[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 124 (Thursday, September 19, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H5721-H5755]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RESTORING HEALTHY FORESTS FOR HEALTHY COMMUNITIES ACT
General Leave
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1526.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 351 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1526.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1814
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1526) to restore employment and educational opportunities in, and
improve the economic stability of, counties containing National Forest
System land, while also reducing Forest Service management costs, by
ensuring that such counties have a dependable source of revenue from
National Forest System land, to provide a temporary extension of the
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, and
for other purposes, with Mr. Woodall in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
{time} 1815
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Over the last few months, deadly wildfires, especially in California,
Arizona, and Colorado, and wildfires in
[[Page H5722]]
other western States, have highlighted the growing problem with our
current Federal forest management plans.
Like all public lands, our national forests should, unless otherwise
designated, be open for multiple use, for everything from recreation to
job-creating economic activities; but instead, Federal regulations and
lawsuits have effectively shut down our national forests. Timber
harvests have dropped by 80 percent over the last 30 years in our
national forests.
While the Forest Service once received $2 for every $1 spent, it now
spends $2 for every $1 it produces. Our Federal forests are being badly
managed, and there have been devastating consequences to that
management.
First, rural communities are struggling to survive and no longer have
stable funding to pay for vital services. The Federal Government made a
promise over a century ago to actively manage our forests for the
benefit of rural schools and communities. Under a Federal law passed in
1908, the U.S. Forest Service has historically shared 25 percent of all
timber revenues with rural counties containing national forestland.
Since the Federal Government doesn't pay local taxes, those counties
depended on this revenue to help fund essential needs like schools and
local infrastructure.
But as timber sales declined, Mr. Chairman, so did the revenue to
those counties. Counties struggled to find the resources needed to keep
teachers in the classroom and police on the streets. Congress provided
a short-term solution in 2000 by passing the Secure Rural Schools Act,
which continued to provide funding as timber sales declined. SRS was
created to provide ``transition payments'' over a 6-year period while
these counties diversified their economies. But the fact is, Mr.
Chairman, their economies are built on natural resources--in this case,
timber.
With a national debt measuring in the trillions of dollars, it is
becoming increasingly difficult to finance this program that costs
several hundred million dollars annually, especially when it fails to
address the fundamental problem of declining forest management. A new
approach is needed now.
The Federal Government's lack of forest management has cost tens of
thousands of American jobs. These forests are the backbone of these
communities' economy. From the logging to the mill work to the truck
drivers, our forests put thousands of people to work. I should say had
put thousands of people to work.
Additionally, as I have mentioned, the lack of active forest
management has caused a significant degradation of forest health and
made them increasingly susceptible to bug infestations and catastrophic
wildfires.
Mr. Chairman, this is an interesting statistic. Last year--just last
year--9.3 million acres of national forests burned in wildfires. By
comparison, only 200,000 acres were harvested by the U.S. Forest
Service. That means that 44 times more acres burned compared to those
acres that were responsibly harvested. We cannot continue to sit idly
by while wildfires rage, homes are destroyed, and lives are lost.
H.R. 1526, the Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act,
is a long-term solution to put Americans back to work to restore our
forest health and help prevent catastrophic wildfires by renewing our
Federal Government's commitment to actively manage our national
forests.
The bill requires responsible timber production on at least half of
our Federal Forest Service's commercial timberlands. These lands, by
the way, Mr. Chairman, were specifically identified by the Forest
Service for timber harvest.
By helping to restore active forest management, this bill is
estimated to create over 200,000 direct jobs and would provide nearly
$400 million in savings over 10 years.
As required by law in 1908, H.R. 1526 would again share 25 percent of
the revenue from the timber sales with the counties containing this
national forestland.
The bill will also allow us a short-term extension of the Secure
Rural School payments to provide funding to counties as the Forest
Service transitions back into active management.
H.R. 1526 would also help prevent deadly and catastrophic wildfires
by focusing on hazardous fuels reduction and empowering States to take
a more active role in reducing those wildlife risks.
Finally, this bill recognizes that States and counties are often
better at managing forestlands than the Federal Government. States have
shown that they are able to produce more revenue from timberlands than
the Federal Government.
Let me give you an example in my home State of Washington. Washington
State is able to harvest seven times more timber and generate 200 times
more revenue on one-fourth of the land compared to what the Forest
Service has. They do that by better management.
This bill would allow counties to actively manage portions of
national forestland through the creation of Community Forest
Demonstration Areas.
H.R. 1526 has broad support. Over 140 local and national
organizations, including 68 counties in 17 different States, have
endorsed this vital, commonsense legislation to restore active forest
management that will protect American jobs and livelihoods. These
communities, their families, and their businesses deserve better than
the status quo and the current failure of our forest management plans
today.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As someone who represents rural, forested communities that depend on
our national forests, this is an issue I care deeply about. I know my
colleagues on the other side care deeply about this, too. We have many
common concerns in terms of forest health, in terms of fuel reduction,
in terms of dealing with bug infestations and other things.
There is, I think, a common interest in finding solutions to better
manage our Federal forests. Millions of acres are in need of
restoration to address disease, bugs, climate change, and fire, which
was made painfully clear again this summer.
We need a long-term plan to provide for our rural forested counties.
Right now, many of these counties are struggling to stay afloat.
Counties in my district, for example, are near bankruptcy. Critical
county services like public health, education, roads, and, most
importantly, law enforcement have been slashed to the point where some
counties have no rural sheriff's patrols and prisoners have been let
out of jail, prisoners who should not be let out of jail.
The Federal Government made a commitment to these counties 100 years
ago. Congress should honor that commitment. I think there are
bipartisan ways to honor that commitment.
The inclusion of 1 year of county payments at fiscal year 2010
levels--substantially more than those proposed in recent legislation in
the Senate--will provide a lifeline to more than 600 forested counties
in 41 States.
I want to thank the chairman for his hard work on this provision in
the bill. Any long-term solution on forest management will require
bridge payments to counties. This bill provides a bridge payment.
This bill includes an extension of stewardship contracting authority
and allows our Federal agencies to offer contracts up to 20 years.
Stewardship contracts can help reduce the cost of restoration to our
Federal agencies--and, thus, the U.S. taxpayer--to help treat large
landscapes to prevent catastrophic wildfires we saw in the West this
summer and provide predictability to local businesses and industry that
incentivizes investment and creates jobs.
I met with a gentleman who is going to open a 2.5 megawatt biomass
plant in Colorado in November. He is doing that with a 10-year
stewardship contract on dead bug kill in the vicinity of his plant. It
was done through a collaborative process. The result is the Forest
Service will be able to do fuel reduction on twice as much acreage as
if they had to appropriate taxpayer money to do it. He told me if that
was extended to 20 years, which this bill does, that the cost would
come down even more. So we would create electricity and make these
forests more healthy by utilizing that biomass.
[[Page H5723]]
I particularly want to thank the chairman for working with
Representative Walden, Representative Schrader, and myself to include
our balanced, bipartisan solution for the statutorily unique O&C lands.
