEMENT OF HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Hastings. I do, and thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
for your courtesy, and thank you for holding this hearing on
this draft legislation to address the expiration of the Secure
Rural Schools program. This draft proposal is a starting point
as we work toward a long-term solution to provide a stable
funding stream for rural counties and rural schools. These
forested counties have long depended on revenue from timber
sales to help fund vital services such as education and roads.
The Secure Rural Schools program was designed as a short-term
solution in 2000 to continue providing funding as timber sales
dramatically declined due to Federal over-regulation and
harmful lawsuits, but the reality is that we cannot afford to
forever finance this program, $500 million in annual mandatory
spending, during the times of growing deficits and debts that
we have in the Federal level.
We need a new approach, one that renews the Federal
Government's commitment to manage resources for the benefit of
forested counties and their schools. Restoring active
management of our national forests, as this draft proposal
does, would provide a stable revenue stream for those counties
and schools. It would help create new jobs, strengthen rural
economies, promote healthier forests, it would reduce the risk
of wildfires and decrease our reliance on foreign countries for
timber and related products. In the State of Washington, my
home state, the Forest Service is responsible for managing over
nine million acres of forest land contained within seven
national forests. According to the Washington Department of
Natural Resources, timber harvests in Washington have declined
by 84 percent over the past decade.
The result has been a staggering loss of jobs and economic
productivity in these forested communities. Washington's
national forests each year grow an additional 4.5 billion board
feet of timber while about a third as much, 1.3 billion, simply
dies, yet the Forest Service only harvests about two percent of
the amount. In contrast, the State of Washington, which manages
a trust about a quarter of the amount of the Federal, produces
700 percent more for local governments and universities and
school construction as they are mandated on a state level.
Seven hundred percent more with about a quarter of the acreage.
As stated earlier, declining forest revenues and poor
management directly impacts real people and costs real jobs.
Just last month, Hampton Lumber announced the layoff of an
additional 80 workers and cut operations in Randle, Washington,
a small town adjacent to the Gifford Pinchot National Forest,
and that was due to declining supply of timber from the forest.
So, Mr. Chairman, this draft proposal seeks to stop and reverse
this trend. It would require the Forest Service to more
actively manage national forests, making them healthier and
more economically viable for the local governments. This
legislation encourages local Federal forest managers to work
with the states, with the tribes and local governments to
identify priority projects that would increase revenues and
manage forests in an environmentally sensitive and proactive
way.
Now, I understand there are efforts underway to address the
2.5 million acres of Bureau of Land Management, BLM, lands,
particularly in western Oregon which are known as the O&C
grants. I look forward to working with my colleagues in
developing a workable solution for them on this legislation,
and this draft legislation has a title specifically left blank
for them to work on--something that would be applicable to BLM.
This draft legislation puts forth a long-term solution as the
clock ticks on the expiration of this program. It will continue
our effort to achieve a more secure and dependable source of
revenue for counties and the schools in these rural
communities. With that, thank you again for the courtesy, and I
yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman, Committee on Natural
Resources, on H.R.__, ``National Forest County Revenue, Schools and
Jobs Act of 2011''
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on draft
legislation to address the expiration of the Secure Rural Schools
program. This draft proposal is a starting point as we work towards a
long-term solution to provide a stable revenue stream for rural
counties and schools.
These forested counties have long depended on revenue from timber
sales to help fund vital services such as education and roads. The
Secure Rural Schools program was designed as a short-term solution in
2000 to continue providing funding as timber sales dramatically
declined due to federal overregulation and harmful lawsuits. But the
reality is that we cannot afford to forever finance this program--$500
million in annual mandatory spending--during these times of growing
debts and deficits.
We need a new approach--one that renews the federal government's
commitment to manage resources for the benefit of forested counties and
their schools.
Restoring active management of our national forests, as this draft
proposal does, would provide a stable revenue stream for counties and
schools. It would create new jobs, strengthen rural economies, promote
healthier forests, reduce the risk of wildfires, and decrease our
reliance on foreign countries for timber and related products.
In the State of Washington, the Forest Service is responsible for
managing over 9 million acres of forest land contained within seven
different national forests. According to the Washington Department of
Natural Resources, timber harvests in Washington have declined by 84
percent over the past decade. The result has been a staggering loss of
jobs and economic productivity in rural forest communities.
Washington's national forests each year grow an additional 4.5
billion board feet of timber, while about a third as much--1.3 billion
board feet--simply dies.
Yet, the Forest Service harvests only about 2 percent of the
amount. In contrast, the State of Washington, which manages in trust
about a quarter of the amount of forest lands of those managed by the
Forest Service, produces 700% more than that for local governments,
universities and state school construction.
As stated earlier, declining federal forest revenues and poor
management directly impacts real people and costs real jobs. Just last
month, Hampton Lumber announced the layoff of an additional 80 workers
and cut operations in Randle Washington, a small town adjacent to the
Gifford-Pinchot National Forest, due primarily to a declining supply of
timber from the forest.
Mr. Chairman, this draft proposal seeks to stop and reverse this
trend. It would require the Forest Service to more actively manage
national forests, making them healthier and more economically viable
for local governments to use for schools and other needs. The
legislation encourages local federal forest managers to work with
states, tribes and local governments to identify priority projects,
increase revenues, and manage forests in an environmentally sensible
and proactive way.
I understand efforts are underway to address the 2.5 million acres
of Bureau of Land Management-owned forest lands in western Oregon known
as the ``O&C Grant'' lands, and I look forward to working other
colleagues on developing a workable solution as part of this
legislation. The draft legislation has a Title II to specifically
accommodate additional language to address other federal land
management issues such as ``O&C.''
The draft legislation puts forth a long-term solution, as the clock
ticks on the expiration of the current Secure Rural Schools program. It
will continue our effort to achieve a more secure and dependable source
of revenue for counties and schools and provide a lifeline to these
rural economies.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. We
will next hear the witnesses in the order that they are there.
We will first talk, have, the witnesses will be talking about
the Secure Rural Schools issue. Then I am going to take the
rest of my opening statement to introduce the APPLE and the
last two witnesses will be talking about the APPLE bill. We
have the witnesses, going from left to right, Mr. Harris
Sherman, the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural
Resources and Environment from the Forest Service, the
Department of Agriculture. We appreciate you being here. Mr.
DeFazio, I notice that two of the next three witnesses are your
constituents. I don't know if you would like the opportunity to
introduce them to us.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the fact
that we have two witnesses here from my district. The first
would be Steve Swanson, President & CEO of Swanson Group,
Glendale, Oregon, a company that has an innovative and updated
mill and is in need of timber resources. He will make that case
to the Committee. Then second would be Andy Stahl with the
Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, and he will
be testifying as to a potential approach on the O&C lands to
provide revenue, a basis for our counties' conservation
objectives and timber production. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Between those two witnesses is Mr.
Ron Walter who is the County Commissioner from Chelan County.
Did I say that closely? Chelan County. Sorry. In Washington
State. We appreciate those witnesses being here. They will all
testify to the National Forest County Revenue, Schools, and
Jobs Act of 2011. Next to them also will be Stephen Urquhart
who is a state Senator from the State of Utah who was involved
with the Council of State Governments West in the formulation
of the APPLE concept, as well as Mr. Dave Alberswerth who is
the Senior Policy Advisor for The Wilderness Society, and they
will be talking about the APPLE bill. So, with that, Mr.
Sherman, I understand you are somewhat under the weather. We
apologize for that. If, you know, you have to leave us, we will
understand. We would like you to start off talking about
either, or both, bills.
STATEMENT OF HARRIS SHERMAN, UNDER SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE FOR
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, FOREST SERVICE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Harris
Sherman. I am Under Secretary at USDA. I would like to offer a
couple of points which amplify on my written testimony. At the
outset, I want to emphasize that we recognize the challenges
and the difficulties facing rural communities within, and
adjacent to, the national forests. The struggles of these
communities are real and we want to work with Congress to find
immediate and permanent solutions. We also recognize the great
concern that we all have over the Federal deficit which must be
addressed both on a short-term and a long-term basis. President
Obama has provided his recommendations to extend the Secure
Rural Schools Act for another five years phasing down the
program during that time while we find a more permanent
solution. The two bills before this Committee have just come to
our attention literally in the past few days. We need more time
to provide analysis and comment, but as a general matter, based
on what we now know, we are strongly opposed to each for
reasons which I will identify. Before doing so, I want to
emphasize that the Forest Service is working on thousands of
projects on the national forests which provide jobs and income
to rural communities. These projects return over $1 billion to
the Federal treasury and some $19 billion in gross domestic
product. The projects include recreation, oil and gas, timber,
mining, grazing and a host of other activities. As to timber
production, which I know is of great concern to this Committee,
the Forest Service is working hard to turn the corner to bring
us out of a 15 to 20 year downward slide. For the last two
years, timber sales and production have started to increase.
This is not by accident. The Forest Service is working hard to
foster a collaboration among stakeholders. The Forest Service
is promoting large landscape scale projects often involving
hundreds of thousands of acres where there is greater output
and greater efficiencies associated with those projects. The
Forest Service is developing new approaches to NEPA which are
more adaptive, more focused and result in shorter time periods
to accomplish completion of NEPA. The Forest Service is
utilizing more streamlined administrative processes, and the
Forest Service is building partnerships at the local level to
help us do the work, and in certain cases, to share in the
cost. We are pleased to say that appeals are decreasing
significantly in timber sales and we are starting to get more
work done. These projects will lead to greater production and
greater restoration of our national forests. We will be better
able to address challenges, such as a Bark Beetle infestation,
and to create jobs in rural communities. We will need Congress'
help to achieve these goals through a number of new approaches
or extensions of existing approaches, such as extension of the
stewardship contract authority, your help in our achieving an
integrated resource budget, and your help in providing the
resources we need to get the job done. As to the two pending
bills, we oppose these bills for the following reasons. First,
rather than fostering collaboration, we believe the bills could
easily polarize stakeholders against each other. We cannot
afford to go backwards at this critical juncture. Second, H.R.
2852 would transfer national assets to a limited number of
states and counties. This is certain to be resisted on multiple
levels. Third, both bills will weaken longstanding
environmental protections. Fourth, both bills will result in a
diminution of multiple uses which are likely to impact
recreation, wildlife and other important uses on the national
forests. Both bills appear to complicate also the Federal
deficit problem rather than improving it. So for these reasons,
we oppose the bills at this current time. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you may have. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Swanson? Let me, before you
start here. Mr. Sherman has been here repeatedly. We will maybe
invite you back once the agency has a chance to actually study
the bills again for an update of your testimony. For the rest
of you who are here, your written statements will appear in the
record. What we would like now is an oral statement to
complement that. You are limited to five minutes. In front of
you is the time clock that you have there. When it is green,
you are safe, when it hits yellow, you have a minute left, when
it hits red, I really would ask you if you could summarize and
quit before I have to throw a gavel at you. So, with that, Mr.
Swanson, you got five minutes. You are recognized. Please. You
need to turn on the mic and put it right up to your face.
Mr. Swanson. How is that?
Mr. Bishop. Is it on?
Mr. Swanson. It says talk.
Mr. Bishop. OK. You are ready.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Sherman follow:]
Statement of Harris Sherman, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment, United States Department of Agriculture, on the Discussion
Draft for the National Forest County, Revenue and Jobs Act of 2011
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the Administration's views regarding the
Discussion Draft for the National Forest County Revenue, Schools and
Jobs Act of 2011.
The Discussion Draft proposes to establish a trust to provide
counties with a dependable source of revenue to support public
education and public roads, and to require the Secretary of
Agriculture, as trustee, to carry out trust projects to generate
sufficient receipts to meet an annual revenue requirement on each unit
of the National Forest System (NFS). This annual revenue requirement
would be calculated as a predetermined percentage, to be established by
the legislation for all NFS units nationwide, of each unit's average
annual gross receipts between 1980 and 2000, and create a statutory
right for a county to sue the Secretary for breach of fiduciary duty if
the annual revenue requirement is not met. The draft would also
incentivize Forest Service employees to exceed a minimum sale level of
timber, to be calculated as a nationally predetermined percentage of
the annual average of certain volumes of timber harvested from each
unit between 1980 and 2000. In addition, the draft would provide
different procedures for environmental analysis and administrative
review of trust projects that would effectively waive compliance under
several existing laws including the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), and the administrative review process under the
Appeals Reform Act (ARA). The draft would also preclude judicial review
for all projects undertaken under the authority of the proposed bill.
Historically, public education and roads in eligible states
containing NFS lands have been partially supported by federal payments,
under the authority of the Act of May 23, 1908 (P.L. 60-136) and other
laws, equal to 25% of receipts generated by NFS units within their
boundaries from the proceeds of timber sales, grazing permits,
recreation permits and fees, and other activities. After receipts fell
from historical highs in the 1980s and early 1990s, the Secure Rural
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, (Secure Rural
Schools Act, or SRS) was enacted to provide temporary funding to help
rural communities make the transition through stark changes in our
natural resource economy, particularly in forest-dependent communities
of the West. The last payment under the current SRS authority, as
amended and reauthorized in 2008, is for the current fiscal year, which
ends on September 30.
We understand the predicament this creates for rural communities,
and recognize how important federal payments have been in supporting
public schools and roads in counties all across the country,
particularly in rural areas. That is why the President's 2012 Budget
includes a proposal to reauthorize the Secure Rural School Act for five
more years.
In presenting an alternative means of addressing this predicament,
the proposal contained in the Discussion Draft calls for substantial
consideration and debate--not only for the importance of the topics it
addresses, but also for the essential questions it suggests about the
management of public land in our Nation. For that reason in particular,
the time between our receipt of your invitation to testify about this
draft and the date of today's hearing was not sufficient to fully
analyze the proposal. We must therefore request to reserve the right to
submit additional comments after a bill is introduced. In the meantime,
however, the Administration will take this opportunity today to point
out several serious concerns that this proposal raises.
First, while we appreciate the need to consider ways in which
compliance with environmental analysis may be expedited in appropriate
circumstances, we are opposed to the environmental reporting proposed
in this draft because it does not provide for meaningful analysis or
public input. Even though (and partly because) the proposal would
preclude trust projects from judicial review, these changes would
invite more, not less, controversy over timber sales on NFS lands, and
potentially undermine or cause a chilling effect on the positive
collaboration that has substantially improved how the National Forests
are managed.
We are also concerned that the obligation to meet any predetermined
rate of revenue generation, let alone one based on a relatively short
time period when circumstances supported peak timber production,
ignores the temporal and geographic variability of landscape and
economic conditions, thereby exposing the Federal government to
liability for circumstances beyond its control. This obligation could
also have a potentially significant adverse impact on the federal
deficit, depending on the percentage set for the definition of annual
revenue requirement.
Finally, and perhaps most troubling, this proposal creates a false
expectation that we can return to the peak timber production levels of
decades past. However, the market conditions that supported those
levels simply no longer exist, regardless of who manages the land. The
fact that receipts from Forest Service timber sales have fallen from
almost $1.2 billion in 1990 to just under $100 million in 2009 is not
only a result of the decreased volume of timber harvested and sold by
the agency, but also the value of the timber, the costs of producing
it, and the market for forest products in general. The decrease in the
value of timber harvested on NFS lands over this period, from $113.10/
MBF (thousand board feet) to $48.60/MBF, is to a considerable degree
the result of a broader decline in timber prices associated with the
slumping housing market, changing import/export dynamics, increased
transportation costs, and other market factors. Obligations to meet
unrealistically high expectations for revenue could create difficult
multiple-use dilemmas compelling managers to pursue commodities with
the highest possible returns at the expense of other important
objectives.
Meanwhile, it is important to note that the draft's emphasis and
unrealistic expectations regarding timber receipts overlooks the value
of other receipts and broader revenue generation by the National
Forests overall. NFS lands are estimated to be producing over $1
billion in receipts to the U.S. Treasury in 2011. For the national
economy, NFS lands directly contributed an estimated $19 billion to GDP
in 2005, less than a quarter of which came from timber harvest;
recreation provided the largest contribution, at 43.8%. On many
National Forests throughout the West, revenues deriving from timber
represent an even smaller proportion of economic activity.
The Administration recognizes the important role of the timber
industry in maintaining rural communities, particularly in light of the
urgent forest restoration needs many areas face in light of the
expanding beetle epidemic and the ongoing needs to reduce the risk of
uncharacteristic wildfire effects--especially in the wildland-urban
interface. That's why the Forest Service is investing considerable
effort in ways to maximize the effectiveness of our collaborative
management procedures: in streamlining our implementation of NEPA to
anticipate the needs of large landscapes and watersheds; in maximizing
the use of special authorities such as pre-decisional administrative
review and stewardship contracting; and in exploring ways to make more
efficient use of scarce budgets through the Integrated Resource
Restoration budget line item. Collaborative efforts such as these must
be fostered and broadened if local communities are to reap increasing
benefits from their National Forests.