These lands exist nowhere else in the country. They are historically,
statutorily, and geographically unique.
The solution we came up with for these unique lands would not be
appropriate for other land included in the larger bill. I spent many
hours with Representative Walden and Representative Schrader and with
you, Mr. Chairman, to work out a reasonable and fair solution to an
incredibly complex and longstanding controversy in western Oregon. I
admit it's not a perfect solution. There are things I would change.
There are things that Representative Walden would change. There are
things that Representative Schrader would change, and, Mr. Chairman,
I'm certain there are things that you would have done differently. But
that's the legislative process at its best. We did the best we could do
and came up with a strong proposal. It's an Oregon solution to an
Oregon problem, and I am pleased to see it included in this
legislation.
That doesn't mean that I don't have strong concerns about other
provisions in the underlying bill. I do. Members should know that H.R.
1526 would dramatically alter the way we manage our national forest
system and would threaten the multiuse mission on our public lands.
The bill would establish ``timber production zones'' in every
national forest and more than double timber harvest levels nationwide.
In order to meet these targets, Federal forest managers would be
required to allow logging and road building in current roadless areas
and sharply curtail public review of proposed logging projects.
The bill would close the courthouse door to citizens concerned about
their communities and quality of life in the neighboring forests by
requiring plaintiffs to post bonds, a new precedent, in order to
challenge Federal management decisions.
I have had communities in my district litigate against the Forest
Service over timber projects that they felt threaten their drinking
water supply. I have had the timber industry litigate, as we have had
environmental groups. It doesn't mean it is not frustrating, but we can
work on streamlining that process without shutting the door to the
courthouse, as we did in the HFRA legislation, a bipartisan bill a
number of years ago.
This bill would also devolve national forest management currently
under the stewardship of the Forest Service to State boards and exempt
these areas from major national environmental laws.
The practical impact would be to reverse 100 years of national forest
precedent and undermine--or in some cases, eliminate--multiple use of
the national forests over substantial parts of our forest, harming
recreation, hunting, fishing, and tourism.
{time} 1830
H.R. 1526 represents the largest proposed change to the modern Forest
Service since it was created by Gifford Pinchot and Theodore Roosevelt
in 1905.
I want to reiterate that the Democrats stand ready to work with our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle on forest management. There
is common ground. There is bipartisan agreement on some issues.
Hopefully, this bill is the beginning of that conversation, not the
end, as we attempt to have a real legislative process with the Senate
on these issues.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Wasco County,
Board of County, Commissioners,
The Dalles, Oregon, September 4, 2013.
Congressman Doc Hastings,
Chairman Natural Resources Committee,
Washington, DC.
Congressman Peter DeFazio,
Ranking Member, Natural Resources Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member DeFazio: In
America's national forests money and jobs do grow on trees. A
failed Federal Forest management system has led to the loss
of thousands of family wage jobs and has left our rural
forested counties with a host of preventable social and
economic problems that need to be addressed; action is long
overdue. For most Oregon counties the only solution is to
return to a sustainable harvest level that provides reliable
family-wage jobs and provides a solid tax base to support
crucial services.
There are three main recurring themes choking sustainable
forest management:
1. Litigation that stalls or prevents much of the harvest
necessary for responsible, sustainable forest management.
2. Funding to prepare sales.
3. The environmental analysis and review time for
management activities.
An increase in sustainable forest management is essential
if we are to ever create and support the healthy forests
envisioned by President Theodore Roosevelt. The Forest
mortality we are facing destroys wildlife habitat and creates
a platform for catastrophic wildfires that leave millions of
forest acres bare and susceptible to erosion and extensive
insect infestation.
H.R. 1526 provides a common sense approach for returning to
sustainable forest management where planned harvests occur at
a reasonable pace. While we appreciate legislation that
allows for a temporary extension of the Secure Rural Schools
and Community Self Determination Act, the long term social
and financial health of rural forested communities depends on
family-wage jobs that stem from a healthy forest products
industry. Wasco County fully supports H.R. 1526 and will
contact our House members to speak in support of and vote for
the bill.
Rod Runyon,
Chair.
Scott Hege,
County Commissioner.
Steve Kramer,
County Commissioner.
____
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF GRANT
RESOLUTION 13-41
In the Matter of Supporting H.R. 1526
Restoring Healthy Forests for
Communities Act
This being the 18th day of September, 2013, and a regular
meeting of the County Court of Grant County and there being
present County Judge Scott W. Myers and County Commissioners
Boyd Britton and Chris Labhart; and
Whereas, the Grant County Court recognizes that Oregonians
in our forested communities are facing extreme poverty,
systemic unemployment, and thousands of children on free and
reduced lunch; and
Whereas, Grant County, Oregon currently faces 12.20%
unemployment; and
Whereas, 51.6% of school children in Grant County are
eligible for free or reduced lunch programs; and
Whereas, Grant County's poverty rate is 15.8%; and
Whereas, these negative economic conditions can be
attributed to the reduction in timber harvests in our
National forests (93.78% reduction over the past 30 years)
and corresponding mill closures; and
Whereas, Grant County cannot afford for any more mills to
close and desire to recover our lost mill capacity; and
Whereas, H.R. 1526 is a bipartisan effort that aims to put
people back to work in the woods, reduce litigation, provide
certainty for counties so that they can provide essential
services, lift families out of poverty, and prevent
catastrophic wildfires that we have been experiencing,
Now therefore, be it Resolved, the Grant County Court
hereby resolves to support H.R. 1526, Restoring Healthy
Forests for Healthy Communities Act, and urge all member of
the U.S. House of Representatives to support the passage and
implementation of this important legislation.
Done and dated this 18th day of September, 2013.
Scott W. Myers,
County Judge.
Chris B. Labhart,
County Commissioner.
Boyd Britton,
County Commissioner.
____
Gilliam County,
County Court,
Condon, Oregon.
Hon. Greg Walden,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Walden: I am writing this letter in
support of HR1526. HR1526 aims to put people back to work in
the woods, reduce litigation, and provide certainty for
counties so that they can provide essential services, lift
families out of poverty, and prevent catastrophic wildfires
that we have been experiencing. Last year, 10 times as many
Forest Service acres burned as were harvested. 2.8 million
acres--a size equivalent to all of Grant County.
One thing is clear. The status quo in our federal forest
policy is not working for our forests, and it is certainly
not working for the families in our rural communities.
Even though we are a county without any Federal Forest
Service Land, we recognize the benefits that can be realized
here by the success of our neighbors Wheeler and Morrow
Counties.
Sincerely,
Steve Shaffer,
Gilliam County Judge.
[[Page H5724]]
____
Curry County,
Board of Commissioners,
Gold Beach, Oregon, September 16, 2013.
Dear Members of Oregon's House of Representatives: We are
writing to request your support for HR 1526, the Restoring
Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act, and ask that you
vote in favor of this bill when the opportunity arises. HR
1526 would renew the commitment to manage federal forests for
the benefit of counties impacted by federal forestland,
improve forest health and help prevent catastrophic
wildfires.
Oregon continues to lose infrastructure and jobs due to
federal policies that have strangled sustainable management
of a renewable resource. We are harvesting less than five
percent of the annual growth in federal forests, resulting in
overstocked stands and conditions ripe for wildfire. HR 1526
would permit responsible, limited timber production on Forest
Service lands, would allow significant state and local
involvement, and would separately address management of the
unique O&C Lands by incorporating the bipartisan solution
crafted by Representatives DeFazio, Schrader and Walden. The
bill also would allow cooperative state and federal fire
mitigation projects in areas that cross ownership boundaries.
The expiration of the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) program in
2012 has resulted in drastic budget shortfalls in our
Counties. HR 1526 provides one year of bridge funding at the
SRS 2010 level, allowing transition to more active forest
management and a return to shared revenues from forest
management. These revenues would provide schools with
substantial funding and support public safety, road
maintenance, and social service programs. Improved management
and restoration of the nation's forests will generate
tremendous environmental and social benefits and create
desperately needed jobs and revenue for rural economies.
Thank you for your support of Oregon counties and schools
and for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
David Itzen,
Commissioner.
Everett Dial,
District Attorney.
John Bishop,
Sheriff.
____
Douglas County,
Board of Commissioners,
Roseburg, Oregon, September 11, 2013.
Hon. Peter DeFazio,
Hon. Greg Walden,
Hon. Earl Blumenauer,
Hon. Kurt Schrader,
Hon. Suzanne Bonamici.
Dear Members of Oregon's House of Representatives: We are
writing to request your support for HR 1526, the Restoring
Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act, and ask that you
vote in favor of this bill when the opportunity arises. HR
1526 would renew the commitment to manage federal forests for
the benefit of counties impacted by federal forestland,
improve forest health and help prevent catastrophic
wildfires.
Oregon continues to lose infrastructure and jobs due to
federal policies that have strangled sustainable management
of a renewable resource. We are harvesting less than five
percent of the annual growth in federal forests, resulting in
overstocked stands and conditions ripe for wildfire. HR 1526
would permit responsible, limited timber production on Forest
Service lands, would allow significant state and local
involvement, and would separately address management of the
unique O&C Lands by incorporating the bipartisan solution
crafted by Representatives DeFazio, Schrader and Walden. The
bill also would allow cooperative state and federal fire
mitigation projects in areas that cross ownership boundaries.
The expiration of the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) program in
2012 has resulted in drastic budget shortfalls in our
Counties. HR 1526 provides one year of bridge funding at the
SRS 2010 level, allowing transition to more active forest
management and a return to shared revenues from forest
management. These revenues would provide schools with
substantial funding and support public safety, road
maintenance, and social service programs. Improved management
and restoration of the nation's forests will generate
tremendous environmental and social benefits and create
desperately needed jobs and revenue for rural economies.
Thank you for your support of Oregon counties and schools
and for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Doug Robertson,
Douglas County Commissioner, Chair.
John Hanlin,
Douglas County Sheriff.
Rick Wesenberg,
Douglas County District Attorney.
Susan Acree,
Douglas County Assessor.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), who, as noted, has worked with his
two colleagues from Oregon on the uniqueness of the Oregon forests.
Mr. WALDEN. I thank the chairman of the House Natural Resources
Committee, Doc Hastings, who has been an extraordinary leader, not only
on our forestry issues, but on allowing us to access America's great
energy resources in a responsible way that will create jobs, generate
revenue for our country, and be good stewards of our land and water all
at the same time.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your work and that of your committee on
the Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act.
Just 2 days ago, Doug Decker, who is the State forester for the State
of Oregon, declared that this has been the worst fire season for Oregon
since 1951. The State of Oregon alone has already spent $120 million on
fire suppression on over 1,000 different fires--and fire season is not
over. According to the National Interagency Fire Center, this situation
is the same across our forested States and communities. Last year, more
than 9 million acres burned, and the Federal Government spent $2
billion in fighting fires. That's ``billion'' with a ``b.''
While these Federal forests surrounding our rural communities are
burning, rural families are sentenced to live in poverty as the mills
close and the jobs disappear, all because we can't access our great
natural resources on Federal land.
Of the 20 counties that I represent in eastern and southern Oregon,
nine face double-digit unemployment today; 16 have over 14 percent of
their populations living in poverty; and 14 have over half of their
schoolchildren eligible for free and reduced lunch programs.
Things are so bad in southern Oregon that Josephine County, which is
bigger than Rhode Island, lost their last mill a few years ago, and
with the closure of that mill, they lost 86 good-paying, family-waged
jobs. A lack of timber revenue has left the county with only one patrol
deputy. Burglary has gone up 49.7 percent; thefts have gone up 25
percent; and disorderly conduct has gone up 17 percent in 1 year. At a
recent roundtable I held in Grants Pass, the sheriff, Gil Gilbertson,
told me: ``I've seen better law enforcement in Third World countries
than we have in Josephine County.'' Remember, the sheriff spent time in
law enforcement in Bosnia. He knows that of which he speaks.
It's so bad that, just a year ago, a woman called 911 because her ex-
boyfriend was breaking into her home, and he had assaulted her the week
before. She was told several times by dispatch that there were no
deputies available, and then was told: ``If he comes inside the
residence and assaults you, can you ask him to go away?'' The woman was
then assaulted and raped.
These are real issues for our rural communities today. It's clear the
status quo is not working for families in our rural communities. This
broken system has to change.
Among many positive provisions in this legislation that will lead to
healthier forests, this bill would require foresters to look at the
sustainable yield a forest could provide and then harvest just half of
that and only on land that is suitable for timber harvest. It also
limits costly and complex paperwork, and it requires that it be
completed in a timely manner. This bill also contains long overdue
provisions for expedited cleanup and salvage. Just like we clean up
after floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes, isn't it time that we cleaned
up and replanted and restored after forest fires?
This bill also includes legislation that I wrote with my colleagues
from Oregon, Representatives Peter DeFazio and Kurt Schrader, on
Oregon's unique O&C lands. We have worked through our differences and
have forged a balanced, commonsense plan that would create or save
thousands of forest jobs in Oregon. We would ensure the health of these
lands for future generations and provide long-term funding certainty
for Oregon's rural schools, roads, and law enforcement agencies that
lie within these counties, and it would end the status quo of endless
litigation.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. WALDEN. This plan has broad support in Oregon--from local
officials
[[Page H5725]]
to sheriffs and DAs to business groups and labor unions to newspaper
editorial boards. I have here the letters of support and resolutions
from 24 counties across Oregon that, with your permission, Mr.
Chairman, I would like to have entered into the Record.
The Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act will create
prosperous communities and healthy forests. It will provide certainty
for teachers and law enforcement officers. It will provide tools to our
professional forest stewards to better manage our forests, and it is
our opportunity to make Federal forest policy work for Oregonians and
all Americans. I urge its passage.
Klamath County Commissioners,
September 16, 2013.
Hon. Peter DeFazio,
Hon. Greg Walden,
Hon. Earl Blumenauer,
Hon. Kurt Schrader,
Hon. Suzanne Bonamici.