While we recognize the ongoing reliance of rural counties on
sharing receipts from NFS land, we also recognize the need to manage
the federal budget thoughtfully and deliberately for deficit reduction,
and would like to work with the Congress to develop a proposal that
addresses both rural needs and deficit concerns.
But it is just as important to recognize that the National Forests,
in their 100 year-plus history, are valued by Americans throughout the
Nation, not only for their wood, mineral, and grazing resources, but
also for outdoor recreation, as a place to recharge, for wildlife
habitat in a rapidly developing world, as a place to enjoy historic,
scenic, and cultural treasures, and for clean water to millions of
downstream users. These dynamic values serve the urban public as well
as the rural, the national interest as well as interest of individual
states. We would like to work with the Congress on a solution that
honors all of our Nation's interests over the long term.
This concludes my prepared statement and I would be pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
______
Statement of Harris Sherman, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment, United States Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 2852, The
Action Plan for Public Lands and Education Act of 2011
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the Administration's views regarding H.R. 2852,
the Action Plan for Public Lands and Education Act of 2011. The
Administration strongly opposes H.R. 2852.
H.R. 2852 authorizes land grants to 13 western states for
establishment of a permanent fund to support public education in each
respective state. The amount of land to be granted shall equal five
percent of the acres of federally owned land with the state, and shall
be selected by each state from lands administered by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) within their
borders in such manner as each state's legislature may provide. Most
National Forest System (NFS) lands would be available for selection,
except for those specifically designated as Wilderness Areas,
Wilderness Study Areas, National Historic Sites, National Monuments, or
National Natural Landmarks. The selection and transfer processes would
not be considered to be a major Federal action for the purposes of
section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Mineral, oil and gas rights associated with the selected lands would
also become property of the state, except where federal leases are
currently in effect, in which case the rights would transfer to the
state upon expiration of the federal lease.
Historically, public education in eligible states containing NFS
lands has been partially supported by federal payments, under the
authority of the Act of 1908 and other laws, equal to 25% of receipts
generated by NFS units within their boundaries from the proceeds of
timber sales, grazing permits, recreation permits and fees, and other
activities. After receipts fell from historical highs in the 1980s and
early 1990s, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination
Act of 2000, (Secure Rural Schools Act, or SRS) was enacted to provide
temporary funding to help rural communities make the transition through
stark changes in our natural resource economy, particularly in forest-
dependent communities of the West. The current SRS authority, as
amended and reauthorized in 2008, expires at the end of this month.
We understand the predicament this creates for rural communities,
and recognize how important federal payments have been in supporting
public schools in counties all across the country, particularly in
rural areas. That is why the President's 2012 Budget includes a
proposal to reauthorize the Secure Rural School Act for five more
years.
However, as an alternative means of addressing this predicament, we
believe that H.R. 2852 is counterproductive and contrary to public land
management objectives. Therefore, the Administration strongly opposes
the bill. Its proposed transfer of NFS land to States could result in
weakened environmental protections and a diminution of the multiple-use
mandate that currently guides the management of these lands, while the
legislation's failure to address many key uncertainties concerning
access, liability, and other issues invites controversy and litigation.
We are also opposed to waiving the National Environmental Policy Act
which provides for meaningful analysis and public input that helps
defuse public controversy develop the positive collaboration that has
substantially improved how the National Forests are managed.
Additionally, given the presumption that States are likely to select
the lands that generate the greatest amount of revenue, the loss of
income to the Treasury would increase the federal deficit, which the
Administration and Congress are working so hard to reduce.
But our greatest concern about this legislation is more fundamental
in nature. The notion that land held in trust for the Nation as a whole
should be disposed of for the sole benefit of the residents of an
individual state runs contrary to the principle that these lands are
important to all Americans.
While we recognize the immediate reliance of rural counties on
sharing receipts from NFS land, we also recognize the need to manage
the federal budget thoughtfully and deliberately for deficit reduction,
and would like to work with the Congress to develop a proposal that
addresses both rural needs and deficit concerns.
But it is just as important to recognize that the National Forests,
in their 100 year-plus history, are valued by Americans throughout the
Nation, not only for their wood, mineral, and grazing resources, but
also for outdoor recreation, as a place to recharge, for wildlife
habitat in a rapidly developing world, as a place to enjoy historic,
scenic, and cultural treasures, and for clean water to millions of
downstream users. These dynamic values serve the urban public as well
as the rural, the national interest as well as interest of individual
states. We would like to work with the Congress on a solution that
honors all of our Nation's interests over the long term.
This concludes my prepared statement and I would be pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
______
STATEMENT OF STEVE SWANSON, PRESIDENT & CEO, SWANSON GROUP,
INC.
Mr. Swanson. OK. Thank you very much. Good morning,
Chairman Bishop, Congressman DeFazio, and Members of the
Subcommittee. I am Steve Swanson, President & CEO of Swanson
Group, a family owned forest priced company that dates back to
1951 when my father and uncle established Superior Lumber
Company in Glendale, Oregon. I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss the long overdue need for
legislation to fix the senseless forest policies devastating
our rural communities' funding for local governments and
schools, as well as the health of our forests. The Swanson
Group currently operates two sawmills and two plywood mills and
employs about 650 people in some of the most economically
distressed communities in rural Oregon. Like most of the
domestic industry, we have invested heavily to upgrade all of
our mills with state-of-the-art technology and retooled them to
utilize the smaller diameter timber we were told would be
coming from our Federal forest.
The only problem is that timber has not come. Mr. Chairman,
my hometown of Glendale, Oregon, population 800, has
experienced the same travails as many other rural forested
communities as the timber wars have raged over the past two
decades. Many of the employees in my mills are folks I grew up
with. Having to stand in front of them and tell them they no
longer have a job is a very real and very personal thing. It
makes it all the harder when the solutions are, at least on
their face, so easy. An analogy I like to use is that our
situation is akin to living in a refrigerator full of food
while starving to death. Our communities are literally
surrounded by some of the most productive timber land in the
world.
However, here in southwest Oregon, the Federal Government
controls nearly 60 percent of the timber land through the U.S.
Forest Service and the BLM O&C lands. Without an adequate and
dependable supply of timber coming from these forests, our
communities and industries will continue to suffer. This is
what makes this Committee's work to find a comprehensive
solution to the problem so important. County government is
great, but it alone does not build a healthy community. My
community does not need another handout, my community needs
jobs, stability and predictability. By returning to
responsible, sustainable forest management, we can have all
those things. The discussion draft recently shared by this
Committee would provide counties and communities a lifeline.
By utilizing a trust concept you can ensure that local
county governments, as originally intended, get their share in
a predictable level of timber receipts. You can, while
protecting these important safeguards, ensure that professional
foresters are able to do their jobs without the threat of
endless lawsuits. This certainty will allow communities and
businesses like mine across the country to plan for the future
as certainty is returned to Federal forest management. Finally,
we can begin to address the serious forest health issues
plaguing our national forests. In Oregon's Federal Forest and
Clearing Bureau of Land Management, our Federal forests grow
approximately 10 billion board feet per year.
Of this growth, 2.75 billion board feet a year dies through
natural causes. We currently harvest approximately 525 million
board feet. To sum it up, under our current policy rural
communities wither and Federal land managers in Oregon are able
to sell and harvest approximately five percent of annual growth
and 28 percent of annual mortality. I am certain that the
figures are equally as stark across the country. One need not
wonder why we watch our forests go up in smoke every year. Of
course we are told these unnaturally severe fires are good for
the forest. We all know better. Of course, when they burn we
cannot harvest any of the dead burn material to provide jobs,
produce revenue and replant new forests for future generations.
The draft bill would help with all these issues. It is time
that we shift the paradigm.
The level of harvest required to accomplish this is less
than dies in the forest each year and far less than grows each
year. It is also far less than we harvested during the 1970s
and 1980s. I have provided the Committee information on the
Washington DNR timber management program in comparison to the
U.S. Forest Service in Washington. If the Forest Service were
to focus on truly managing just a small portion of its land
base it could generate similar results in many areas. I have
also provided the Committee an estimate of the harvest levels
that would be required to meet the 20 year average of receipts
in the legislation for Oregon and Washington. One final remark.
I think it is important that the Committee has expressed
the willingness to address the paralysis impacting the BLM O&C
grant lands in western Oregon. Their unique nature, purpose,
intended use and configuration make them very critical to my,
and all other communities in western Oregon. Mr. DeFazio, Mr.
Walden and Mr. Schrader have all expressed a willingness to
devise a trust-like solution to end the management gridlock on
the O&C lands while also doing positive things for
conservation. I trust that the Committee will work with them to
include such a proposal. In conclusion, the time to act is now.
It is time that our Federal forests again start providing for
rural America. I thank you for this opportunity and for all
your work on the draft legislation and welcome any questions
you may have.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Swanson. Timed that perfectly.
Commissioner Walter.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Swanson follows:]
Statement of Steve Swanson, President & CEO, Swanson Group, Inc.,
Glendale, Oregon, on National Forest County Revenue, Schools, and Jobs
Act of 2011
Good morning Chairman Hastings, Chairman Bishop, Congressman
DeFazio and members of the Subcommittee. I am Steve Swanson, President
& CEO of Swanson Group, Inc., a family owned forest products company
that dates back to 1951 when my father and uncle established Superior
Lumber Company in Glendale, Oregon. I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss the long overdue need for
legislation to fix the senseless federal forest policies devastating
our rural communities, funding for local governments and schools, as
well as the health of our forests.
The Swanson Group currently operates two sawmills and two plywood
mills and employs about 650 people in some of the most economically
distressed communities in rural Oregon. Like most of the domestic
industry we have invested heavily to upgrade all of our mills with
state-of-the-art technology and retooled them to utilize the smaller
diameter timber we were told would be coming from federal forests. It
has not materialized. Our industry can compete with anyone in the
world, if--and it is a big if--we can secure the raw materials required
to run our operations.
Mr. Chairman, my hometown of Glendale, Oregon (population 800) has
experienced the same travails as many other rural, forested communities
as the ``timber wars'' have raged over the past two decades. Our
company experienced it first hand when on the morning of January 2,
2001 our main office was destroyed by an arson attack by members of the
Earth Liberation Front. As shocking as that attack was it is far less
serious than economic and social ills primarily caused by the paralysis
affecting the management of our federal forests.
We have largely ignored this paralysis over the past twenty years
and opted to dole out billions in Secure Rural School (SRS) payments in
an effort to cover up the severity of the problem facing our rural
forested communities. The SRS payments have helped maintain essential
government services, but they do not make up for the lack of jobs and
opportunity available to local residents of most rural, forested
communities.
Over the past twenty years of Secure Rural Schools and Spotted Owl
Guarantee payments just about every indicator of rural economic health
has declined in many forested states, including Oregon. The disparity
in pay between Oregon's metropolitan and rural counties, which was once
modest, has quadrupled. Rural Oregon's per-capita income is now only
74% of the national average; while Portland's per-capita income is at
or above the national average. 46% of rural Oregon students qualify for
free or reduced lunch. Unfortunately, this is the norm in many rural
communities across the country, particularly those where federal land
ownership is highest.
Here in southwest Oregon nearly 6o% of the forestland is under
federal control, whether it be the Bureau of Land Management Oregon &
California (O&C) Grant Lands or the US Forest Service. In my home
county of Josephine the federal government controls nearly 74% of the
forest. Most rural communities that are dominated by federal forest
ownership can't simply create alternative industries they defy the
realities of their geography. With some of the most productive
forestland in the entire world we would be foolish to even suggest it.
Instead we should be promoting the responsible, sustainable management
of our federal forests.
Mr. Chairman, I know this hearing is being held today because the
Committee is well aware of the dire conditions our rural communities
and forests face. There is little doubt that the health of our forests
continues to decline due to overstocking, beetle and disease
infestations and catastrophic wildfire. Unless action is taken to
sustainably manage these forests I believe we will continue to see
massive fire seasons like those experienced across the southwest this
year. These catastrophic events threaten the old growth forests, water
quality and wildlife habitat many advocates have spent their careers
trying to save.
The fundamental question before this Congress as it considers this
legislation and the pending sunset of the SRS program is what
responsibility do we have to the rural communities and residents that
surround our federal forests? I for one believe they deserve far more
than the systemic poverty, joblessness and uncertainty that have come
with federal SRS timber payments. They deserve an opportunity to make
an honest living and provide for their families while being stewards of
the forests in their backyards. They deserve to see their children have
the same opportunity to succeed as their urban and suburban
counterparts.
There will undoubtedly be opposition to taking action from those
who wish to see no management of our federal lands. I hope the Congress
will see beyond the typical rhetoric and work to pass comprehensive
legislation. A candid look at the facts on the ground is necessary to
understand the relatively modest levels of timber harvest needed to
generate significant revenue for counties. I have prepared a document
that outlines the estimated harvest levels required to generate the
legislation's annual revenue requirement for counties in Oregon and
Washington. The required harvest levels are below the amount of timber
that dies on the forest each year. It is small portion of the annual
growth of the forest and but a fraction of the current standing volume
on these forests. Many would argue that it isn't enough to maintain
forest health and provide robust employment opportunities in rural
communities.
Some will also argue that there isn't sufficient demand for
increased timber harvests from federal lands to fund rural counties. I
disagree. One of the greatest threats to the future of our four mills
is the lack of an adequate and predictable log supply from federal
forests. I can say with the utmost certainty that without a change in
forest policy more mills will close. Only 4-years ago my company
employed 1200. With a reliable timber supply we could begin to rehire
and add jobs. Without it, more will be lost.
Mills across the country are struggling with log shortages. While
the current state of the U.S. housing market continues to affect
domestic demand, international demand for lumber has seen significant
growth as countries like China and India continue to develop. We are
feeling the effect of this demand in the Pacific Northwest as exports
of lumber and raw logs to Asia have spiked. In fact, US lumber exports
to China tripled between 2009 and 2010. Conservative forecasts indicate
that total Chinese wood demand is likely to grow by 10-15% a year
through 2015, which will create an opportunity for U.S. mills if they
can secure an adequate log supply. We should also remember that
domestic demand will increase again as housing starts returns to a more
typical level of 1.5 million per year. Without action I fear that we
will lose many more mills in areas with heavy federal forest ownership,
similar to what has occurred in the Southwest.
I believe the draft legislation you are considering includes
critical components to providing our rural counties and communities the
certainty they deserve. While I know the legislative process is dynamic
and changes are likely to be made as the legislation progresses, I hope
you will maintain these key concepts.
Establishment of a trust obligation. The legislation would
establish a revenue trust obligation between the Forest Service and
rural forested counties and schools. It appears that the trust mandate
being considered would be more than achievable for the agency since it
is only based on generating a portion of a broad average of annual
historical receipts. In Chairman Hastings' state the Washington
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) manages 2.2 million acres of
state timber trust land under a beneficiary trust mandate. Between
2000-2010 the DNR generated $128.6 million in timber receipts annually
for county, state school construction, hospital and university trust
beneficiaries. By comparison, the Forest Service generated
approximately $13.4 million in gross receipts annually during a
comparable period on the 9.3 million acres it manages in Washington.
A trust obligation is essential to providing certainty to local
communities and clear direction to the agency, which has gradually
moved away from recognizing any obligation to the economic and social
well-being of these rural communities. A trust obligation would also
require the Forest Service to give greater consideration to the
economics of the timber projects it proposes. This is not the case
today as the agency frequently opts for costlier project designs and a
light touch that doesn't treat the forest effectively or economically.
Administrative efficiencies. The Forest Service is mired in endless
red tape, process and procedural requirements in need of reform if we
expect the agency to deliver even modest returns to local governments.
These burdensome and often senseless requirements should be streamlined
for county revenue trust projects. The legislation would require public
comment, appeals and the preparation of an environmental report
outlining the effects of revenue projects. It would limit these
streamlined authorities to only the projects required to meet the
revenue requirement.
The paralysis crippling the agency cannot be solved
administratively. For example, in the Pacific Northwest the Forest
Service and BLM must comply with ``Survey and Manage'', a protocol that
requires agency employees to survey (at times on their hands and knees)
for approximately 300 different species--including fungi and lichens--
before most timber harvest activities can take place on the small
fraction of the forest we manage today. This requirement is in addition
to the current requirements of NEPA and ESA and makes no sense when you
consider the vast amount of the forests dedicated to non-timber uses.
The agencies have attempted to replace this costly and time consuming
requirement with existing special status species programs three times
without success.
Informal estimates we have collected from the agencies indicate
that they spend nearly 75% of their land management budgets meeting
planning, regulatory and legal hurdles. The cost and time required to
meet these hurdles is the primary limiting factor to increasing forest
management activities since few resources remain for project layout,
preparation and implementation costs. The Forest Service's current cost
structure is broken and results in what some claim are ``below cost
timber sales.'' However, state management of timber trust lands in
states like Washington, Montana, Idaho, and Minnesota shows that
government can generate solid returns for the public by applying
sustained yield forest management principles for the benefit of current
and future generations.