Dear Members of Oregon's House of Representatives: We are
writing to request your support for HR 1526, the Restoring
Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act, and ask that you
vote in favor of this bill when the opportunity arises. HR
1526 would renew the commitment to manage federal forests for
the benefit of counties impacted by federal forestland,
improve forest health and help prevent catastrophic
wildfires.
Oregon continues to lose infrastructure and jobs due to
federal policies that have strangled sustainable management
of a renewable resource. We are harvesting less than five
percent of the annual growth in federal forests, resulting in
overstocked stands and conditions ripe for wildfire. HR 1526
would permit responsible, limited timber production on Forest
Service lands, would allow significant state and local
involvement, and would separately address management of the
unique O&C Lands by incorporating the bipartisan solution
crafted by Representatives DeFazio, Schrader and Walden. The
bill also would allow cooperative state and federal fire
mitigation projects in areas that cross ownership boundaries.
The expiration of the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) program in
2012 has resulted in drastic budget shortfalls in our
Counties. HR 1526 provides one year of bridge funding at the
SRS 2010 level, allowing transition to more active forest
management and a return to shared revenues from forest
management. These revenues would provide schools with
substantial funding and support public safety, road
maintenance, and social service programs. Improved management
and restoration of the nation's forests will generate
tremendous environmental and social benefits and create
desperately needed jobs and revenue for rural economies.
Thank you for your support of Oregon counties and schools
and for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Dennis Linthicum,
Klamath County Commissioner.
Frank Skrah,
Sheriff by M. Rowley, Chief Deputy.
Greg Thede,
Klamath County Superintendent.
Deschutes County,
Board of of County Commissioners,
September 18, 2013.
Re H.R. 1526.
Hon. Greg Walden,
House Natural Resources Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Walden: The Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners wishes to express support for H.R. 1526, the
Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act. This
proposal renews the federal government's commitment to manage
federal forests, improve forest health and prevent
catastrophic wildfires.
Deschutes County applauds the commitment to addressing job
creation and enhancement of rural forest economies. The
management provisions in H.R. 1526 will provide a long term
solution to ensuring sustainable revenue sharing with
forested counties.
Deschutes County, Oregon supports the preservation of
healthy forests. We support HR 1526 and its aim to put people
back to work in the woods, reduce litigation, and provide
certainty for counties so that we can provide services to our
citizens. We also support the management of the forests to
prevent catastrophic wildfires and believe that there are
forested lands that are suitable for timber harvest and
management to be resilient against fire.
For these reasons, we support the passage of H.R. 1526.
Sincerely,
Anthony DeBone,
Commissioner.
For the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners.
____
Crook County,
September 19, 2013.
Re Forestry Legislation HR 1526.
Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Greg Walden,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Peter DeFazio,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives Walden and DeFazio: This letter is
written by the Crook County Court in support of Oregon
'Timber Bill (HR 1526). HR 1526 includes a plan that would
transfer approximately 1.5 million acres from federal to
state management. Crook County agrees with the position taken
by the Association of Oregon Counties (AOC) that HR 1526
provides a means for reviving Oregon economies and sagging
county revenues of timber reliant counties.
The Crook County Court recognizes that Oregonians in
forested communities are facing extreme poverty, systematic
unemployment, and thousands of children on free and reduced
lunch programs. These negative economic conditions can be
attributed to the reduction in timber harvest in our national
forests and corresponding mill closures.
HR 1526 is a bipartisan effort that aims to put people back
to work in the woods, reduce litigation, provide certainty
for counties so that they can provide essential services, and
lift families out of poverty.
A lack of management on our federal forest lands has caused
shortfalls for our communities, forcing counties to reduce
essential services and putting our forests at risk of
catastrophic fire. This Bill provides Oregon the opportunity
to manage forest land and to provide certainty of active and
healthy forest management.
Crook County Court supports HR 1526, restoring healthy
forests for Health Communities Act, and urges all members of
Congress to support the passage and implementation of this
important legislation.
DATED this 19th day of September 2013.
Mike McCabe,
Crook County Judge.
Ken Fahlgren,
County Commissioner.
Seth Crawford,
County Commissioner.
____
To: Committee on Natural Resources
From: Baker County Commissioners
Subject: The urgent need to pass H.R. 1526: Restoring Healthy
Forests for Healthy Communities Act
Baker County, like so many other counties in Oregon, are
facing the same hardship--high unemployment rates, high
poverty levels and poor infrastructure. These negative
economic conditions can be attributed to the reduction in
timber harvests in our National Forests (80% reduction over
the past 30 years) and subsequent mill closures. With an
unemployment rate of 9.4% and a poverty rate of 20%, Baker
County is in dire need of economic relief.
The majority of the land in Baker County is owned by the
federal government. We are reliant on Forest Receipts and
PILT funding to maintain our infrastructure and provide the
services needed in our County. The lack of management on our
federal lands has resulted in catastrophic wildfires and loss
of services. With the-movement to high mileage vehicles and
dwindling forest receipts, our infrastructure and economy are
in jeopardy.
H.R. 1526 is a bipartisan effort that aims to put people
back to work in the woods, reduce litigation, provide
certainty for counties so that we can provide essential
services, lift families out of poverty and prevent
catastrophic wildfires that we have been experiencing. The
Baker County Commissioners strongly urge all members of the
U.S. House of Representatives to support the passage and
implementation of this important legislation.
Mark E. Bennett,
Commissioner.
____
In the Matter of a Resolution Supporting H.R. 1526, Restoring Healthy
Forests for Healthy Communities Act, Resolution 13-09-17
Now, the Lake County Board of Commissioners recognize that
Oregonians in our forested communities are facing extreme
poverty, systemic high unemployment, and hundreds of children
on free and reduced lunch.
Whereas, Lake County currently faces 11.9% unemployment;
and
Whereas, 55% of school children in Lake County are eligible
for Free or Reduced lunch programs; and
Whereas, Lake County's poverty rate is 18.7% and
Whereas, these negative economic conditions can be
attributed to the reduction in timber harvests in our
National Forests (80% reduction over the past 30 years) and
corresponding mill closures; and
Whereas, Lake County cannot afford for any more mills to
close and desire to recover our lost mill capacity; and
Whereas H.R. 1526 is a bipartisan effort that aims to put
people back to work in the woods, reduce litigation, provide
certainty for counties so that they can provide essential
services, lift families out of poverty, and prevent
catastrophic wildfires that we have been experiencing.
Now therefore the Lake County Board of Commissioners
Hereby Resolve to support H.R. 1526, Restoring Healthy
Forests For Healthy Communities Act, and urge all members of
the U.S. House of Representatives to support the passage and
implementation of this important legislation.
[[Page H5726]]
Dated this 17th day of September, 2013.
Ken Kestner,
Chairman.
Dan Shoun,
Commissioner.
____
Josephine County, Oregon,
September 16, 2013.
Hon. Peter DeFazio,
Hon. Greg Walden,
Hon. Earl Blemenauer,
Hon. Kurt Schrader,
Hon. Suzanne Bonamici.
Dear Members of Oregon's House of Representatives: We are
writing to request your support for HR 1526, the Restoring
Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act, and ask that you
vote in favor of this bill when the opportunity arises. HR
1526 would renew the commitment to manage federal forests for
the benefit of counties impacted by federal forestland,
improve forest health, and help prevent catastrophic
wildfires.
Oregon continues to lose infrastructure and jobs due to
federal policies that have strangled sustainable management
of a renewable resource. We are harvesting less than five
percent of the annual growth in federal forests, resulting in
overstocked stands and conditions ripe for wildfire. HR 1526
would permit responsible, limited timber production on Forest
Service lands, would allow significant state and local
involvement, and would separately address management of the
unique O&C Lands by incorporating the bipartisan solution
crafted by Representatives DeFazio, Schrader, and Walden. The
bill also would allow cooperative state and federal fire
mitigation projects in areas that cross ownership boundaries.
The expiration of the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) program in
2012 has resulted in drastic budget shortfalls in our
Counties. HR 1526 provides one year of bridge funding at the
SRS 2010 level, allowing transition to more active forest
management and a return to shared revenues from forest
management. These revenues would provide schools with
substantial funding and support public safety, road
maintenance, and social service programs. Improved management
and restoration of the nation's forests will generate
tremendous environmental and social benefits and create
desperately needed jobs and revenue for rural economies.
Thank you for your support of Oregon counties and schools
and for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Simon G. Hair,
Commissioner.
Stephen Campbell,
District Attorney.
Connie Roach,
Assessor.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my colleague from
Oregon, Representative Schrader.
Mr. SCHRADER. I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member
for bringing a bipartisan and actual job-creating piece of legislation
to the Chamber in these highly divisive times. This is the type of
legislation we should be talking about.
Mr. Chairman, rural counties across America, not just in my home
State of Oregon, are dying. Unemployment is still in the double digits
as you've heard. Schools are closing. Infrastructure is deteriorating,
and crime is increasing. There is really no recovery in rural America.
The dwindling amount of county funding from our national forests and
Secure Rural Schools system has left local governments unable to afford
even the basic services that every American should have. They are
making our communities unhealthy and unsafe. In Oregon, we currently
have two counties going bankrupt while we stand idly by. The status quo
is no longer acceptable. Moreover, due to the lack of proper active
management, our forests are diseased, dying, and overstocked, leaving
them susceptible to the catastrophic wildfires we have been seeing on
TV every night this past summer and fall.
In this year alone, the U.S. Forest Service has spent over $1 billion
in fighting forest fires. These wildfires not only burn millions of
acres of public and private forests every year, but they cause serious
harm to the environment--water, air quality--and to our public health.
The Biscuit Fire in Oregon in 2002 alone produced as much as one-third
of all the carbon released through fossil fuel burning in Oregon
annually. That cannot continue.
Title III of H.R. 1526 is a bipartisan solution to a unique set of
Oregon forestlands that was drafted by me and my colleagues,
Congressmen DeFazio and Walden. The Oregon and California Railroad
lands, commonly known as the O&C lands, have a unique mandate which
differs from other BLM and Forest Service lands. It requires them to
generate revenue for 18 Oregon counties from sustainable timber
harvest. However, due to tedious and continued litigation, harvest
levels are now 90 percent below what they were in the nineties. No one
is asking to go back to the seventies or eighties, folks. That's not
the issue despite what you'll hear. These are lands that are meant to
produce timber in a sustainable way. The Federal law requires it,
actually, and the legislation we wrote does it in an environmentally
sound manner.
Along with a reliable amount of timber and revenue for our counties,
I would like to remind everyone that title III also designates 90,000
acres of new wilderness protections and 150 miles of Wild and Scenic
Rivers. The bill places over 1 million acres of old growth into
protection and creates a conservation fund to help take care of it. The
underlying bill also extends a lot of the popular forestry programs
like stewardship, contracting, and good neighbor authority.
You're going to hear a lot of misinformation about this bill and
outright falsehoods. Contrary to what our opponents claim, title III
guarantees ESA and clean water protections, which have worked for
decades on Oregon's State and private forestlands. It has extensive
riparian protections, and it restricts pesticide use. Most importantly,
it protects our most green and renewable natural resource for
generations to come, and it puts certainty back into the woods for our
rural communities and job creators.
Title III of this bill would create over 15,000 direct and indirect
jobs by itself. The underlying bill would create over 200,000 jobs
nationwide. When folks are still struggling to find jobs and to put
food on the table, we cannot deny them this opportunity to work. The
families and their communities depend on it.
I am also very encouraged to know that Senator Wyden, the chairman of
the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is also working on a
parallel plan to help fix our broken rural economies and revive our
unhealthy forests. We plan to work in a bicameral and a bipartisan
fashion to come to a final solution that will provide revenue for our
counties, clean up our unhealthy forests, and get people back to work
in the woods.
Columbia County
Board of Commissioners,
St. Helens, OR, September 16, 2013.
Hon. Peter DeFazio.
Hon. Greg Walden.
Hon. Earl Blumenauer.
Hon. Kurt Schrader.
Hon. Suzanne Bonamici.
Dear Members of Oregon's House of Representatives: We are
writing to request your support for HR 1526, the Restoring
Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act, and ask that you
vote in favor of this bill when the opportunity arises. HR
1526 would renew the commitment to manage federal forests for
the benefit of counties impacted by federal forestland,
improve forest health and help prevent catastrophic
wildfires.
Oregon continues to lose infrastructure and jobs due to
federal policies that have strangled sustainable management
of a renewable resource. We are harvesting less than five
percent of the annual growth in federal forests, resulting in
overstocked stands and conditions ripe for wildfire. HR 1526
would permit responsible, limited timber production on Forest
Service lands, would allow significant state and local
involvement, and would separately address management of the
unique O&C Lands by incorporating the bipartisan solution
crafted by Representatives DeFazio, Schrader and Walden. The
bill also would allow cooperative state and federal fire
mitigation projects in areas that cross ownership boundaries.
The expiration of the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) program in
2012 has resulted in drastic budget shortfalls in our
Counties. HR 1526 provides one year of bridge funding at the
SRS 2010 level, allowing transition to more active forest
management and a return to shared revenues from forest
management. These revenues would provide schools with
substantial funding and support public safety, road
maintenance, and social service programs. Improved management
and restoration of the nation's forests will generate
tremendous environmental and social benefits and create
desperately needed jobs and revenue for rural economies.
Thank you for your support of Oregon counties and schools
and for your consideration of this request.
Henry Heimuller,
Chair.
Anthony Hyde,
Commissioner.
Earl Fisher,
Commissioner.
Jeff Dickerson,
Sheriff.
Steve Atchinson,
District Attorney.
[[Page H5727]]
____
Polk County
Board of Commissioners,
Dallas, OR, September 16, 2013.
Hon. Peter DeFazio.
Hon. Greg Walden.
Hon. Earl Blumenauer.
Hon. Kurt Schrader.
Hon. Suzanne Bonamici.