Revolving management fund. The legislation allows the Forest
Service to retain 20% of the receipts generated for future project
planning and implementation costs. In light of the fiscal challenges
facing our nation any legislative solution should also generate a large
portion of the funding the agency will need to meet the trust mandate.
This funding should also allow the agency to rebuild their forest
management staff expertise. For comparison purposes, the Washington DNR
receives no state general funding for the management of its timber
trust lands and covers its management expenses by keeping 25% of the
gross receipts generated. The revolving management fund may also reduce
the Forest Service's reliance on Congressional appropriations.
Transition period. The legislation also provides a transition
period for county receipt revenue as forest management activities ramp
up. In many areas of the country, including much of the Midwest, South
and Pacific Northwest, I believe the transition can be fairly short. In
portions of the Intermountain West and Southwest the transition is
likely to take a little longer due to the loss of industry
infrastructure. However, private sector companies will invest in new
manufacturing infrastructure if they have certainty that a reliable raw
material base exists. I support the need to provide county governments
and schools certainty in the short term, but I believe it is critical
that we finally deliver on the promise of a return to responsible
forest management that has been unfulfilled following the last two
reauthorizations.
Inclusion of Bureau of Land Management O&C lands. The Committee has
also indicated a willingness to consider a legislative trust proposal
to resolve the gridlock affecting over 2 million acres of largely
checkerboard O&C lands in western Oregon. These lands once provided the
18 O&C counties over $100 million annually in shared timber receipts.
The O&C Act of 1937, which revested these lands back into federal
control, directed that they be managed for permanent timber production
to benefit local communities and industries. Today, these lands grow
1.2 billion board feet of timber each year and the BLM is currently
struggling to harvest 200 million board feet, or just one-sixth of
annual growth. Additional reductions in timber harvest volumes are
likely unless Congress takes action to resolve the long-running
controversy in a manner that benefits various constituencies.
Congressman DeFazio, Congressman Walden and Congressman Schrader
have all expressed and interest in developing a trust management
proposal for the O&C lands that resolves the controversy once and for
all while providing certainty and opportunity to our rural communities.
I hope you will work with them to develop and pass such a proposal.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee and
welcome any questions you may have.
______
STATEMENT OF RON WALTER, COMMISSIONER,
CHELAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Mr. Walter. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to be
here today to speak in favor of the proposal. In addition to
being a county commissioner, I currently serve as the president
of the National Association of Counties, Western Interstate
Region. Chelan County is a large county with 2.2 million acres.
Eighty percent of that is Federal forest land. Our major
industry is tree fruit production. The timber and agricultural
industries, including grazing on Federal lands, have been the
core of our local heritage and culture. Unfortunately, over the
last 20 years we have seen our timber-related jobs disappear,
with our last mill closing several years ago. We used to have
nine to 10 mills operating in Chelan County.
Now there are only three to four mills operating in the
entire east side of Washington State. Now, the sight of a
logging truck is rare and most of the lumber moving through
town comes from Canada, and there is virtually no grazing.
Unfortunately, this scenario has played itself out across the
West. The Federal Government has succeeded in effectively
setting aside countless acres of wilderness and roadless areas
but has neglected to properly manage the remaining holdings in
the Forest Service system. Our forests are in a state of
disrepair. Acres of once productive forests are now burdened by
excessive fuel loads, are susceptible to disease and insect
infestation and threatened by catastrophic wildfires. Since I
took office in 2001 I have witnessed countless attempts to
address forest management and forest health, yet actions have
fallen short of reaching the goal of achieving healthy,
resilient forests.
This proposed legislation attempts to simplify bureaucratic
process and red tape in the effort to reverse that trend. We
need a new mindset of national forest management where healthy
forests produce jobs and dependable, sustained revenue to the
Federal treasury, local schools and counties. As I said, this
legislation is a step in the right direction as it identifies a
pathway to expedite projects on Federal land while ensuring the
Federal Government continues its commitment to sharing revenues
with counties and schools. Currently, the Forest Service seems
to be in a state of analysis paralysis with too few projects
being implemented. It is time for Congress to change the status
quo and provide effective means for the Forest Service to
achieve one of its primary goals of creating jobs and resilient
forests.
Walt Disney said the way to get started is to quit talking
and get going. In general, the National Association of Counties
supports the reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools.
Further, counties support continuation of three important goals
or provisions under the act: active management and restoration
of forests, revenue sharing consistent with historic Federal
land management receipts, sharing with states, counties and
local school districts, and collaborative processes such as the
resource advisory committees and community fire plans that
successfully address some of the issues. The revenue sharing
provisions of Secure Rural Schools are vital to local
communities and represent a strategic agreement that dates back
to 1908.
The revenue helps fund rural counties' ability to deliver
basic services to our constituents. We believe that
reauthorization and pursuing management and restoration in the
nation's forests will generate tremendous environmental and
social benefits and create needed jobs and revenue for rural
economies. The legislation attempts to return the U.S. Forest
Service to the forest management business and explicitly
provides clear direction to the agency on how to achieve
management targets to fulfill current financial
responsibilities. I would encourage the Committee to consider
removing the restrictions on the use of county funds for roads.
Under the current authorization, schools are able to use these
funds as general revenue. Congress should trust county
government to develop priorities through our annual budget
process and use these funds accordingly.
We support expediting the environmental review process.
There is a critical need to modernize agency processes to
increase productivity and to expedite project analysis and
decisionmaking. Our national forests hold vast resources that
are currently being under utilized, whether it is biomass for
renewable energy, value added wood products such as wood
pellets, mineral, natural gas, oil or timber products. Counties
across the West strongly urge congressional action that will
return effective management to our Federal forests. Again, I
thank you for the opportunity of being here.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Stahl?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walter follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ron Walter, Commissioner, Chelan County,
Washington, on the National Forest and County Revenue, Schools and Jobs
Act of 2011
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here today to speak
in favor of the proposal. I am Ron Walter, a County Commissioner from
Chelan County, Washington State. I also currently serve as President of
the National Association of Counties Western Interstate Region. Chelan
County is a large county encompassing 2.2 million acres, 80% is managed
by the US Forest Service. We are located on the eastern slope of the
Cascade Mountains. Our Western border is the crest of the Cascade
Mountains; we are bordered on east by the Columbia River. Our
population is 70,000 with slightly less than half of our residents
living in our largest town Wenatchee. The remaining population resides
in 8 small cities or communities or in the unincorporated areas of the
county.
Our major industry is tree fruit production or Apples, Pears and
Cherries. Each of our small towns used to have a mill and timber jobs.
The first two summers after high school graduation, I was fortunate to
work in local lumber mills. The timber and agriculture industry--which
includes grazing on Federal lands--were part of our local heritage and
culture. Unfortunately over the last twenty years we have seen our
timber related jobs completely disappear with our last mill closing
several years ago. With that mill closure our county lost 80 family
wage jobs and the related economic benefit to our local economy.
The entire Eastern side of Washington State currently has only four
operating mills. I used to see logging trucks moving logs to the mills
and finished lumber moving to market. Now the sight of a truck hauling
logs is rare and most of the finished lumber products are moving
through town on rail cars from mills in Canada. Livestock grazing is
very limited. The most visible activity on local forest is now fire
suppression.
Unfortunately this scenario has played itself out across the west.
The Federal government has succeeded in effectively setting aside
countless acres of wilderness but has neglected to properly manage the
remaining holdings in the National Forest System. Our forests are in a
state of disrepair--acres of once productive forests are now burdened
by excessive fuel loads, susceptible to disease and insect infestation,
and threatened by catastrophic wildfire.
Our National Forests hold vast resources that are currently
underutilized, whether it is biomass for renewable energy or added
value products such as pellets, timber products, minerals, oil, and
natural gas. Counties across the West strongly request congressional
action to return active management to our federal lands in an effort to
fuel local economies and return revenues to the treasury.
Since I took office in 2001, I have witnessed countless attempts to
address forest management and forest health, yet actions have fallen
short of reaching the goal of achieving healthy resilient forests. This
proposed legislation attempts to simplify bureaucratic process and red
tape in an effort to reverse that trend. Walt Disney said the way to
get started is to quit talking and begin doing. We need a new mindset
of National Forest Management where energy production, grazing,
recreation, timber harvest, mineral resource utilization and
environmental stewardship are all components of obtaining healthy
resilient forests which produce dependable and predictable revenue to
the federal treasury, local schools and counties and produce critically
needed jobs in our communities.
This proposed legislation is a step in the right direction as it
identifies a pathway to expedite projects on federal land while
ensuring the federal government protects its commitment to sharing
revenues with counties and rural schools. Currently the Forest Service
seems to be in a state of ``analysis paralysis'' with little resources
actually reaching ground. It is time for Congress to change the status
quo and provide effective means for the Forest Service to achieve one
of its primary goals of ``creat[ing] jobs that will sustain
communities.''
I would like to take the remainder of my time to make some specific
comments about the proposal.
In general, the National Association of Counties supports
reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act (SRS). Furthermore, counties support continuation of
three important goals or provisions under the Act: 1) active management
and restoration of federal forests; 2) revenue sharing consistent with
historic federal land management receipts with states, counties and
school districts, and 3) collaborative processes such as the Resource
Advisory Committees (Title II) and community fire planning (Title III).
The revenue sharing provisions of SRS are vital to local
communities and represent a strategic intergovernmental agreement that
dates back to 1908. The revenue helps fund rural counties ability to
deliver public services to thousands of communities throughout the
nation. We believe that reauthorization and pursuing management and
restoration of the nation's forests will generate tremendous
environmental and social benefits and create needed jobs and revenue
for rural economies.
I applaud the Committee's commitment to continuing the Federal
government's obligation to honor the revenue sharing agreement with
counties established in 1908. Historically payments to counties and
schools have been coupled with natural resource management activities.
This legislation attempts to return the U.S. Forest Service to the
forest management business and explicitly provides clear direction to
the agency on how to achieve management targets to fulfill current
fiduciary responsibilities.
Specifically, section 102 (e) (3) directs the Forest Service to
send Title I payments directly to rural schools and protect payments
from being offset by state funding. This provision is important to a
number of our rural schools districts who have had Title I funds
diverted away by State governments.
Incentive and consequences; section 106 (b) (2) I fully support the
section on performance based cash rewards, however there should be
consequences if minimum sale levels are not obtained.
Catastrophic event; section 105 (c) The Secretary should be
required to immediately implement this provision nationwide. Every
Region to the USFS has a backlog of potential sales that have been
through the NEPA revenue and are ready for bid and the demand for the
product exists. The National Association of Counties has repeatedly
called on Congress to give the Forest Service greater flexibility in
their authority to address catastrophic events. Further, NACo has
called on Congress to grant a Governor authority to declare a state of
emergency when the severity of fire danger from fuels on identified
federal lands within that state poses a significant threat to public
health and safety. Many National Forests are clogged with dead and
dying trees that pose significant risk to public health and safety.
Conservative estimates show that perhaps 140 million acres of National
Forest timberland in the west is in ecological condition Class 3 or 2:
meaning it is ready to burn or soon will be.
Use of Funds; section 107 (b) I would encourage the committee to
consider removing the restrictions on the use of the county funds for
roads. Under the current authorization, schools are able to use these
funds as general revenue. Congress should trust county government to
develop priorities through our annual budget process and use these
funds according to local needs and priorities.
Environmental review; Section 105 (d) Chelan county supports the
National Association of Counties policies related to the need to revise
and update outdated existing environmental statutes such as the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Administrative rules such
as the Forest Service Planning Rule. Currently there is a critical need
to modernize agency processes in an effort to increase productivity and
efficiency, and to expedite project analysis decision making in a
timely but effective manner. I support the Committee's goal to expedite
the environmental review process and encourage Congress to move further
toward amending and modernizing NEPA.
In closing I would like to again thank you for the opportunity to
share my thoughts. Counties are united in their desire to move away
from direct annual SRS payments in exchange for sustainable economies
based on management of our Federal lands. Elected county officials
would prefer to share in the revenue from production in healthy forests
that are a part of our community fabric, whether those lands are
generating biomass or timber products, mineral, energy production,
recreation or grazing. Effective management of our federal forests will
create much needed, family-wage jobs in our resource dependent
communities while providing sufficient revenue sharing to county
governments and schools through the historic 25% revenue sharing
agreements. However, until the Federal government returns management to
our federal forests, we will require Congress to continue direct annual
payments through the Secure Rural Schools program.
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva--thank you for the
opportunity to testify this morning.
______
STATEMENT OF ANDY STAHL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
FOREST SERVICE EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS
Mr. Stahl. Thank you, Chairman Bishop. I will address six
items in my testimony. First, the essential elements of a
trust, then timber sale volumes necessary to meet the proposed
bill's annual revenue requirement, budgetary implications to
the Treasury of doing so, environmental implications of the
bill, effects on the stewardship contracting program, and
finally, effects on private timber land owners. A trust
requires four elements: a settler who creates the trust, a
trust instrument that demonstrates the intent to create a
trust, trust property, which is also called the trust corpus,
and a trust beneficiary, that is, those who get the revenue
from the trust. The draft bill is missing one of those
elements. It is missing the trust property. The bill
misunderstands the Doctrine of Trust by mistaking the earnings
from the trust for the trust corpus. In a bona fide trust, the
property is used to generate earnings which, net of the
management expenses, are paid to the beneficiary. Here, in the
bill's Section 102[a], the earnings from projects are defined
as the property itself. By defining the trust as an annual
revenue stream rather than as an income producing asset the
Forest Service will be forced to sell more timber during
periods of low demand and less timber when demand for wood is
high. That is opposite to the behavior expected from a prudent
trustee or a private land owner. At current prices, for each
county to receive payments equal to the average of the past
four years of SRS payments, trust project timber sales would
have to increase by over 20 billion board feet from current
levels. To maintain SRS payments at their 2011 levels, sales
would have to increase by over 15 billion board feet. Now,
these timber volumes differ substantially among national
forests. A few national forests could cut less than current
levels. Those are primarily in Region 9 in the northeast and
the lake states. Other forests would be required to increase
cutting by 10 to 100 fold. For instance, Region 3's forest, the
Tonto and Coronado, the Chugach in Alaska and the Six Rivers in
California. New Mexico's Gila National Forest, for example,
sold three million board feet in the first three quarters of
this fiscal year at $17 per 1,000 board feet. This low value
would require the Gila to sell an additional 429 million board
feet, 143 times current levels, to achieve the average SRS
payment of $5.5 million, and that is at the 75 percent county
share provided in the bill. Now, all of these data and
calculations are available on the web at the Headwaters
Economics website. In 2010, the Forest Service spent about $158
per 1,000 board feet on its timber program for a total cost of
$382 million. Increasing sales to the level necessary to meet
the SRS payments would cost about $3 billion in appropriations.
Net of the 20 percent in revenues that the bill allocates from
trust projects to the Forest Service, that amount is about 10
times greater than the SRS appropriations are today. The bill
also proposes to eliminate existing legal requirements for
timber sale advertisement and competitive bidding which will
reduce prices further. The bill proposes to waive existing
environmental laws which protect watersheds and stream quality.
The bill would likely eliminate stewardship contracting because
the timber value would no longer be available to fund fire
reduction measures, for example. For private timber land
owners, the bill would put a lot of Federal timber on the
market to meet these payments levels, reducing the value of
private timber lands and also imposing endangered species
obligations on private land owners that the Federal Government
would be exempt from meeting. Thank you for this opportunity to
testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stahl follows:]
Statement of Andy Stahl, Executive Director, Forest Service Employees
for Environmental Ethics, on the National Forest County Revenue,
Schools, and Jobs Act of 2011
My name is Andy Stahl. I am Executive Director of Forest Service
Employees for Environmental Ethics, a 10,000-member coalition of civil
servants who manage our national forests and citizens who own them.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this invitation to discuss the draft
National Forest County Revenue, Schools, and Jobs Act of 2011.
My testimony will address the following: 1) essential elements of a
``trust;'' 2) timber sale volumes necessary to meet the bill's ``annual
revenue requirement;'' 3) budgetary implications to the Treasury of
meeting these timber sale volumes; 4) environmental implications; 5)
effects on the stewardship contracting program; and, 6) effects on
private timberland owners.
The County, Schools and Revenue Trust is not a True ``Trust''
A trust requires four elements: 1) a settlor who creates the trust;
2) a trust instrument that demonstrates the necessary intent to create
a trust; 3) trust property, also called the trust ``corpus'' or
``res;'' and, 4) a beneficiary. The draft bill is missing one of these
essential elements--the trust property. The bill misunderstands the
doctrine of trusts by mistaking a trust's earnings for the trust's
corpus. In a bona fide trust, the trust property is used to generate
earnings (also called the ``distribution'') which, net of the trustee's
management expenses, are paid to the beneficiary. Here, in section
102(a), the trust's earnings from Projects are defined as the trust
property itself. The bill creates something more like an entitlement
program than a fiduciary trust.