Dear Members of Oregon's House of Representatives: We are
writing to request your support for H.R. 1526, the Restoring
Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act, and ask that you
vote in favor of this bill when the opportunity arises. H.R.
1526 would renew the commitment to manage federal forests for
the benefit of counties impacted by federal forestland,
improve forest health and help prevent catastrophic
wildfires.
Oregon continues to lose infrastructure and jobs due to
federal policies that have strangled sustainable management
of a renewable resource. We are harvesting less than five
percent of the annual growth in federal forests, resulting in
overstocked stands and conditions ripe for wildfire. H.R.
1526 would permit responsible, limited timber production on
Forest Service lands, would allow significant state and local
involvement, and would separately address management of the
unique O&C Lands by incorporating the bipartisan solution
crafted by Representatives DeFazio, Schrader and Walden. The
bill also would allow cooperative state and federal fire
mitigation projects in areas that cross ownership boundaries.
The expiration of the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) program in
2012 has resulted in drastic budget shortfalls in our
Counties. H.R. 1526 provides one year of bridge funding at
the SRS 2010 level, allowing transition to more active forest
management and a return to shared revenues from forest
management. These revenues would provide schools with
substantial funding and support public safety, road
maintenance, and social service programs. Improved management
and restoration of the nation's forests will generate
tremendous environmental and social benefits and create
desperately needed jobs and revenue for rural economies.
Thank you for your support of Oregon counties and schools
and for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Craig Pope,
Commissioner.
Aaron Felton,
District Attorney.
Robert Wolfe,
Sheriff.
Doug Schmidt,
Assessor.
____
Tillamook County
Board of Commissioners,
Tillamook, OR, August 28, 2013.
Re Support H.R. 1526.
Congressman Doc Hastings,
Chairman, Natural Resources Committee,
Washington DC.
Congressman Peter DeFazio,
Ranking Member, Natural Resources Committee, Washington DC.
Dear Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member DeFazio: A phrase
such as ``money does not grow on trees'' is quite often
overused. However in America's national forests, money and
jobs do grow on trees. Unfortunately, a failed Federal Forest
management system has led to the loss of thousands of family
wage jobs and has left out rural forested counties with a
myriad of social and economic problems we do not deserve and
that need to be addressed. For most of our counties, that can
only be done by returning to a sustainable harvest level that
absolutely will provide family wage jobs and allow for a
solid tax base to support badly needed services.
From our perspective there are at least three reoccurring
themes hindering sustainable forest management; first is
funding to prepare sales, second is the environmental
analysis and review time for management activities, and third
is litigation that stalls or totally stops much of the
harvest that badly needs to be done.
An increase in sustainable forest management is essential
if we are to ever provide the healthy forests envisioned by
President Theodore Roosevelt. The forest mortality we are
facing now is destroying habitat for wildlife, creating
catastrophic wildfires that destroy everything in their path
and leaving millions of acres of forests susceptible to
massive bug and insect infestation.
H.R 1526 addresses all of these issues. It provides a
common sense approach for returning to sustainable forest
management where the planned harvest can occur in a
reasonable amount of time. We do appreciate that the
legislation allows for a temporary extension of the Secure
Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act.
However, for long term social and financial health of rural
forested communities we must have the family wage jobs that
are provided by a healthy forest products industry.
We know you are fully supporting H.R. 1526 and do
appreciate your work and vote on this bill.
Sincerely,
Mark Labhart,
Chairperson.
Bill Baertlein,
Vice Chairperson.
Tim Josi,
Commissioner.
____
Clackamas County
Board of County Commissioners,
Oregon City, OR, August 27, 2013.
Hon. Doc Hastings,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of
Representatives.
Hon. Peter DeFazio,
Ranking Member, Committee on Natural Resources, House of
Representatives.
Dear Representatives Hastings and DeFazio: The Clackamas
County Board of Commissioners wishes to express our support
for the Secure Rural Schools and the Oregon and California
(O&C) Lands provisions contained within H.R. 1526, the
Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act. We
believe these provisions are a common sense and balanced
approach to federal forest management that will support
family wage jobs and provide counties with certain and
predictable revenue streams for critical county services.
Clackamas County is a western Oregon county with
considerable urban and rural populations spread across a
diverse landscape of more than 1.2 million acres.
Approximately 52% of this land is federally owned and managed
by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management,
with roughly 75,000 acres designated as O&C Lands. The
responsible management of these federal forestlands is
critical to providing predictable, long-term revenue for the
county road and general funds that enhances the quality of
life of county residents. Responsible federal management also
would greatly enhance the economic wellbeing of our local
wood products industry.
Regrettably, the impasse to meet federal forest management
and timber sale volume goals, as prescribed by the Northwest
Forest Plan and the O&C Act of 1937, has substantially
reduced timber revenue and forced the County to reduce vital
services for public safety, education, health, and other
programs. At the same time, we have seen devastating economic
losses in our rural communities and wood products industry--
going from 12 operating mills in the County to just two. In
light of this fiscal crisis, we urgently require a new
approach to federal forest management that creates jobs,
stabilizes Oregon's rural communities, and restores forest
function and health. Absent a long-term solution, vital
county services and our vast natural resource systems will be
severely impacted or disappear altogether.
From our perspective, three major themes hinder sustainable
forest management--funding to prepare timber sales,
environmental analysis and review time for management
activities, and litigation that stalls or completely stops
harvest. H.R. 1526 correctly addresses these issues by
allowing planned harvests to occur on forestlands prescribed
for timber production, with reasonable time for environmental
review and protection from unreasonable litigation. The bill
also temporarily extends the Secure Rural Schools Act, which
will help to sustain vital county services until the law
begins to generate new revenues.
Thank you for your work on this critical issue. We support
your continued efforts to bring this important legislation to
the House floor for a vote.
Sincerely,
John Ludlow,
Chair.
Jim Bernard,
Commissioner.
Paul Savas,
Commissioner.
Martha Schrader,
Commissioner.
Tootie Smith,
Commissioner.
____
Marion County
Board of Commissioners,
September 16, 2013.
Hon. Peter DeFazio.
Hon. Greg Walden.
Hon. Earl Blumenauer.
Hon. Kurt Schrader.
Hon. Suzanne Bonamici.
Dear Members of Oregon's House of Representatives: We are
writing to request your support for HR 1526, the Restoring
Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act, and ask that you
vote in favor of this bill when the opportunity arises. HR
1526 would renew the commitment to manage federal forests for
the benefit of counties impacted by federal forestland,
improve forest health and help prevent catastrophic
wildfires.
Oregon continues to lose infrastructure and jobs due to
federal policies that have strangled sustainable management
of a renewable resource. We are harvesting less than five
percent of the annual growth in federal forests, resulting in
overstocked stands and conditions ripe for wildfire. HR 1526
would permit responsible, limited timber production on Forest
Service lands, would allow significant state and local
involvement, and would separately address management of the
unique O&C Lands by incorporating the bipartisan solution
crafted by Representatives DeFazio, Schrader and Walden. The
bill also would allow cooperative state and federal fire
mitigation projects in areas that cross ownership boundaries.