The bill's failure to identify a trust property means that the
Secretary has no duty to preserve and protect that property, as is the
case in a true fiduciary trust. For example, this bill would require
the Secretary to cut beyond sustained yield levels if necessary to meet
the annual revenue requirement (and waives existing legal caps on
harvest levels), an outcome not permitted under trust doctrine that
requires the trustee to protect the corpus of the trust.
By defining the ``trust'' as an annual revenue stream, rather than
as an income-producing asset, the Forest Service will be forced to sell
more timber during periods of low demand for wood and less timber when
demand for wood is high--opposite to the behavior expected from a
prudent trustee or private landowner. The American people--who are the
true beneficiaries of these public lands that are held in trust for all
of us--will see their trees sold at bargain-basement prices. The
Secretary, as trustee, will also be required to produce the county
beneficiaries' revenue streams regardless of how much it costs American
taxpayers and the Treasury to do so.
Timber Sale Volume Necessary to Meet the ``Annual Revenue Requirement''
For each county to receive payments equal to the average of the
past four Secure Rural Schools payment years, Trust Project timber cut
would have to increase by over 20 billion board feet. The additional
timber cut, above current levels, necessary to simply maintain 2011 SRS
payment amounts is 15.3 billion board feet.
These timber volumes vary substantially among national forests. A
few national forests could cut at less than current levels, e.g.,
Allegheny, Chippewa, Hiawatha. Other national forests would be required
to increase cutting by ten to more than a hundred times current
amounts, e.g., Tonto, Coronado, Chugach, and Six Rivers.
For example, New Mexico's Gila National Forest sold 3 million board
feet in the first three quarter of FY2011 at $17.15 per thousand board
feet (mbf). This low timber value would require the Gila to sell an
additional 429 million board feet, 143 times current levels, to achieve
the 2008-2011 SRS average annual payment of $5.5 million, at the 75%
county share provided in the bill.
For further details regarding these data and calculations, the
committee can contact Headwaters Economics at http://
headwaterseconomics.org/.
Budgetary Implications of Meeting the Necessary Timber Sale Volumes
The bill obligates the Secretary, enforceable by the counties, to
spend whatever appropriated funds are necessary on Trust Projects to
meet the annual revenue requirement. These tax-financed costs are
likely to exceed revenues and will likely cost more than the Secure
Rural Schools appropriated amounts now being made to counties.
In 2010, the Forest Service spent $158.30/mbf on its timber sale
program, for a total cost of $382 million. See http://www.fs.fed.us/
publications/budget-2010/overview-fy-2010-budget-request.pdf (page I-
2). Increasing timber sales to the level necessary to meet average SRS
payments during the last four years would cost nearly $3 billion in
appropriations, net of the 20% in timber revenues the bill allocates
from Trust Projects to the Forest Service. This amount is about 10
times greater than the Secure Rural Schools average annual payment from
appropriations during the past four years.
The bill eliminates existing legal requirements for timber sale
advertisement, competitive bidding, and open and fair competition,
which could reduce Trust Project income, requiring a further increase
in sales to meet the annual revenue requirement. The bill also
eliminates legislative authority for the salvage sale fund and
purchaser road credits, in regard to Trust Projects.
Environmental Implications
If necessary to meet the annual revenue requirements, the bill
authorizes Trust Projects where logging would irreversibly damage soil,
slope, or other watershed conditions and waives reforestation
requirements. The bill allows for Trust Projects that seriously and
adversely damage fish habitat and eliminates riparian protections for
streams, lakes, and other water bodies. The bill also waives legal
restrictions on clearcut size and protections for soil, water, scenery,
fish, wildlife and recreation where forests are logged using even-aged
management.
Implications for Stewardship Contracting
The Forest Service uses stewardship contracting authority granted
by Congress to purchase services in exchange for timber value. The
timber value is often used to pay contractors to treat woody biomass
that may pose a fire hazard to nearby communities. The bill's annual
revenue requirement will likely require that all available timber value
be dedicated to the County, Schools, and Revenue Trust, leaving little,
if any, to lessen wildland fire risk to communities.
Implications to Private Timberland Owners
The bill allows the Secretary to undertake Trust Projects that
would take threatened or endangered species without limit. This would
shift the responsibility for species conservation from the public's
national forests to owners of private timberlands, who are required to
enter into habitat conservation agreements with the federal government
before they can harm imperilled species.
The substantial increased federal harvest necessary to meet the
annual revenue requirement will depress stumpage prices, particularly
during periods of low wood products demand. This will decrease
financial returns to private timberland owners. The willingness of the
federal government to subsidize from appropriations the management
expenses of timber sales, such as road construction and maintenance,
will put private timber owners at a further competitive disadvantage.
Insofar as that subsidy appears unconstrained by the bill, and
enforceable by the county beneficiaries, the anti-competitive effect
could be particularly dramatic in areas where timberlands are of
relatively low productivity, such as the inland mountain west.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I would be happy
to answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. Before
we go to the next witness I wish to introduce the APPLE Act.
There are some slides up there I would look at. In a prior life
before I came here, I spent 16 years in the Legislature all on
the Appropriations Committee for Public Education trying to
find money for education, and also 28 years in the classroom as
a teacher knowing that end of it. There always seemed to be
something, like a dam, that was stopping the flow of funds
going to the schools. It was a difficult one to do. I think one
thing we found out is that schools have historically been based
upon land as a funding mechanism. It goes back to Henry VIII
when he established the Church of England. He took the
monasteries away from the Catholic Church.
He gave them to aristocracy on the condition that they
maintain the school systems that had been established by the
church itself. 1777, Georgia became the first state to actually
give efforts to help their schools in the counties. Ironically,
half of the counties in Georgia rejected it because they said
it was an insult to them thinking they could not do their own
jobs. Connecticut actually sold 3.3 million acres of land to
put up a full trust fund for education. Of course, the land
they sold was in Ohio, but at least they were selling something
of land at the time. Texas, as you will note, has very little
public land, but when they became a state they set aside 17,000
acres for a permanent trust fund for their education systems.
One of the things we notice right here is the land policy makes
it difficult for those in the West to do the same thing.
Everything that is red on that map is owned by the Federal
Government. You will notice the Federal Government owns one out
of every three acres, and primarily in the West. Those of us in
the West have the wonderful opportunity of realizing the
Federal Government owns one out of every two acres. The BLM
land, which is the basis of this particular bill, 93 percent of
that is found west of Denver. If you will notice the next map,
you will see the states in red are the states that have the
slowest rate in their education growth. If you flip back
between two and three--Casey, just a minute--if you would look
at those maps, look at the Federal land, go back to the states
having problems, go back to the Federal land, you will notice
there is a unique correlation between the amount of Federal
lands and the difficulty states have in funding their education
system. Eleven of the 17 states that have the slowest growth
rate are found in the West. Not yet. Do not get ahead of me
here.
That is also almost double the rate. Ninety-two percent
growth in states east of Denver, only 56 percent growth in the
states that are west of that. It is double in the East than it
is in the West. Now, the question you have to have is why? What
is the paradox? Why do we in the West have the slowest growth
in our education funding? Why do we in the West have the
largest class sizes? Twelve states have the largest class size.
Nine of them are found in the West on public land states. Why,
as you see in here, do we have the kids? The growth rate of
public education students is triple in the West than it is the
East, and still we have the kids, we have the overcrowded
classrooms. We cannot fund our education system, not nearly to
what our friends in the East are having with the lighter base.
Now, why is that? Is it because we are not paying taxes?
As you will notice in the next one, the West pays actually
more taxes in state and local taxes as a percent of their
income than those in the East do. It is also not because we are
not putting education into our state budgets. Once again, you
will find out western states put more of their budget toward
education than eastern states do as a percentage. The reason
why we are having it is this particular one. The ones that are
yellow do not have public lands. None of them have more than 15
percent of their land as public, and the total average for the
East is four percent. Those of us in the West get a great total
of 52 percent. You will notice, especially those in the red
ones that are in the West, we have the abundant opportunity of
having more than 52 percent of our land tied up by the Federal
Government. It is interesting to note that when each of these
western states was admitted to the union, in their Enabling Act
there was language that was put in there that said that that
was not to be the way of things.
Each of them had phrases in there that said five percent of
the proceeds of the sale of public lands lying within said
state which shall be sold by the United States subsequent to
the admission of said state into the union after deducting all
the expenses incident of the same shall be paid to the said
state to be used as a permanent fund, the interest of which
only shall be expended for the support of common schools within
said state. The only two states in the West that did not get
that language in their Enabling Acts are Hawaii, which got
nothing because there is not a whole lot of land there that is
owned by the Federal Government, and California. Was not in
their Enabling Act. Instead, Congress passed a special piece of
legislation a year after they were a state that gave them the
same promise that those of us in the West were given.
The obvious thing is that promise simply was never
fulfilled. Oklahoma got that promise. When they were made a
state, the government gave them a $5 million bonus to bring
them in on an equal footing with those in the West, but the
rest of us in the West simply did not have it. The cost to us
if the Federal Government had fulfilled what they promised in
the Enabling Act is about a one time expenditure of $14 billion
that would go to those western states. If you taxed the land
that they kept at the lowest rate, the absolute lowest property
tax rate, as if it is totally worthless land, it would be an
extra $6 billion coming to those western states if the Federal
Government just put those lands, or the Federal Government paid
the tax where if those lands were on the tax rolls. Now, some
people say we are solving that problem with PILT.
PILT is supposed to help states with that, but as you will
see in here, PILT has never been more than four percent of what
could be raised if those lands were actually taxed like normal
pieces of property. PILT money does not go to schools, that
goes to counties, which means, as you will see in here, what is
happening to the West, those are what the West is losing every
year in lost property tax revenue because the Federal
Government did not live up to the language in the Enabling Acts
that were promised at statehood. When it comes to education,
once again, at the lowest rate possible, that is how much each
state would be gaining from those lands if they were allowed to
be taxed every year. It is very simple. Education is based on
property tax. We lose $4 billion a year in the West because
these lands do not generate property tax for us, and PILT does
not come close to cutting it, nor does SRS come close to
cutting it.
We lose $2 billion in loss of severance and royalty taxes
the states could be getting if they actually had control of
these lands, plus the income tax that would be given from high
paying jobs if we could actually develop our own lands, as well
as the school trust lands we each have that are surrounded by
public lands and sometimes make them inaccessible and unusable
to generate revenue as they were supposed to be generated. So
the solution to this one is simply APPLE, which is cute for the
Action Plan for Public Lands and Education. Senator Urquhart,
thank your wife for coming up with that name. It is a wonderful
name. What this does is simply say, OK, the states were
promised five percent of the proceeds from the sale of that
land, let the states pick five percent of their land to be used
for a permanent fund to pay for their education. It can only go
to the trust fund with their education.
I should put a caveat in here. I said every western state
was promised five percent for education. Three states,
Colorado, Nevada and Oregon, were actually promised five
percent for infrastructure, but you can use it for education if
you want to in my bill. Excluded from the land they can choose
are wilderness areas, national parks, military installations,
Native American properties, historic sites and wildlife
refuges, first of all because I do not want to create the
dilemma that some people have said might exist, but more
importantly, states do not want those lands because they do not
generate money. Those are money losers. They are not going to
pick those. They need lands that can actually generate
something for their states. Nine states have already passed
resolutions in support of this.
I wish I could say this was my idea. It actually came from
the Council of State Governments, West. So it was a think tank
proffer. It was an effort of legislators sitting down, thinking
of how to help themselves in the future as best they possibly
can. The bottom line is here, in the West, kids are harmed and
they are harmed by the land policy the Federal Government
imposes on the West. It was not intended to be that way, and it
does not have to be that way, and it ought not to be that way,
and it is about time we realized kids should not be harmed
simply because they live in the West with the absentee land
owner, the Federal Government. With that, I would like to
recognize Representative Urquhart who has been working on this
for a long time both in the Utah Legislature, as well as in
Council of State Governments, West. Mr. Urquhart?
STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHEN H. URQUHART, SENATOR, UTAH STATE
SENATE
Mr. Urquhart. Chairman Bishop, Members, thank you for this
opportunity. Chairman Bishop, that was excellent. Thank you
very much. Most states in this nation were frontier states. In
order to be on equal footing with other states, the frontier
states have always pushed the United States to sell off
Federally owned lands. We need to remember that. We are a young
nation. That experience continues today. This is the frontier
speaking to you, just as it has in the past. When Utah joined
the Nation it struck an agreement with the United States.
Utah's Enabling Act requires that the United States sell
Federally owned lands there to go on the tax rolls and five
percent of the sale proceeds are to go to Utah's schools. This
is not a favor, as I heard it called today, this is not a
giveaway, this is not a project where collaboration is the main
goal, this is an obligation of the United States. It cannot be
unilaterally modified.
However, in 1976, through FLPMA, the United States did
unilaterally change that agreement. It determined that public
lands no longer would be sold. Utah did not agree to that
change. Therefore, the United States is in breach of its
agreement. That breach hurts the citizens of my state and all
western states. As Chairman Bishop said, this affects children,
this affects families. The West is growing. Growth requires
serious infrastructure and education investment, but Congress'
breach chokes off needed funding. As Congressman Bishop said,
we tax the West as heavily as the rest of the nation, but our
per pupil funding does not keep pace with that of nonwestern
states. We already cram more kids in our classrooms and matters
would only get worse as we are slated to increase enrollment
three times faster than nonwestern states.
The United States' breach of its obligation to dispose of
the public lands artificially restricts our property tax base.
It hobbles our economies. Let me give you one example. Utah
could be a significant player in the energy sector, but the
problem for us is most of our energy fields or oil and gas
fields are on public lands, which is not surprising since the
Federal Government owns two-thirds of all the land in our
state. If we were allowed to tap this, that would mean jobs,
prosperity, school funding and less dependence on foreign oil,
but the Federal ownership precludes those benefits. As we
witnessed three years ago, the changing winds of partisan
elections and the cavalier stroke of a pen by a Federal
overseer can halt energy production on our Federal lands.
Of course, any energy producers are reluctant to risk
capital knowing that a Federal overseer can, and will, harm
jobs, communities, schoolchildren and energy production in
order to gain political favor with environmental special
interest groups. Utah is a state. Can anyone argue that Utah
should not be on equal footing with other states, or that
Congress can breach the compact it entered into with Utah? Can
anyone argue that citizens of Utah and the other western states
are less deserving of jobs, opportunities and education? These
lands should be sold. They should be put on the tax rolls.
Western states should receive their contracted proceeds. If
Congress is unwilling to step up to those clear
responsibilities, an accord must be struck. I greatly
appreciate Congressman Bishop's efforts regarding APPLE.
Utah and the other western states should be allowed to
select five percent of the public lands for disposition.
Recognize the United States' obligation here. Let us put lands
that surround our cities on the tax rolls. Let us put mineral
lands to beneficial economic use. Let us create jobs and wealth
on these lands. Let us adequately support our schools. A member
of a State Legislature should not have to ask the Federal
Government's permission to use lands in his state to create
jobs, wealth and opportunity. The system is upside down. The
servant has lost track of its role. Congress has usurped the
will of the people as expressed in the Constitution and the
Enabling Acts of the western states. No member of this
Subcommittee participated in that arrogant breach in 1976, but
members of this Subcommittee can right that wrong. Work to pass
the APPLE bill. Work to help the children in my state and in
all western states. As you help our great nation honor its
commitments millions of westerners will honor you. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Alberswerth?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Urquhart follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Stephen H. Urquhart, Senator, Utah State
Senate, on H.R. 2852: Action Plan for Public Lands and Education Act of
2011
Thank you for allowing me to appear before you. I am deeply
honored. I, like you, love the United States of America. Please allow
me to tell you how you can honor our great nation, by helping it honor
an agreement it has made with my state and the other 12 western states.
Utah, like most states, joined the United States pursuant to an
agreement, an enabling act, entered into with the United States. Utah's
enabling act, like that of most states, calls for future sale of
federally-owned lands. The agreement calls for those lands to be sold--
and put on the tax rolls--and for 5% of the proceeds of those sales to
go to Utah for the support of Utah's schools.
Again, I reiterate, this is an obligation of the United States, not
a favor or an idea to be revisited. It is a solemn obligation.
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that these enabling acts
cannot be unilaterally modified by either party--the states or the
United States. However, in 1976, through the Federal Lands Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA), the United States did unilaterally change that
agreement, by determining that public lands no longer would be sold.
Utah did not agree to that change in our agreement. Therefore, the
United States is in breach of its agreement. I need you to know that
the United States' unilateral breach of our agreement significantly
hurts the citizens of my state and all western states. Please allow me
to explain.
Other than the 13 colonies and Texas and Tennessee, all states have
a public lands history. Part of that history is for those frontier
states to strive for full statehood--through disposition of those
public lands--over the opposition of the non-public land states. The
frontier states always hit a point of significant growth where, to stay
on equal footing with the other states, they need the revenues from the
sale of the public lands and, more importantly, they need those lands
on the tax rolls.