The expiration of the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) program in
2012 has resulted in drastic budget shortfalls in our
Counties. HR 1526 provides one year of bridge funding at the
SRS 2010 level, allowing transition to more active forest
management and a return to shared revenues from forest
management. These revenues would provide schools with
[[Page H5728]]
substantial funding and support public safety, road
maintenance, and social service programs. Improved management
and restoration of the nation's forests will generate
tremendous environmental and social benefits and create
desperately needed jobs and revenue for rural economies.
Thank you for your support of Oregon counties and schools
and for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Janet Carlson,
Chair, Commissioner.
Samuel A. Brentano,
Vice Chair, Commissioner.
Patricia Milne,
Commissioner.
Jason Myers,
Sheriff.
Walt Beglau,
District Attorney.
Tom Rohlfing,
Assessor.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), a member of the Natural Resources
Committee.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Hastings for the time, for
his leadership on our committee, and for including my bipartisan
wildfire legislation--the Catastrophic Wildfire Prevention Act--in this
forest health package.
Mr. Chairman, we have a forest health crisis in this country, and
this bill will go a long way toward restoring the environment,
improving public safety, and putting thousands of people back to work.
Due to redistricting, I have represented nearly all of rural Arizona
in Congress--nearly 48,000 square miles of U.S. Forest Service land.
These areas have been some of the communities most devastated by recent
wildfire. In my first year, the Wallow Fire, now the largest fire in
Arizona's State history, ravaged half a million acres of our treasured
Ponderosa Pine Country in just a few weeks; and this year, our State
was struck by the recent loss of 19 firefighters in the Yarnell Hill
Fire. That fire was one of many to burn over 103,000 acres this year.
We must come together, change the status quo, and facilitate
conditions that minimize the chance that fires start, and we must
reduce their size and intensity once they burn. The bill before us
today does a few important things to achieve that goal:
First, it prioritizes responsible timber production, and it ensures a
reliable revenue stream for local governments. The Feds made a promise
to our forest communities, and it must uphold that promise. Secure
Rural School dollars ensure our counties can provide essential
services, such as public safety and education to our constituents. H.R.
1526 would not only provide certainty in the program, but it would
increase timber revenues threefold;
Secondly, it implements my bill, the Catastrophic Wildfire Prevention
Act. These provisions, parts of title II and title V of the act, reduce
red tape and provide the land management agencies a variety of tools,
specifically stewardship contracting and good neighbor authority, to
conduct smaller projects in high-risk areas that need immediate
attention.
While long-term, active forest management will protect our
communities in the long run, we have to protect our people and our
assets today. These provide an expedited arrangement to streamline
thinning and grazing projects needed in immediate, at-risk areas like
our forest communities, critical water delivery and electrical
infrastructures, and our schools.
The solutions in our bill are supported by nearly every county in my
rural district, in particular Yavapai and Gila Counties, and many
affected stakeholders, including the Cattlemen, the Natural Resources
Conservation Districts, and the Farm Bureau. This bill has commonsense
solutions to our forest health crisis that should garner the entire
support of this body.
You may look at this bill and think it's not perfect, but it will do
a lot to prevent the suffering that communities like the ones I
represent have been experiencing. I would welcome any Member of this
body to come down to my district and meet with the families who have
lost their homes, their fathers, their mothers, their husbands and
wives, their kids, and their livelihoods. I think you will see why we
have to act.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I inquire of the gentleman how many speakers he has
remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. More than the gentleman, apparently. I do
have several speakers remaining.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), another member of the Natural
Resources Committee.
Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Chairman Hastings. I appreciate the
opportunity to address emergencies in our forests in the West.
Mr. Chairman, over the past decade, we've seen an increase in the
number of catastrophic wildfires burning in the western U.S., resulting
in a tragic loss of life, significant property damage, the loss of
critical habitats, and the pollution of vital watersheds.
According to the National Interagency Fire Center, there have been
over 38,119 different fires in the United States in 2013 alone. The
Black Forest fire, which ravaged Colorado in June of this year, is
believed to be the most destructive fire in Colorado's history,
destroying more than 486 homes and with an estimated cost in excess of
$85 million. The West Fork Complex fire burned approximately 110,000
acres in southwest Colorado this summer, and the incident commanders in
charge of the suppression efforts on the fire told me that the behavior
of the fire was unprecedented. Because of all the beetle-killed timber,
unnaturally dense forest, and dry conditions, the fire has acted in a
way that defied computer models.
{time} 1845
Unfortunately this news was made worse last week in my home State, as
Colorado was struck with another natural disaster in what many believe
was the worst flood in Colorado history. Parts of at least 18 different
cities and towns in my home State were severely flooded, and damage to
roads, bridges, homes, and other infrastructure is already estimated to
exceed a billion dollars. While little could be done to prepare for the
staggering rainfall the State received over such a widespread area, in
parts of Colorado where fires in recent years stripped the landscape of
vegetation, the severity of the flood damage was worsened by intense
runoff, erosion, and mud slides.
Threats to wildlife and property resulting from the wildfires are
becoming increasingly costly, and by 2030 the number of acres of forest
in Colorado that contain residential housing and commercial development
is expected to exceed 2 million acres, representing an enormous
potential hazard if fuel reduction projects and other proactive
managements are not initiated.
Instead of ramping up forest management efforts and addressing
hazardous conditions of the Western forests, the Interior Department
has proposed a 48 percent cut agency-wide for hazardous fuels reduction
for 2014, and the Forest Service has proposed reducing this proactive
management by 24 percent. In 2012, the Forest Service spent only $296
million on hazardous fuels treatment nationwide, while spending close
to $2 billion on wildfire suppression during that same time.
It is far more efficient and cost effective to proactively manage our
forests. I've said it before, but the old adage of ``an ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure'' rings especially true when we're
talking about reducing the occurrence and severity of wildfires in our
forests. Despite this, we've seen a decrease in timber harvesting of 80
percent over the past three decades. It is no coincidence that during
this time the severity of fires and the number of acres burned has
increased steadily. From 2000 to 2012, over 90 million acres burned in
the U.S., nearly as many as the previous three decades combined.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time and your support for this, and I
urge passage of this legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), another member of the
Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the communities of the
Sierra Nevada, I want to thank Chairman Hastings for this long overdue
legislation. If anyone doubts the necessity of this bill, let them come
to my district where the Yosemite Rim fire has just incinerated 400
square miles of our precious forests.
[[Page H5729]]
For years, foresters have been screaming this warning at us, that the
excess timber is going to come out of the forest one way or another. It
will either be carried out or it will be burned out, but it will come
out. In the days when we carried it out, we had healthier forests and a
thriving economy.
But Federal regulations have driven our timber harvests down 80
percent nationally--more like 90 percent in the Sierras--and now the
timber that we once carried out is being burned out, and there's
nothing subtle about the numbers. As the board feet harvested out of
these forests has declined, the acreage incinerated by forest fires has
increased proportionately and contemporaneously. The human cost has
been devastating: dozens of mills closed, thousands of families out of
work, local tax bases eviscerated.