We see it every census. The West is growing. Growth requires
serious infrastructure and education investment. But, Congress' breach
of Utah's enabling act is choking off that needed funding. But, this
doesn't just affect Utah. Federal ownership of land adversely affects
all western states.
Eleven of the seventeen states with the lowest real growth in per
pupil expenditures are western states. From 1979 to 2007, real per
pupil expenditures in western states--public land states--increased
56%, compared to 92% in non-western states. Western states cram more
kids in classrooms that non-western states--3.7 more students per
classroom than in the other 37 states. And, those sad facts will only
get worse; between 2012 and 2018, the rate of enrollment growth in
western states is projected to increase 9%, while the rate of
enrollment growth in non-western states is projected to increase by
only 3.3%.
And, please don't think that these statistics are the result of an
unwillingness to tax our citizens. As a percentage of personal income,
Western states are taxing every bit as hard as other states. This is
simply the result of rapid growth, an artificially-low property tax
base, political restraints on economic activity. In other words, it is
the result of the United States' breach of enabling acts in the western
states and continued federal ownership of public lands.
Utah, for example, provides significant services to the public
lands and public land users, such as transportation, policing, and
search and rescue, but Utah does not receive tax support from those
lands. While the federal government does provide some payment in lieu
of taxes, those amounts do not approach tax revenues that would be
generated were those lands privatized.
Also, let's talk about productive uses on those lands. Utah could
be a player in the nation's energy sector. That would mean jobs for
Utah citizens, wealth for communities, significant revenues for our
schools, and less dependence on foreign energy producers. But, those
benefits are precluded because the federal government continues to own
those lands. With the changing winds of partisan elections and the
cavalier stroke of a pen, a federal overseer can stop all energy
production on our federal lands. Why, of course, would an energy
producer risk capital on public lands when a threat always exists that
the federal overseer might find it expedient to harm jobs, communities,
school children, and energy production in order to gain a little favor
with environmental special interest groups?
Utah is a state. Can anyone argue that Utah should not be a full
state, on equal footing with other states? Can anyone argue that it is
okay for Congress to breach the compact it entered into with Utah? Can
anyone argue that the citizens of the Utah and the other western states
are less deserving of jobs, opportunities, and education than the other
states?
These lands should be sold. They should be put on the tax rolls.
Western states should receive their contracted proceeds. If Congress is
unwilling to step up to those clear responsibilities, an accord must be
struck. I appreciate Congressman Bishop's attempt to navigate Congress'
clear obligation in this matter with the current realities of a
profoundly flawed political process.
Utah and the other western states should be allowed to select 5% of
the public lands for disposition. Go ahead and exclude from that
possible selection lands that would involve significant controversy--
such as designated wilderness, forest reserves, national parks.
Recognize your obligation. Let us put lands that surround our cities on
the tax rolls. Let us put mineral lands to beneficial economic use. Let
us create jobs and wealth on these lands. Let us adequately support our
schools.
I have to point out that is offensive to me, as a member of a state
legislature, to have to ask the federal government's permission to use
lands in my state to create jobs, wealth, and opportunity. It is
offensive to have to plead with the federal overseer to honor its
obligation. That speaks to a system that is upside down. That speaks to
a system where the servant has lost track of its role. It speaks to the
fact that, in this situation, Congress has usurped the will of the
people as expressed in the Constitution and the enabling acts of the
western states.
I don't believe that any members of this subcommittee participated
in that arrogant breach of the enabling acts in 1976. I do believe that
all members of this subcommittee can right that wrong. Compacts are to
be honored. Please honor the compacts entered into between the western
states and the United States. Work to pass the APPLE bill. As you help
our great nation honor its commitments, millions of westerners will
honor you.
______
STATEMENT OF DAVE ALBERSWERTH,
SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY
Mr. Alberswerth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of
the Subcommittee for the opportunity to provide testimony on
behalf of The Wilderness Society regarding H.R. 2852. Before I
discuss that bill, I just want to mention that we also have a
keen interest in the Secure Rural Schools program as well and
would like to submit comments on the final proposal for the
record once you have had a chance to take a look at it. We
oppose enactment of H.R. 2852, which essentially requires the
Federal Government to give away five percent of the
unappropriated public lands, defined to include national forest
system lands, as well as BLM lands, to each western state, an
area we think is about 30 million acres, or roughly the size of
the State of New York or Mississippi. This is an unwarranted
and unmerited giveaway of assets owned by all Americans to a
select few states.
In fact, we are somewhat surprised that such a proposal is
being considered at all given the Federal Government's current
budget woes. If enacted, this bill would amount to giving away
free of charge literally tens of billions of dollars of
American taxpayers assets without compensation to those
taxpayers at a time of deepening concern about the impacts of
the Federal deficit on our nation's fiscal future. We instead
support current laws articulated in Section 102 of the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act that the public lands be
retained in Federal ownership unless as a result of the land
use planning procedure provided in the Act it is determined
that disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national
interest. It is important to understand that when enacted, this
landmark statute received broad bipartisan support from
Republicans and Democrats, including Members from all points of
the compass, including especially the western states.
In fact, the primary sponsors and architects of the policy
were western Members of Congress who held numerous public
hearings over several years during the law's development. The
law itself was based on the recommendations of the bipartisan
Public Land Law Review Commission which was also comprised
largely of representatives from western states. So, in the
findings of H.R. 2852, to state that, ``the United States has
broken its solemn compact with the western states and breached
its fiduciary duty to the schoolchildren who are designated
beneficiaries of the sale of Federal land under the terms of
the respective Enabling Acts of the western states,'' is simply
not the case and is a misreading of the history of this issue.
In fact, by this logic one could equally argue that any Member
of Congress from the State of Utah who sponsors this
legislation is breaking Utah's solemn compact with the United
States by proposing such legislation because Utah's enabling
statute also states that, ``the people inhabiting said proposed
state do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right
and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the
boundaries thereof'', but we won't make that argument here.
Now, it is easy to see from any land ownership map of Utah,
and many other western states, that state and Federal land
ownership patterns do not necessarily provide for the optimal
management of either state lands or Federal lands. That is why
FLPMA provides for land exchanges. Those such exchanges between
the Federal Government and the western states are fraught with
difficulty. State and Federal land exchanges have occurred over
the years to the mutual benefit of the states and the Federal
Government, including Utah. In fact, I understand that members
of the Utah congressional delegation are considering some land
exchange proposals even now. In addition, there are better ways
to enhance the revenues the western states already receive from
Federal revenue transfer programs. For instance, the current
Federal royalty rate for oil and gas extracted from public land
is only 12 and a half percent, significantly below the royalty
rates charged by many western states. Wyoming, for instance,
charges 16 and two-thirds percent royalty on all the oil and
gas extracted from state lands and adds a six percent severance
tax to that for an effective rate of over 20 percent. Since the
Federal Government splits oil and gas royalty receipts from
operations on Federal lands 50/50 with the western states,
increasing the Federal royalty rate to say 20 percent would be
of obvious benefit to both American taxpayers and the
treasuries of the western states. In conclusion, our
recommendation is that instead of promoting a bill like H.R.
2852, which unnecessarily perpetuates conflicts,
misunderstandings and gridlock over the status and management
of America's public lands and national forests, the sponsors of
this legislation should change direction and seek out practical
solutions to the nettlesome issues of Federal state land and
resource ownership and stewardship. It does take time and
patience to arrive at solutions to these complicated issues
that serve the interest of all stakeholders, but Congress has
done this in the past and there is no reason it cannot be done
in the future. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Alberswerth follows:]
Statement of David Alberswerth, Senior Policy Advisor, The Wilderness
Society, on H.R. 2852, the ``Action Plan for Public Lands and Education
Act of 2011''
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of The Wilderness Society
regarding H.R. 2852, the ``Action Plan for Public Lands and Education
Act of 2011.'' My name is David Alberswerth, and I am a Senior Policy
Advisor to The Wilderness Society. The Wilderness Society works on
behalf of its 500,000 members and supporters to protect wilderness and
inspire Americans to care for our wild places and our public lands and
forests.
We oppose enactment of H.R. 2852, which essentially requires the
federal government to give away 5 percent of the ``unappropriated
public lands''--which by its quirky definition encompasses National
Forest System lands as well as those public lands managed by the Bureau
of Land Management--to each western state. This is an unwarranted and
unmerited giveaway of assets owned by all Americans to a select few
states.
We are somewhat surprised that such a proposal is being considered
at all, given the federal government's current budget woes. For, if
enacted, this bill would amount to giving away free-of-charge literally
tens of billions of dollars of American taxpayer assets without
compensation to those taxpayers, at a time of deepening concern about
the impacts of the federal deficit on our nation's fiscal future.
We instead support current law as articulated in Section 102(a)(1)
of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) that, ``the
public lands be retained in Federal ownership, unless as a result of
the land use planning procedure provided for in this Act, it is
determined that disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national
interest'' (43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(1)).
It is important to understand that this landmark statute received
broad bi-partisan support from Republicans and Democrats, including
Members from all points of the compass, including especially the
western states. In fact the primary sponsors and architects of the
policy of western public land retention in federal ownership at the
time of enactment were western Members of Congress, who held numerous
public hearings over several years during the law's development. The
law itself was based on the recommendations of the bi-partisan Public
Land Law Review Commission, which was comprised largely of
representatives from western states. So, to state in the findings of
H.R. 2852 that, ``The United States has broken its solemn compact with
the Western States and breached its fiduciary duty to the school
children who are designated beneficiaries of the sale of Federal land
under the terms of the respective enabling Acts of the Western
States,'' is simply not the case and a misreading of the history of the
issue of federal public land retention.
By this logic, one could equally argue that any Member of Congress
from the State of Utah who sponsors this legislation is breaking Utah's
``solemn compact'' with the United States of America by proposing such
legislation because Utah's enabling statute states that, ``. . .the
people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they
forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands
lying within the boundaries thereof. . .''
Now it is easy to see from any land ownership map of Utah and many
other western states that state and federal land ownership patterns do
not necessarily provide for the optimal management of either the state
lands or the federal lands. That is why FLPMA also provides for federal
land disposals and exchanges. And though such exchanges between the
federal government and the western states can be fraught with
difficulty, state/federal land exchanges have occurred over the years
to the mutual benefit of the states and the federal government--
including some successful ones sponsored by members of the Utah
Congressional delegation that have benefitted both Utah and the
citizens of the United States. In fact, I understand that members of
the Utah Congressional delegation are considering some land exchange
proposals even now.
In addition, there are other, better ways to enhance the revenues
the western states already receive from federal revenue transfer
programs. For instance, the current federal royalty rate for oil and
gas extracted from public lands is only 12.5 percent, significantly
below the royalty rates charge by many western states. For example,
Wyoming charges a 16.66% royalty on oil and gas extracted from state
lands, plus a 6% severance tax for an effective rate of over 20
percent. Since the federal government splits oil and gas royalty
receipts from operations on federal public lands 50-50 with the western
states, increasing the federal royalty rate to, say, 20 percent would
be of obvious benefit to both American taxpayers and the treasuries of
the states where oil and gas production occurs on federal lands.
In conclusion, our recommendation is that, instead of promoting a
bill like H.R. 2852 which unnecessarily perpetuates conflicts,
misunderstandings, and gridlock over the status and management of
America's public lands and national forests, the sponsors of this
legislation should change direction and seek out practical solutions to
the nettlesome issues of federal/state land and resource ownership
patterns. It does take time and patience to arrive at solutions to
these complicated issues that serve the interests of all stakeholders.
But, Congress has done this in the past--there is no reason it cannot
be done in the future.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate the witness' testimony. We will
now turn to our phase of questions. I will turn to the Chairman
of the full Committee, Mr. Hastings, if you have questions.
Mr. Hastings. Yes. For Mr. Sherman. I did not see it in
your written statement, but in your oral statement you
suggested that you are working on some NEPA reforms to
streamline the process. Did I hear you correctly?
Mr. Sherman. That is correct.
Mr. Hastings. Does that take congressional approval?
Mr. Sherman. No. The reforms that we are looking at are
ones that I believe----
Mr. Hastings. Well, let me ask you, you say it does not
take congressional approval.
Mr. Sherman. That is correct.
Mr. Hastings. When are you going to have them done?
Mr. Sherman. Well, we are implementing some right now and
we are working on others.
Mr. Hastings. But do we have what you are working on here?
Are you providing that to our Committee?
Mr. Sherman. I would be happy in greater detail to provide
an explanation of the range of modifications and improvements
that we are making to the NEPA process. I would be happy to do
that, Congressman.
Mr. Hastings. How soon can you get that to the Committee?
Mr. Sherman. We can get it to you within the next few
weeks, if that is acceptable to you.
Mr. Hastings. Well, the sooner, the better. OK.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
Mr. Hastings. OK. Thank you. Mr. Stahl, you said in your
written statement, in your written testimony, that the Secure
Rural Schools bill would require the secretary to cut beyond
the sustained yield. In my state of Washington, and I alluded
to this in my opening statement, they manage their timber land
on a sustained yield principle, the same thing, I assume, that
you are talking about. In Washington State they manage about
2.2 million acres which generated $168 million to their
requirements. In Washington State the Federal Government owns
nine million acres that generates $13.4, so it is kind of just
a reverse. How can you say, then, that this bill would make
somebody manage beyond a sustained yield?
Mr. Stahl. As I pointed out, it varies national forest by
national forest.
Mr. Hastings. I understand that. I am talking about
Washington State, and I am talking about Federal forests in
Washington State. I am making a direct comparison between those
two----
Mr. Stahl. Yes.
Mr. Hastings.--if you have that. So how do you say that?
Mr. Stahl. In Washington State at current timber prices----
Mr. Hastings. No. No, no, no, no, no. Wait, wait, wait.
That is going to vary what the prices are anytime. Prices go
up, it is going to be the same price that is going to go down.
I am talking about generating something like 700 percent more
on one-fourth of the land. So how can you say that this would
require beyond the sustained yield?
Mr. Stahl. Sustained yield is calculated on a national
forest by national forest basis.
Mr. Hastings. I am asking about Washington, and I am
comparing Washington. Tell me where I am wrong on what I am
asking you.
Mr. Stahl. Because you are talking about timber amounts,
not revenue amounts.
Mr. Hastings. No, I mentioned revenue. I mentioned revenue
here. What I mentioned is what the Department of Natural
Resources in Washington State generated, $168 million on 2.2.
You are generating $13.4 on nine.
Mr. Stahl. I am not generating it, the Forest Service----
Mr. Hastings. Somebody is.
Mr. Stahl. Right.
Mr. Hastings. All right.
Mr. Stahl. In large part it is because the Forest Service
has a different objective in choosing which trees to cut. The
Forest Service cuts trees for wildfire risk reduction.
Mr. Hastings. I apologize for--we are talking about
sustained yield, and the idea of the Secure Rural Schools bill
is to build revenue by having commercial activity on Federal
lands--sustained yield. We are comparing apples and apples.
Yet, you say it is beyond. I am getting frustrated because you
are not telling me why Washington State can do so much more on
lands that are comparable to the Federal Government.
Mr. Stahl. It has different lands and different objectives
than the national forests do. That is the reason why.
Mr. Hastings. Well, I find that hard to believe because
there are state lands that are right next to national forest
lands in Washington State. Those that do not yield as much are
the same, so I--well, Mr. Chairman, obviously I get frustrated
when I hear somebody saying this testimony when the facts,
particularly in Washington State, suggest exactly the opposite,
so thank you very much and I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. We will probably have another round
for you as well. Mr. Grijalva?
Mr. Grijalva. Thanks very much. Mr. Alberswerth, on the
APPLE initiative, we have heard testimony today that speaks to
the allegation that all the Federal land is not being used
effectively and it is not being turned over to the states as
per enabling legislation or whatever. One of the things,
according to official statistics, sir, at one time in the
history of our Federal Government, our nation owned 1.8 billion
acres in this country. That was about 80 percent of the land
mass. Over time, about 1.3 billion acres of that total have
left Federal ownership. So the feds at one time owned 80
percent, now they own 30 percent. To me, that sounds like the
Federal Government has used Federal land, particularly in the
West, very, very effectively in order to settle the West. Would
you agree with that assessment on the percentages?
Mr. Alberswerth. I think that the percentage is
approximately correct. I believe it is a little bit less than
30 percent now.
Mr. Grijalva. There will be some other rounds, but could
you describe some of the Federal programs which send, Mr.
Sherman, revenue from public lands to states. They include
PILT, Secure Rural Schools. There are others. If you could
maybe at least list those.
Mr. Sherman. Well, there are, and I will have to get back
to you on the specifics of this, for example, I believe mineral
royalties are shared to a certain extent with the states right
now. This is more in the purview of the Department of the
Interior than Department of Agriculture. There are obviously
all kinds of programs.
Mr. Grijalva. Well, there are direct economic payments and
then there are indirect benefits that come from the Federal
lands, and jobs, economic development, tourism dollars, all
that.
Mr. Sherman. Yes.
Mr. Grijalva. States get a share of the revenue from oil
and gas, and mining and grazing on Federal land. What would
happen if the Federal Government began to charge market rate
for these activities or began to charge a royalty on mining,
for example, which does not exist. Is that one way to get
direct payment and direct contributions of revenue to these
states?
Mr. Sherman. To charge additional royalties? Is that what
you are suggesting?
Mr. Grijalva. And to charge royalties where no royalties
exist.
Mr. Sherman. Well, it would be a way to generate additional
revenues. I think you would have to obviously determine what
the impact of that would be on the production levels that occur
in those states.
Mr. Grijalva. And I think one other. Let me follow up, Mr.
Sherman. Much was made about the levels of timber production in
the 1980s and 1990s compared to now. What has happened to
timber prices over that period? We keep using that 1990s
comparison, 1980s, 1990s, to right now. What happened to price?
Mr. Sherman. Timber prices have changed dramatically over
the past 20 years. I think today approximately the price for
1,000 board feet would be somewhere about 30 percent of what
one could have achieved 20 years ago. In certain regions of the
country that differential is even greater. It is probably an 80
percent difference. So there has been a precipitous drop in the
value of timber and we are probably near an all time low.
Mr. Grijalva. With reference to the Headwaters economic
study that maintains that at current SRS payment levels timber
cut levels would need to increase 259 percent to achieve the
value of timber receipts generated between 1980 and 2000, and
the cut levels would need to increase by 745 percent, Mr.
Sherman, is the 259 percent increase in cuts desirable, and is
it even possible to reach a level of a 745 percent increase?
Mr. Sherman. Well, it would obviously be extremely
difficult to reach those levels, and one of the reasons it
would be difficult to reach those levels is that today the cost
of producing timber is greater than the revenues that are
received so there is a budgetary impact and in order for the
Forest Service to oversee and administer these programs, we
simply do not have the resources to accomplish that because in
most cases across the country, not in all cases, but in most
cases, our budgets have to supplement timber sales so that the
work can get completed. The work is not just removing the
timber. The work relates to a lot of other factors that go into
any sort of timber sale or stewardship contract.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
important legislative hearing on a very important solution to
update the Secure Rural Schools program. I represent
southeastern Ohio which is home to the Wayne National Forest,
and while the counties in my district may not receive the same
level of payments that the counties in my colleague's district
from out west do, these payments are still an important revenue
stream for my counties. Our country is at a cross-roads when it
comes to our debt crisis and it is clear that the new formula
authorized for the program through the 2008 TARP bill is not
sustainable as we in Congress look for ways to reign in the
Federal debt. This draft legislation would help create a
dependable stream of revenue for the counties that depend on
the funding, while also setting a goal for annual revenue from
timber receipts.
Furthermore, this legislation would begin to roll back some
of the red tape that is slowing down timber production in this
country. As a 26 year plus veteran of the United States Air
Force, this proposal is the type of common sense idea that
seems to be missing from our nation's energy strategy. In the
Air Force we would plan, set goals and then go out and meet our
mission objectives to exceed those goals. This draft
legislation seems to set those goals for the Forest Service to
meet timber production goals across the nation. This
legislation also begins to make it easier for companies to
receive the permits necessary to begin timber production. Time
and again this year this Committee has heard from companies
that they were not able to get the environmental permits needed
to go forward with job creating projects.
This legislation would allow for an expedited review
process to help kick start timber production. Not surprisingly,
the Administration and the Department of the Interior have
testified against these common sense reforms. All year we have
heard no from Interior officials, which I have begun to refer
to, by the way, as the department of no. We hear them say no to
such common sense reforms like this that would speed up
responsible development of America's natural resources. Instead
of a department of no, this Committee and America needs a
partner at the bargaining table to engage in serious debate to
get a solution that satisfies all parties involved and breaks
the status quo. So I do have a couple of questions. Mr.
Swanson, in your testimony you spoke of the red tape and
administrative efficiencies that you see with the Forest
Service. Can you give us an idea of how much time and money
your company spends on regulatory and legal hurdles?
Mr. Swanson. The bulk of those costs are incurred by the
agency in the preparation of the sale and things, overreaching
regulations, like survey and manage, for example, where they
are required to go out there and on each and every project
search for, literally get on their hands and knees and search
for over 300 different species, including moss and you name it,
on a very small fraction of the landscape. Those are the kind
of things that have increased the cost of preparation of a
timber sale that do not exist on private land or on state
lands, and that is the reason why the Forest Service return has
dropped by 30 percent. When you look at what the cost of that
log is delivered to a mill, in the 1980s, you know, when it was
delivered to a mill it was $300 per 1,000 board feet. Today it
is $600 per 1,000 board feet. It is the preparation that has
caused the problem, and it is the logging systems and the lack
of productivity once the project is completed that has caused
the revenue to drop. You cannot have a timber sale where the
volume removed is so small that the cost of removal becomes so
large that there is nothing left for the land owner, in this
case, the Federal Government.
Mr. Johnson. All right. Well, thank you. Commissioner
Walter, you testified about Title I payments being offset by
state funding in the past. Can you comment on the importance of
sending Title I payments directly to rural schools without
being offset by state funding?
Mr. Walter. Well, absolutely. Our local schools, the way
the State of Washington has been handling it is they just put
the money into the state school fund and then it goes out by
the formula, so our local rural schools do not directly benefit
from that revenue. All schools, just like all local
governments, as well as the Federal and state government, are
looking at budget cuts so our local schools are being
penalized.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, thank you very much. My time has
expired, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. DeFazio?
Mr. DeFazio. Chairman, we are going to have more than one
round, right? Hopefully. OK. Because I have a lot of questions.
Mr. Sherman, first, I do want to start out, because your agency
often does not get thanked, I do want to thank you and your
agency. Earlier this year I contacted the agency. We had some
timber under the Rustler Project available on the Rogue
Siskiyou Forest, but there was nobody to lay out the sales. It
had already been through all the environmental approvals and
everything else, but they just did not have people to do it and
your agency did find some additional funds so that we can go
ahead and let those sales. It is particularly important in
southern Oregon, as Mr. Swanson can testify. So I want to start
there. I am going to ask you the same question I asked Mary
Wagner, the Associate Chief. You know, the President did
propose, as he did promise as a candidate numerous times, that
he would find some long-term solution to the Safe and Secure
County Rural Schools Act. He did propose in his budget this
year that this be funded at a level of $450 million.
Unfortunately, it appears that the $450 million is supposed to
come out of your budget. I asked Deputy, or Associate Chief
Wagner where the money was going to come from and she just kind
of said, well, we were hoping you knew. Are there ongoing
active discussions at the Administration on how you might fund
the continuation of this program?
Mr. Sherman. Congressman, I think the Administration is
certainly willing to have a dialogue with this Committee and
Congress over what the appropriate source of funding for this
program would be. In the President's budget it is funded on a
discretionary basis out of four service funds, but we are
willing to talk to you about where the best source would be. It
potentially could be from a mandatory source or it could be
from the Forest Service budget. I think we have to determine
this on a bipartisan basis working with Congress.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, I would suggest that, you know, and I
did support the President's initiative this week on the Buffett
rule on taxes, and when the President, you know, is forceful
and pushes an issue that I think is good for the country and
good for the budget and all the problem is confronted, I
support him. In this case, I have to say I am pretty
disappointed that we are now at this point and you are willing
to have a dialogue. I mean, so you have no proposals or ideas.
I mean October 1, the last payment. I just had one county
notify the Governor of my state, Curry County, that if their
initiative on the ballot to increase property taxes fails, and
the last one failed by a margin of three to one, that
essentially the county will have to dissolve. They will be
incapable of meeting their basic state mandatory requirements.
There will be no deputy sheriffs, there will be no jail, there
will be no public health in a very large area, and this is
likely to occur in other counties in my district. This is
something that needs urgent attention.
Mr. Sherman. Congressman, we agree with you it does need
urgent attention. The problems you are raising are real
problems and we are prepared to sit down as soon as possible
with this Committee and others to talk about how we achieve
that end goal.
Mr. DeFazio. I am not going to ask you about the O&C lands.
That is not your jurisdiction and I will get to that with other
witnesses in my second round. On the Forest Service lands, I
just went back and looked at the history, the highest level of
harvest ever was 12.7 billion board feet. I do not think, you
know, I do not even believe this bill would propose we go back
to that, but let us just say that we went to levels of 12.7
billion board feet referring to the beginning of my questions.
As I understand it, it costs the Forest Service $111 per 1,000
board feet, and Steve would say that a number of that is due to
the requirements put on you, but I understand the industry, it
costs about $80 1,000 board feet on private lands. If you got
the $80 1,000 board feet, and just roughly figuring this out,
it looks like it would cost you a little over $1 billion to
produce that timber, which of course is considerably more than
continuing county payments. Is that accurate?
Mr. Sherman. That is accurate. I mean I do not know the
exact details, I would have to examine the figures you are
mentioning, but right now, again, the cost of these timber
sales far exceed the revenues. This is in part because of the
very low prices that you can get these days for timber.
Mr. DeFazio. Well not, actually, that is not totally true
in our region. I see my time has expired but I would like, and
I will provide maybe a more specific question, but I would like
the agency to follow up on their costs, compare their costs to
industry costs, but give me, you know, bottom line on both what
it would cost to produce that much timber. Just my rough
calculation is it would cost twice as much as the current
payments, which means maybe we ought to just find the money in
your budget. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. You will get another
shot at these guys, too. Mr. McClintock?
Mr. McClintock. Well, Mr. Sherman, I would like to follow
up on Congressman DeFazio's line of questioning. We have the
same situation in my region. When you say, well, this is
because of the decline of lumber prices. The decline of lumber
prices is significant but we just last year had several mills
close in my district and they were very clear on the reason for
the closure. It was not because of the economy, it was because
they could not get enough logs to justify keeping these mills
open. Each one came with about 300 jobs destroyed, a spin off
factor of about three to one. These are small communities. This
is absolutely devastating to them. It concerns me when an
official of the Forest Service comes before the Subcommittee
directly responsible for this conduct and is told do not worry,
it is just the market. Well, it is not just the market and that
has been very clear, and anybody who has been following these
issues, even tangentially, should know that. I find it
disturbing that you would come here and make that kind of
representation. Do you want to modify it?
Mr. Sherman. Congressman, I think the market is one factor,
but there are other factors as well and I would be happy to
amplify with some of those other----
Mr. McClintock. The principal factor that was cited in
these mill closures was the dwindling supply of timber coming
from Federal lands. Now, if you look at the District of
Columbia, the seat of our government, with all of its
government buildings and government parks, the sprawling Mall,
the museums and all of the government buildings, the Federal
Government owns about 25 percent of the land area of the
District of Columbia. It owns 70 percent of Plumas County in my
district. It owns most of the service area of most of the
counties in my district. When we were managing that land in a
sustainable manner it supported a thriving economy. We were the
heart of the gold country. Sutter's Mill is in my district. Now
we have gold mines that have been operating under several
generations for 100 years closing down their operations not
because of the falling price of gold, but rather because the
Forest Service refuses to act on their permits.
It is not telling them no, it is simply refusing to act on
them. We had thriving timber harvests and now we are facing
mill closures across the district. We had thriving grazing
operations that are now being forced off of the Federal lands
by continual bureaucratic harassment by your department.
Recreation and tourism. I have Lake Tahoe in my district and
yet you are doing wholesale road closures throughout the
forests that are absolutely essential to tourism, not to
mention refusing to grant permits to community events that have
been going on for generations and that a lot of these small
towns depend upon for their tourism. I have to ask you, if you
are not going to relinquish these lands, what are you going to
do to use this tremendous asset that you are sitting on to
restore prosperity to these communities?
Mr. Sherman. Congressman, in my opening statement, I did
outline I think a variety of very affirmative, positive steps
that the Forest Service is taking to increase our production of
timber on Federal lands.
Mr. McClintock. But you are not increasing it. It has
declined.
Mr. Sherman. We, in fact, are increasing it, Congressman.
Mr. McClintock. Sir, I am sorry, but in our region it has
actually declined.
Mr. Sherman. Well, I will double check the figures in your
region but in the last two years the Forest Service sales and
production on Federal lands have increased. We have been able
to reverse this downward trend.
Mr. McClintock. We cannot even get fire, salvage fire
killed timber because the litigation delays the process beyond
the period where that timber can be salvaged.
Mr. Sherman. Well, there are improvements on the litigation
front as well. We are seeing a decrease in litigation, we are
seeing a significant decrease in the amount of timber sales
that are appealed. I believe we are making progress on a number
of fronts.
Mr. McClintock. Well, that is because there is a decrease
in the timber sales.
Mr. Sherman. No.
Mr. McClintock. I would invite you to come to a little
county, like Plumas County, of which you own 70 percent. You
are the lord of the land in Plumas County. They are suffering
20 percent unemployment and complaining bitterly about your
department's conduct as the landlord for their county.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. McClintock. Mr. Labrador?
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sherman, how
does the Administration view the SRS program at this time? Do
you think it should be a permanent program, in your view, or
transitional, as it was originally intended.
Mr. Sherman. We believe the Secure Rural Schools program is
an important program, but this is a program which was meant to
phase out over a period of time when we could find alternative
ways of supporting rural schools and counties. We continue to
believe that we need to find that alternate approach. In the
interim, though, because of the importance of this program to
counties and schools, the President has proposed a five year
extension of this program.
Mr. Labrador. If you think it is transitional, or it should
be, you call that an alternate approach, what should that
alternate approach be?
Mr. Sherman. Well, I think there are a variety of solutions
here that we need to consider. There may be some other ways for
the Federal Government to provide assistance to these local
communities. We need to discuss how we can increase certain
productivity on Federal lands, such as you are doing today.
There may be other ways to discuss how we can create and assist
rural communities with economic development activities. So
there are a variety of ways that need to be explored. I think
we need to do this clearly on a bipartisan basis and try to
come up with a permanent solution.
Mr. Labrador. So obviously you agree with us that, you
know, we have a deficit and budget situation at this time and
there are constraints that we are dealing with and we are
facing at this time. So you do agree that there should be a
revenue stream from our public lands that must be part of this
equation.
Mr. Sherman. Absolutely. You know, public lands are an
important way to provide revenue to local communities. The
public lands also, though, I should mention, have multiple
uses. Some of these uses are economic uses and some of them are
noneconomic uses. So we have to find a balance that works for
all Americans.
Mr. Labrador. Do you think that revenue streams should come
now during whatever--you know, I do not know how long we are
going to extend it, if we are going to extend it at all, but
let us say we do a five year extension like you are suggesting.
Should there be revenue ideas coming at this time so we can
start using different pilot projects or things like that?
Mr. Sherman. I think we have to, across the board, explore
ways to provide revenue streams, to provide jobs, provide
economic opportunities for rural communities. Some of these
will relate to timber production, some will relate to hazardous
fuel reduction, nonrenewable energy opportunities, other energy
opportunities, recreation, tourism. There is a variety, a
panoply of possibilities here that need to be constantly
explored and investigated. These solutions do not work
overnight. They take time to develop. We are going to have to
work collectively to try to come up with an approach that works
for rural America and the West.
Mr. Labrador. What is your agency doing right now to help
these communities provide revenue streams?
Mr. Sherman. Well, one of the things that we are doing that
I am very proud of is that we are working very hard to set up
collaborative efforts within these communities to identify
projects where everyone can agree going forward. We, I think,
have been very successful in people coming together who never
worked together before but now they are. They are exploring
ways in which to work together on particular timber sales, or
recreation projects, or energy projects. This is a very
important development. I mentioned to the congressman that the
level of appeals, the level of litigations have decreased
recently, which I think is a reflection of that. We are working
on larger landscape scale projects which are more efficient
where there is greater output. We are working on partnerships
with local partners to how they can join us to jointly explore
the development of a project, to help us to fund projects. So
there are many ways we can do this, and I believe the Forest
Service is working very hard to explore these ways.
Mr. Labrador. You know, several Idaho counties, which I
represent the State of Idaho, have developed an alternative
proposal to the SRS payments that they call a community forest
trust and are asking us to approve a pilot project on this
concept. I know they have sent a copy to the Forest Service for
suggestions, and also to seek technical assistance in some of
the practical details. Have you seen this proposal?
Mr. Sherman. I have not, but I would be happy to look into
it and get back to you.
Mr. Labrador. So if we get that to you, you will get back
to us and give us some ideas?
Mr. Sherman. I would be happy to do that.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Let me ask a couple of questions as
well. Senator Urquhart first. As was indicated by my colleague
here, at one time, 80 percent of America was owned by the
Federal Government. My guesstimate would be to you that perhaps
those were in the territories of the United States was owned by
the Federal Government, not the states.
Mr. Urquhart. Well, you start with the northwest ordinance.
The United States owned lands in just about every state other
than the original 13, Tennessee, Texas, and, as you say,
Hawaii. You know, the bit that the territory to become a state
would relinquish title and claim to the Federal lands, that
goes back to all of our states, and so then the Federal
Government would sell off those lands. So this is not anything
wonderful to celebrate, that the Federal Government has honored
its obligation in a number of states, but it decided to breach
its obligation when it came to the western states.
Mr. Bishop. So it is true that they had close to 80 percent
of the territory and that was a funding mechanism for the
Federal Government. In the 1830s we hit a high of 24 percent of
all Federal revenue came from sale of lands in the territories.
It is also kind of cool that in the 1840s the Federal
Government tried to hold on to the land in Alabama once it
became a state and the Supreme Court said since you cannot do
that in Georgia, you cannot do it in Alabama. Once it becomes a
state the Federal Government actually has to go back to the
Constitution as to what lands it can actually hold. It would
not be nice if precedent were to change that way. Senator
Urquhart, in the State of Utah with the large growth rate that
is coming in the school systems, what sources of revenue do you
have for paying for those number of kids coming in, sans
something like this?
Mr. Urquhart. Well, I mean we have the property tax, which
again, not much of our property is on the tax rolls, we have
sales tax, we have income tax. You know, we tax heavily. It is
absolutely ridiculous to me that we live in a nation that has
spiraling debt, we desperately need jobs and we have resources
that we cannot tap. If we could eat collaboration, if we could
pay our bills with collaboration, I get the feeling we would be
set, but unfortunately, we need jobs, we need resources, and
that is what Utah needs to educate its kids.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Sherman, I understand you once
served on the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission. Colorado
requires, or receives, oil and gas receipts and revenue sharing
from those Federal lands in Colorado. If the Federal
restrictions and policies drastically reduced those receipts,
do you believe it is the taxpayers' responsibility to replace
that funding?
Mr. Sherman. Are you saying if restrictions----
Mr. Bishop. If the Federal Government cut off the money
that you naturally get, is it the responsibility of the
taxpayers to replace that? This is a yes or no thing here.
Mr. Sherman. Well, it is hard to, I am not quite sure I
understand the question.
Mr. Bishop. Well, we will continue the dialogue. We are
doing a great job with your department on that. Mr. Walter,
Commissioner Walter, if I could ask you how significant SRS
flexibility would be for local government if indeed we are
going to have changes in the scale of money that comes to you,
maybe even the process, flexibility to put those where you need
to put them. How important is that?
Mr. Walter. Well, I think that is very important. To put it
in perspective, like I mentioned, we have 80 percent of our
land base in Federal ownership. If you take the other public
ownership, we only have 13 percent of our land base in private
ownership. The Federal payments make up about three percent of
our total revenues. That is significant in a $30 million
budget, but sometimes, you know, having those funds restricted,
we are struggling to meet priorities. For instance, we use
about $60,000 of Title III funds to address search and rescue.
As of the first of July, our bill for search and rescue
exceeded $100,000. So, you know, it just would help us, I
think, do a better job in meeting and responding to the changes
as we see them.
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate that. Mr. Sherman, I will ask you
to comment because this was another question to ask you about.
What other means does the Federal Government have of supplying
revenue toward states? I will just give you some statistics and
ask for your comment on that. I have 30 seconds to get this
done. I apologize for being so short. The bottom line is, you
know, even with the Federal presence in the State of Utah, you
do not add much to our economy. The last year for which I have
figures, the Federal expenditure per capita in Utah is 77
percent the national average, which means in Utah we got $4,338
per capita while the national average was $5,666 per capita,
which means we are being--the eastern states that have all
their land and develop them actually get $1,300 a month per
capita more than we do living in the West. Do you want to
respond to that?
Mr. Sherman. I would like to have an----
Mr. Bishop. Actually, let me give you a chance to respond
to that in the next round that I have because I am over here,
and I apologize. I will let you think about that. You are not
adding much to our economy. Why do you add more to the eastern
economy than you do the western economy even though you have
all our land? With that, Mr. Grijalva, do you have another
round of questions?
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sherman, the
discussion draft would allow counties to sue in cases where
they feel the Forest Service is not generating enough revenue.
What are the dangers in this kind of approach, basically
turning Secure Rural Schools into an entitlement program where
the beneficiaries can sue the Federal Government?
Mr. Sherman. Congressman, I am concerned about that
provision because there may be many factors beyond the control
of the Forest Service in terms of providing a certain level of
receipts or revenues. Prices, markets, certain types of
regulations, lawsuits, you could go through a whole variety of
possibilities where the Secretary could simply not deliver the
level of revenues that are projected. So, yes, that concerns
us.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Stahl, your written testimony
points out that this is not really a trust proposal because it
contains no requirement where the asset, the asset being the
national forest, be preserved or protected. In fact, given the
mandatory targets, could not the proposal lead to an
unsustainable harvest of the forest so its trust that will
guaranty the loss of its only asset?
Mr. Stahl. That is right. By setting up a revenue target
that is mandatory, that has to be met, the Secretary is
compelled to do anything on the national forests that is
necessary to meet those targeted revenues, and at the same time
this bill eliminates all of the environmental restrictions,
eliminates the sustained yield law, eliminates competitive
bidding, eliminates advertisement of timber sales. So it
removes any legal constraints on what the Secretary might have
to do except----
Mr. Grijalva. To meet the target.
Mr. Stahl.--to meet the target. That becomes the only legal
requirement enforceable by the counties.
Mr. Grijalva. In your written testimony you also indicate
that there could be harmful effects from the proposal, harmful
impacts to stewardship contracting. Can you quickly elaborate
just a bit on that?
Mr. Stahl. Stewardship contracting, which is used to
minimize wildfire risk, is financed out of the value of the
timber that is traded to the contractor for performing services
in the woods. This bill requires that timber value to meet the
mandatory revenue targets for the counties, thus depriving
stewardship contracts of their funding.
Mr. Grijalva. So you could actually harm efforts to reduce
the risk of wildfire.
Mr. Stahl. You would almost certainly have to do that
because to meet these revenue targets you would have to harvest
the more valuable trees, which tend to be the most fire-
resistant, and you would have to leave the least valuable trees
because you cannot afford to take them out and meet the target,
which tend to be the most fire-prone.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Alberswerth, some of the
testimony we have heard today claims that Congress somehow
broke a promise to the states with the passage of the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Specifically, the claim
is that the Act stopped Federal land sales. That is not true.
In fact, isn't Section 203 of the Act entitled sales?
Mr. Alberswerth. Yes, sir, it is.
Mr. Grijalva. And so land sales was still allowed under
Federal law and the same law also allows other forms of land
disposals, such as exchanges, is that correct?
Mr. Alberswerth. That is correct.
Mr. Grijalva. So what the APPLE initiative seeks to do is,
you know, we heard from the colleague, the Senator, that some
of the lands went to the states, like Utah. We also heard about
some selective referencing to Utah's statehood agreement, but
so far no one has mentioned that about becoming a state, Utah
received more than six million acres of Federal land for things
like schools, hospitals and courthouses. So I think as we go
forward with both legislation that one of the things that we
really do need is a factual basis of the discussion as to what
is really available, what is the revenue stream that is
realistic and the issues of royalties on mining, the issues of
increasing royalty demands of other extractions on the public
lands as an additional source for the states to be able to use
on their schools and as a revenue source for those counties. I
think those have to be equally explored as much as we are
exploring this particular discussion today. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Labrador, do you have another
round of questions? Mr. DeFazio, you are up?
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Swanson, I would
like to pose something to you. My major focus here is on the
O&C lands which are statutorily and physically unique and
management-wise, they are managed by the BLM and not by the
Forest Service. I have been meeting with other members of the
delegation and proposing that we move forward with a true
trust, a fiduciary trust, for these lands. I think you are a
little bit familiar with what we have proposed or what we have
tentatively proposed. It is not in any way in final form. In a
long-term solution do you think there is an opportunity to
provide something on those lands that could bring all the
stakeholders to the table? I mean you live there, you know the
area. You know, what I would propose, that the industry gets a
more predictable volume. Generally, they would be smaller
diameter trees, which I think you are pretty well set up to
process. The counties, as I referenced earlier, are looking at
an economic precipice of, you know, not even being able to
provide the most basic mandatory services under state law. They
would get a permanent source of revenues. Then the conservation
community would get two trusts, one a conservation trust and
one a timber trust, and would get permanent protection of the
most sensitive lands. Do you think there is a way we could work
this through?
Mr. Swanson. Well, I think there certainly is a way we can
work it through. As always, the Devil is in the details. You
would have to get out on the ground and decide what portions
were going to be preserved, what portions were going to be used
for timber production, and it is a simple mathematical
calculation that the more you set aside, the more intensely you
will have to work on those that are not set aside. You know, we
certainly stand willing to work with you on that proposal or
any variation of that proposal.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. Mr. Stahl, I know that you are
familiar with this idea. In fact, I think you proposed an
iteration of it. Would you want to address essentially that
same question? Also, very quickly outline major differences
between what you have proposed, what you understand that I and
the other members of the delegation might be proposing and the
proposal regarding Forest Service lands here.
Mr. Stahl. The major difference is that the Committee's
proposed bill does not have any land in the trust. It defines
the trust as a revenue stream, as a fund. The proposal that the
Oregon delegation is discussing would define two trusts to be
land. That would be what would be held in trust. The trustee's
obligations would be to the land and the revenue stream that
results from management of that trust would go to the counties,
and the trust that would be protected land to provide other
services, such as recreation, and wildlife habitat, and water
quality and the like, those lands would be preserved. Their
financing would come out of a portion of the timber trust
revenue. One of the biggest differences between your proposal
and the Committee's is your proposal does not cost the Treasury
a nickel. The Committee's proposal threatens to cost the
Treasury an untold amount of money to meet these revenue
targets.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. I mean there is, I think, a few other
major differences. You know, the delegation has not proposed
that we suspend all environmental laws and all due process in
order to move forward with this. Do you think that would be
necessary to move forward with the trust proposal, to do what
the Committee is proposing on Forest Service land?
Mr. Stahl. I do not see any way that the Committee's
proposal can reach revenue targets comparable to the Secure
Rural Schools payments without the, for lack of a better word,
radical proposal to eliminate 30 years of environmental loss.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Thank you. So, Mr. Chairman, I did not get
an opening statement and I have one for the record. I am
continuing to work with my delegation. The O&C lands are
totally statutorily unique and we hope to be able to present
the Committee with a thoughtful proposal that has support of
all the stakeholders which would include, you know, obviously
the folks who live there, my county commissioners, the industry
and conservation groups. We are working as quickly as we can,
and we appreciate the potential opportunity to provide that for
Title II. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. All Members have the
ability of putting a statement in the record. I appreciate
also. Looking forward to your comments on the O&C land issues
in that portion of it. Mr. Stahl, let me ask you one last
question. Your testimony questions the nature of the trust
proposed in this legislation on the grounds that the trust is
not based on real property. Do you believe the legislation
should instead identify a specific amount of Forest Service
land to be put into the trust for the counties as you were
proposing for BLM land in western Oregon?
Mr. Stahl. I think that is an interesting question. I would
look forward to seeing such a proposal from the Committee if
you wanted to put it out.
Mr. Bishop. So you think it ought to be done?
Mr. Stahl. My testimony focused on what you did.
Mr. Bishop. So do you think it ought to be done?
Mr. Stahl. I would be fascinated to see it. One thing you
should recognize is----
Mr. Bishop. Well, maybe we can engage in some of the
discussions with the Forest Service that are ongoing as well.
Mr. Stahl. I think that would be great.
Mr. Bishop. Go ahead.
Mr. Stahl. Well, what differentiates the O&C lands, for
instance, from lands in your state is the incredibly higher
productivity of O&C lands for growing timber. If you want to
set aside timber growing lands, in most of the interior western
states, those lands will lose money.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. That is why we look to the BLM as
well for the addition to that. Mr. Alberswerth, can I ask you
one last question? Is there not precedent for states selecting
territory? Let me give you a specific example. The State of
Nevada when they were able to get their school trust lands were
given the authority to select the lands they wanted to be part
of those state school trust lands. Is that not precedent for
the idea of states actually being able to select lands for
certain public purposes?
Mr. Alberswerth. Well, I think the best way to deal with
the situation in your state is to do----
Mr. Bishop. No, no, no.
Mr. Alberswerth.--land exchanges of the sort that----
Mr. Bishop. No, no. Come on. Come back to the question I
asked. It is a nice answer, but it is----
Mr. Alberswerth. Is there precedent for that?
Mr. Bishop. Is there not precedent for doing that? The
answer is yes. You cannot give me another answer. The answer is
yes because we have done it.
Mr. Alberswerth. Well, you have just answered your own
question.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Alberswerth. I am not sure it is relevant to what we
really need to do here.
Mr. Bishop. It was a darn good answer, too. I appreciate
all of you having been here for these questions. We will
continue discussion on the SRS issue, we will continue
discussion on APPLE because the western states deserve to be
treated fairly, and we deserve to stop harming kids in the
West, which is, Mr. Sherman, the one message I want you to take
back to the Forest Service Department. Quit hurting kids. With
that, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Peter DeFazio, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Oregon
Thank you Chairman Bishop and Chairman Hastings for this
opportunity. And thank you for organizing this hearing on such an
important topic.
I want to welcome the witnesses, two of which are from my district.
Steve Swanson, President of Swanson Group, and Andy Stahl, Executive
Director of FSEEE, know these issues as well as anyone. I know they
will provide very useful and informative testimonies to this Committee,
although, maybe from slightly different perspectives. Steve and Andy,
and to the other witnesses, welcome and thanks for being here.
Most of today's hearing will focus on Title I of Chairman Hastings'
draft bill. Title I applies exclusively to the management of national
forest lands and the United States Forest Service.
However, I would like to take a moment to talk briefly about Title
II of the draft bill, entitled ``Other Federal Forest Lands.'' For the
last several months I have been working with Rep. Greg Walden, Rep.
Kurt Schrader, Governor Kitzhaber, and other members of the Oregon
Delegation on a proposal I hope to eventually include in this section.
And I appreciate the willingness by both Chairman Bishop and Chairman
Hastings to work with me and the Oregon Delegation on this proposal.
The proposal I am working on is for a unique set of lands in
Western Oregon, called the O&C Lands. They consist of 2.4 million acres
of checkerboard forestland and are managed by the Bureau of Land
Management. The O&C Lands are not national forests. In fact, the O&C
Lands are managed under a special statute, called the O&C Lands Act of
1937, which specifies that the 2.4 million acres shall be managed to
provide for permanent timber production through long-term sustained
yield forestry to help support local communities and local governments.
The O&C Lands have been at the center of intense and emotional
controversy for the last several decades. But, one thing is clear: the
status quo of management for the O&C Lands is not working. It's not
working for rural counties who depend on timber receipts to provide
basic county services. It's not working for the timber industry that
depends on the land for a steady supply of timber to support mills and
create jobs. And, it's not working for those who want to see lasting
protection for the remaining old growth and most sensitive areas on the
landscape. Legal and political unknowns have created enormous
uncertainty for everyone.
What I envision for the O&C Lands has never been done before; and,
frankly, it's very different from what's being proposed in Title I.
What I am proposing is an ``outside the box'' idea for a unique, and
extremely complex set of challenges we face in Western Oregon.
In general terms, the idea is to divide the O&C Lands into two
fiduciary trusts: a timber trust and conservation trust. While the O&C
Lands would remain in public ownership, the trusts and day-to-day
operations would be managed by boards of trustees.
The timber trust would include approximately half the lands and be
managed for sustainable timber production. The Timber Board of Trustees
would be authorized to engage in a long-term lease, which would be
competitively bid. Revenues from the lease would be used to provide O&C
Counties with a predictable level of revenue on an annually basis for
education, infrastructure, and law enforcement.
The conservation trust would include all lands not designated for
the timber trust, and provide permanent protection for old growth and
the most sensitive areas on the landscape. The conservation trust would
not be managed under a ``no touch'' policy. Rather, the mission would
be to manage the land predominantly for forest health, fuel reduction,
and to protect wildlife and critical watersheds.
I continue to work with Rep. Walden, Rep. Schrader, the Governor,
and the Oregon Delegation on many outstanding details. But, the
potential benefits for key stakeholders and the federal government are
real. Here's why the proposal deserves serious consideration by this
Committee and the House of Representatives:
It would save the federal government money and provide a net
benefit to the American taxpayer. Under my proposal, the BLM would no
longer manage the O&C Lands. This would provide a savings to the
federal government of over $100 million over 10 years.
Under my proposal, a portion of the revenues generated by the
lease(s) of the timber trust would be paid to the U.S. Treasury,
perhaps as much as $100 million.
And, under my proposal, after a transition period the O&C Counties
would no longer receive Secure Rural Schools payments. Whatever the
final outcome of the SRS program, this proposal would allow O&C
Counties to be financially self-sufficient, again saving the federal
government hundreds of millions of dollars over the next decade.
I look forward to presenting my proposal to the Committee in more
definitive form, hopefully in very the near future. And, again, I want
to thank Chairman Bishop and Chairman Hastings for expressing their
interest in working with me and the Oregon Delegation to bring some
finality to the challenges posed by the O&C Lands.
______
Statement for the Record by the U.S. Department of the Interior on H.R.
2852, ``Action Plan for Public Lands and Education Act of 2011''
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on H.R. 2852,
the ``Action Plan for Public Lands and Education Act''. This
legislation would make land grants to 13 western states of millions of
acres of Federal lands (public lands managed by the Bureau of Land
Management and National Forest System lands managed by the U.S. Forest
Service) within each state. As a result of these land grants, billions
of dollars of public land revenues and resources that now benefit all
Americans would be diverted instead to just 13 western states. H.R.
2852 would increase the federal budget deficit by depriving U.S.
taxpayers of current revenues, and would leave to each state the
decision to close off access, sell, or lease lands conveyed to the
state. The bill also would jeopardize existing protections for natural,
cultural, and historic resources located on public lands by taking the
lands out of federal ownership. This legislation is fiscally and
environmentally irresponsible and would irrevocably change America and
the American West. The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 2852.
Background
Congress has long recognized the national interest in preserving
and conserving the public lands for present and future generations of
Americans. In 1976, Congress declared it the policy of the United
States that ``. . .the public lands be retained in federal ownership,
unless as a result of land use planning. . .it is determined that
disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national interest''
(Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA); Public Law 94-
579).
The 245 million acres of public lands managed by the BLM are
extraordinarily diverse. They include desert mountain ranges, alpine
tundra, forests, expanses of rangeland and red rock canyons. Consistent
with FLPMA, the BLM manages these lands for multiple uses: recreation,
grazing, forestry, mineral development, watershed protection, fish and
wildlife conservation, wilderness values, air and water quality, and
soil conservation. In addition to their tremendous resources, the
public lands feature countless extraordinary places, including
Arizona's San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area; the world-
class off-highway-vehicle (OHV) area at Imperial Sand Dunes in
California (with over 1.4 million OHV visitors per year); Utah's
Slickrock Bike Trail; Nevada's Red Rock Canyon National Conservation
Area; and Oregon's Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area--to name just
a few.
The public lands contain invaluable scenic, historic, and cultural
sites as well. Archaeological, historic, and paleontological properties
on BLM-managed lands form the most important body of cultural resources
in the United States. These include the 11,700-year-old Mesa site in
the Brooks Range, Alaska, which preserves some of the earliest evidence
of human migration to the North American continent, and the prehistoric
Anasazi complex that extends across portions of Utah, Arizona, and
Colorado. There are also historic sites dating from more recent
periods, including the remains of Spanish exploration in the southwest,
portions of the original trails used by settlers moving westward, and
significant Native American religious sites. Public lands in several
western states contain prehistoric petroglyphs and dinosaur fossils. In
fact, six entirely new species of dinosaur have been discovered on BLM-
managed lands in Utah.
Including BLM-managed public lands, the Department of the Interior
manages nearly 500 million acres of lands throughout the United States
for the benefit of the American people. In addition, the Department
holds in trust over 55 million acres of lands for specific Indian
Tribes. Additional Federal lands include the approximately 193 million
acres managed as National Forest System lands by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and the nearly 30 million acres managed by the Department
of Defense. Other Federal holdings include sites conducting highly
sensitive research work such as the Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore and
Idaho National Laboratories. As detailed in the Department of the
Interior's Economic Contributions Report, dated June 21, 2011, all told
the Federal government holds over 600 million acres of lands that
provide innumerable benefits to the American people. In 2010 alone,
these benefits included:
Oil, gas, coal, hydropower, wind power, geothermal
power, and other mineral activities on Federal lands, both
onshore and offshore, that supported 1.3 million jobs and $246
billion in economic activity.
Use of water, timber, forage, and other resources
produced from Federal lands supported about 370,000 jobs and
$48 billion in economic activity in 2010.
Americans and foreign visitors made some 439 million
visits to Interior-managed lands. These visits supported over
388,000 jobs and contributed over $47 billion in economic
activity.
As a subset of the foregoing totals, BLM's management
of Federal lands has an impact of over $122 billion on the
national economy and supports over 550,000 American jobs.
The coal, oil and gas, geothermal, wind and solar energy resources
of the public lands are used to meet our national energy needs, help
achieve energy independence, and spur economic development throughout
the United States. These public land resources assure all Americans,
not only those residing in the western states, of a reliable domestic
energy supply.
State Trust Lands
Most of the lands administered by the BLM are what remain from the
original 1.8 billion acres--known as public domain lands--that were
acquired by the United States government on behalf of all Americans
through treaty or purchase. As a condition of entry to the Union,
western territories agreed that ``unappropriated'' public domain lands
within their boundaries belonged to the people of the United States. In
return for renouncing any claims, new states entering the Union
received land grants under their enabling acts. The amount of federal
land granted for schools depended upon the date of statehood.
Under the Land Grant Ordinance of 1785, states entering the Union
after that date were granted section 16 in each township to support
public schools. In 1853, California was granted two sections (16 and
36) in each township, establishing the standard grant for new states,
except that Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah were granted four sections
(2, 16, 32, and 36) for schools. Historically many western states have
sold land given to them by the Federal government in order to generate
revenues.
At one time the Federal government held title to more than 80
percent of the land in the United States. Today less than 30 percent of
the land in the United States still remains in federal ownership, with
the vast remainder of this land transferred to private entities and
state institutions as a part of the settlement of the American
frontier. Among the millions of acres that passed out of Federal
ownership during this period were more than eighty million acres of
``state trust lands''--lands that were granted to the newly-organized
states.
H.R. 2852--Summary
H.R. 2852, the ``Action Plan for Public Lands and Education Act of
2011'' would transfer large swaths of BLM and National Forest System
lands from federal ownership, where they currently benefit all
Americans, to the ownership of individual Western states. Sec. 3(b)
allows the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii,
Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming to select to receive from unappropriated public lands within
each state the number of acres equivalent to five percent of the total
Federal land base in the respective states, in a manner to be
determined by each state legislature. The bill defines ``unappropriated
public lands'' as all public lands managed by the BLM or the Forest
Service, excluding: land that is held in trust as part of an Indian
reservation; located within a United States military reservation; a
unit of the National Park System; a Wildlife Refuge; a Wilderness Area
designated by Congress; a National Historic Site; a National Monument;
a National Natural Landmark; an Area of Critical Environmental Concern;
or a Wilderness Study Area. H.R. 2852 would place the lands selected by
each state in the hands of the state agency empowered to sell or lease
such lands, the proceeds of which are to be used for public education.
(Sec. 3(e)).
H.R. 2852 Sec. 3(b)(2) requires the Secretary of the Interior to
calculate the exact acreage of Federally-owned land within each state,
defined in Sec. 3(f)(4) as all land held by the United States within
that state, including land held in trust, military reservations, Indian
Reservations and any other land used for Federal purposes. Over 600
million acres in the western states are owned by the Federal
government; five percent of that amount is nearly 30 million acres.
Finally, the intent of the legislation is that states could and
would select revenue-producing public lands and resources. Under Sec.
3(d), all mineral, oil, and gas rights to the land selected by the
Western States under this Act would become the property of the relevant
Western State unless the Federal lessee is making royalty payments to
the United States from production of minerals, oil, or gas. After the
expiration of the Federal leases or the termination of production in
paying quantities from the Federal lease, the entire mineral, oil, and
gas estate would become the property of the relevant Western State. In
addition, Sec. 3(c) of H.R. 2852 provides that selection and transfer
of lands under this Act are not major Federal actions that would
trigger application of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Alternate Sources of Revenues for Western States
The Administration fully appreciates the desire for additional
revenue generation by Western states. It is essential that the American
taxpayers--in the individual Western states and nationally--receive a
fair return from those who extract value from the public lands. We
strongly encourage this Committee and the Congress to consider and pass
proposals in the President's FY2012 budget submission which would
accomplish those aims.
Specifically, the Administration proposes changes to the mining
laws that would generate significant income by moving the mining of
gold, silver, lead, zinc, copper, uranium and molybdenum on public
lands into the existing solid mineral leasing program. Under the
proposal, new mining of these valuable minerals on the public lands
would result in significant royalties in the future to both the U.S.
Treasury and the state in which they are mined. Currently, no royalties
are generated by mining on the public lands.
Additionally, the BLM is pursuing a rulemaking which would increase
the onshore royalty rate for oil and gas from the current 12.5% of
revenue (half of which goes to the individual states). This increase
would provide added revenues to both the U.S. Treasury and, through the
state share, to the individual state in which the development occurs.
H.R. 2852--Administration Position
The Department strongly opposes H.R. 2852. H.R. 2852 is unfair to
American taxpayers as it would transfer revenues and resources owned by
all Americans to a relatively small number of states. It increases the
federal budget deficit by depriving U.S. taxpayers of billions of
dollars of current revenues, and gives away national assets that will
continue to generate substantial revenues over the long-term.
H.R. 2852 would irrevocably change the character of the American
West by allowing individual states to sell or lease millions of acres
of public domain lands. Nothing in H.R. 2852 would prevent these
states, in seeking to maximize revenues for the support of schools or
other programs, from selling off their newly-acquired public lands and
their resources to the highest bidder, possibly removing them forever
from multiple-use and public enjoyment, and preservation for future
generations. The winners at such an auction could be absentee owners,
foreign governments, or corporate owners who could lock up the land,
restricting or allowing activities, such as hunting and fishing, `by
invitation only.'
If H.R. 2852 were enacted, Americans would lose not only the
monetary benefits but also the immeasurable benefits that can come from
lands managed for the enjoyment of and use by all Americans. These
include big and small game hunting opportunities, wildlife viewing, and
a broad range of recreation opportunities from backpacking and camping
to the use of OHV's on remote trails to sand rails on the sand dunes.
Additionally, the public could lose forever the rich historical and
archeological diversity of the public lands, unbroken expanses of
wildlife habitat, as well the rural West's contribution to the nation's
culture. Our public lands should be managed for the public good and be
held for the benefit of future generations.
Conclusion
The Administration strongly opposes this measure that would result
in a wholesale conveyance of invaluable national assets into state and
likely private ownership. The Department of the Interior appreciates
the opportunity to present this Statement for the Record on H.R. 2852.
______
Statement of The Honorable Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Washington, on H.R.___
I would like to thank the Chairman for the opportunity to share my
thoughts on the Secure Rural Schools program and the important role
that this bill plays in ensuring the program's future viability. For
the last decade, the program has deviated from what I believe to be the
best interest of our national forests, counties, and of the federal
government. We have stopped using our forests and as a result they have
become overgrown, diseased, and insect-ridden. Counties have become no
different than wards of the state.
We need to put the land back to work. We need to put our counties
back to work. Duane Vaagen, who testified before this Committee just a
few months ago on this very same issue, said that the federal timber
sale program is the single most effective way of putting people who
live in national forest communities back to work.
It is important to mention that for many decades the United States
Forest Service did use our forests and the revenue generated for the
counties was there to be used for schools, roads, and infrastructure.
However, over the last decade or so there has been a distinct shift
in policy and management. As a result, land use and revenue declined
precipitously forcing counties to become no different than welfare
recipients. In Eastern Washington, the failure to harvest timber has
caused most of the mills located within the counties to go out of
business taking family wage jobs with them. The lack of good management
practices over the last several years has left forests diseased and in
poor overall health, exacerbating the likelihood of major wildfires
including the Tri-pod fire in 2006 that burned over 250,000 acres in
Okanogan County.
This bill stops the viscous cycle. It puts people, land, and
communities back to work. It promotes good forest management, and best
of all it allows our communities to sever their unhealthy ties to the
federal government.
I applaud my colleagues for understanding that reform is the only
way to set our counties free. I believe the policies reflected in this
draft bill accomplish this goal. I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses and making the legislation even stronger.
______
Statement of The Honorable Scott R. Tipton, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Colorado, on Draft Bill, the ``National
Forest County Revenue, Schools, and Jobs Act of 2011''
This draft legislation is an important first step towards providing
a long term solution to properly fund our rural schools, while also
addressing two other major problems in western districts. I commend the
Chair's initiative in bringing this forward for consideration and
comment as the temporary solution known as the Secure Rural Schools Act
is set to expire.
Colorado's Third Congressional District faces three distinct
problems which are all addressed in large part by the National Forest
County Revenue, Schools, and Jobs Act of 2011. Our mills in the 3rd
District are facing more closures now than ever before due to a lack of
available timber from federal lands. These mill closures result in the
unnecessary loss of jobs and have broader community impacts as well.
Furthermore, the Forest Service's failure to manage our forests has
left them dangerously dense, making the risk of life threatening
wildfire greater each year. Recent wildfires in our State and others in
the western United States should provide warning enough that it is time
to act. Failure to heed these warnings will only lead to a loss of
wildlife habitat, considerable damage to the tourism industry, and most
importantly, the endangerment of human lives. We are also all aware
that our rural schools are vastly underfunded and that Secure Rural
Schools was originally intended as a stop-gap measure to provide a
minimum level of funding while a permanent solution was reached.
Extending this costly program which provides only a minimal level of
funding to schools and which has broken down in its implementation over
the years due to Forest Service malfeasance is not the responsible
course to take.
This draft legislation appears to address all three major problems
and does so in a way that is sustainable for generations to come. While
I recognize that this draft is just the beginning of the process
towards reform, I support the Chairman in bringing it forward and it is
my hope that a final version is passed as soon as possible.
______
Statement of The Honorable Don Young, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Alaska, on the National Forest County Revenue, Schools,
and Jobs Act (draft)
Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva, thank you for holding
a hearing on this important legislation, which would address an issue
that is critical to many communities in my State. Also, I appreciate
the opportunity you have afforded both Members and others to provide
feedback on this draft.
Alaska is home to the nation's two largest national forests. They
used to provide many well paying jobs and steady revenue to the local
economies in their regions, but due to an unstable and an almost
nonexistent timber supply coming from the U.S. Forest Service, coupled
with endless litigation from environmental groups, this is no longer
the case.
Make no mistake; the Secure Rural Schools Program is critical to
many of my communities. For example, this program provides 25% of the
revenue to the Wrangell schools and 30% to Klawock. The list goes on.
As much as I support continuation of the Rural Schools Program we
must not treat this program as another entitlement. In this tough
economic time, an increase in forest jobs, while also funding our
communities is a real economic stimulus package we should all agree
upon. These communities don't want hand outs, they want to develop
their resources and be self-sufficient, but the bottom line is, they
need help and the Secure Rural Schools program can provide this help.
This is a good bill and I hope it becomes law. However, for it to
work in Alaska, I believe a few changes should be made.
1) The USFS cannot be allowed to determine the harvest level for
each unit of the Forest System.
In Alaska, the USFS has lowered the harvest level over 90% from
nearly 500 million board feet to less than 50 million board feet a
year. The USFS claims the problem is a lack of markets, but that is
simply untrue. There is plenty of demand for Alaskan timber. It is a
failure of leadership and vision that has caused this dramatic
decrease. I believe Congress needs to set the harvest levels by statute
in this bill.
At a minimum, the to-be-determined percentage of the average of
historical receipts must be robust to provide areas like Region 10 with
a required harvest level high enough to support an industry and our
rural schools. Over the 21 year period covered in this legislation
(1980-2000), the annual historical harvest was 251 mmbf annually at a
net stumpage of roughly $15 million. Even if the to-be-determined
percentage of the average of historical receipts was 100%, it would
still not equal the amount that Alaska currently receives under the
Program. The current Tongass Land Management Plan plans for 267 mmbf
annually. However, from 2001 to 2010, the USFS sold an average of only
38 mmbf annually. The need for hard targets is evident.
2) A stronger waiver of federal judicial review must be included.
The courts have been home court for extreme environmental groups to
obstruct and defeat clear congressional policy. These courts have tied
up federal timber sales throughout the country. The Committee must act
not only to prevent judicial review, but must also amend and possibly
eliminate the environmental report section of the bill. If the Agency
doesn't complete this review in 180 days, can the timber sale continue?
3) In Alaska, we have a further problem. Roadless.
The Federal District Court overturned a settlement that found that
the Roadless Rule does not apply to Alaska. Now, on over 92% of forests
in Alaska, the Roadless Rule applies. Since Section 105(3)(B) excludes
any USFS land on which vegetation removal is prohibited by federal law,
I fear this would take roadless out of the available pool and
effectively void this bill's impacts in Alaska.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and your staff for
putting together a fine bill that seeks an outside-the-box solution to
funding the Secure Schools Program and seeks to strengthen the economic
situations in our rural communities. I look forward to working with you
on a final bill to ensure that Alaska's students aren't left behind.
I urge this Committee to pass this bill so we can put Americans
back to work and save our rural schools and economies.
Thank you again.