Some of the mountain communities in my district now suffer Detroit-
levels of unemployment, and the environmental cost has been just as
devastating: overcrowded forests, overdrawn watersheds, and now
catastrophic fires. There is nothing more environmentally devastating
to a forest than a forest fire.
This measure restores the sound forest management practices that we
foolishly abandoned to the detriment of our environment and our
economy. This bill marks, at long last, a return to common sense for
the management of our national forests.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to spend a little bit of time directly
addressing the concerns and questions of some constituents back in
Oregon regarding the O&C plan in this bill. As Representative Schrader
said, there is an extraordinary amount of disinformation and
obfuscation out there.
This is the bottom plan. It provides everyone at the table with
something that they don't currently have. For failing counties in
western Oregon--and Representative Schrader did a great job talking
about that, as did Representative Walden--it means $1 billion over 10
years to help pay for basic government services like law enforcement,
public health, and education. It means putting sheriffs back on the
roads, keeping violent criminals behind bars, having better public
health, and rebuilding our infrastructure. All of those things are good
jobs, necessary jobs, and things that enhance the quality of life for
Oregonians and all Americans.
For forested communities and local economies, this plan means
sustaining or creating thousands of good-paying jobs. I have counties
that have chronic unemployment in the double digits. I've taken to
telling some people I represent the new Appalachia. When you go and
visit these depressed communities, when the last mill closes in one of
my counties, I talk to the owners of the mill and they said, If your
bill had passed, we'd be hiring 100 people, instead of firing 100
people, in a community where 100 would be the largest employer. This
means keeping those mills open, or maybe adding shifts. This plan will
keep the raw logs here at home, rather than exporting our timber to
places like China.
For the environmental community, many of whom have totally
disregarded or created propaganda about this bill, it means the first-
ever legislative protection for mature and old growth forests in
western Oregon. They are not legislatively protected now. In fact, if
the Clinton forest plan, the Northwest forest plan, is ordered fully
implemented, in pending litigation in a court here in D.C., that old
growth will be some of the first to be harvested. Since I've come to
Congress, I've been attempting to preserve the old growth. This would
do it. There would be 1.2 million acres of old growth preserved,
habitat that is fabulous. It is a carbon sink. It has the best areas to
recreate.
The bill also increases wilderness protection on the O&C lands by 250
percent, doubling the size of the Rouge Wilderness, adding Devil's
Staircase, and it also will add 130 miles of wild and scenic
designation. There will be more river protection on the O&C lands in
one plan than in the previous 50 years combined, and we will quadruple
the watershed protection compared with Oregon State standards. They
keep saying this is just the way Oregon private forestry is done. No.
We're going to have four times the riparian protection, and in terms of
herbicides and pesticides, we're going to require the development of an
integrated pest-management plan through a public process for these
lands. This is not Oregon forest practices as we know it, and as they
are picturing in ads. If they have concerns about Oregon forest
practices, they ought to go to their Governor and State legislature,
because this bill is not that.
Of the 2.8 million acres, 1.2 million acres of old growth will be
preserved. That is 300,000 acres of additional riparian reserve to
protect our water quality for consumption and for fisheries and other
values. There will be 1.3 million--less than half--that will be
managed. Areas that have been previously managed, many of which need
thinning and they need restoration work, half of those 1.3 million
managed will be managed on a rotation of over 100 years, providing,
again, tremendous environmental benefits.
Here's what the plan doesn't do. It doesn't privatize or sell any
Federal lands. In fact, these lands will remain in Federal ownership,
and we will pay the Federal Government $10 million a year to manage
these lands, and the Federal Government will save tens of millions of
dollars every year because of the management being done by a board,
which would be appointed by our Governor and would actually govern
these forests and manage these forests through an open public process
under the Oregon open-meetings law.
It will not return to the unsustainable levels that occurred during
the watch of my predecessor. There were 1.6 million board feet the year
I ran for Congress on these lands. That was not sustainable, and they
would tell people we're going back to that. No, we're not. I ran
against that, and we're not going back there. It looks like the best
estimates are we would probably get to about one-third of that level on
these lands with a environmentally responsible plan. It does not
eliminate national environmental laws. They would still apply.
This plan is about trying to restore balance and predictability to
western Oregon. I was pretty surprised at the statement, better known
as a SAP, that claimed this proposal would create more legal
uncertainty. I don't know how it's possible to create more legal
uncertainty on the O&C lands. The BLM is in the current of a multiyear,
multimillion dollar process to rewrite the management plan for these
lands. The new plan is intended to replace the old plan, which resulted
from a lawsuit. The old plan was litigated and withdrawn. Their new
plan was withdrawn by this administration because they said they
couldn't defend it in a lawsuit. Now they're developing yet another new
plan at the cost of tens of millions of dollars, which will certainly
be litigated. And just recently, a decision in Federal court has
confirmed that the O&C Act means what it says, ``permanent, sustainable
timber production.'' This decision throws the status quo further into
an uncertain area.
Now the BLM is required to offer for sale the allowable sale quantity
every year. It hasn't been doing that. There's another lawsuit that
would make this decision retroactive. That would be over a billion
board feet of timber. Yet, another lawsuit pending seeks to return the
O&C logging levels back to the 1970s and 1980s. This says nothing of
the pending lawsuits on individual timber sales. That's not certainty;
that's chaos. I'm pushing a balanced O&C plan that does three things:
provides predictable payments to failing counties; creates jobs and
sustains the existing infrastructure; and legislatively protects the
environment and public health.
This is the first beginning, on either side of Capitol Hill, of a
long legislative process, the first step toward getting a bipartisan
bill finally negotiated and sent to the President hopefully not too
distant from now.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), another member of the Natural
Resources Committee.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the act because it
will save forests in Wyoming and the West. These are fabulous natural
resources enjoyed by people and wildlife, but across the West they are
burning or
[[Page H5730]]
dying after decades of Federal mismanagement.
This photograph is from the Black Hills National Forest. Right here,
you see a very lush green area in the forest. Adjacent to that, you
have brown areas with dead or dying trees that have been ravaged by the
mountain pine beetle. Where you find that healthy wildlife habitat,
that healthy soil that's resistant to erosion, the healthy rivers and
streams, the safe area to camp and hike and recreate, is because you
have a healthy forest that was actively managed.
This green area was logged. It was thinned. The thinning is
selective, it's measured, and designed to maintain a healthy and strong
mix of trees. The brown area wasn't thinned. Bureaucratic delays,
litigation, and endless appeals prevented conservation logging in this
area. When you don't manage a forest, the entire ecosystem suffers from
the trees down to the wildlife, the soil, and the streams. It's
dangerous to camp or hike in the brown area because of the dead or
falling trees. The dead trees are now fuel for fires, and we've seen
them all over the West in the last 3 years, including this summer. This
picture is replicated throughout the West, dead or burning Federal
forests right next to healthy State or tribal forests, because the
State and tribal forests are actively managed.
Our forests don't have to look like this. They can look like this.
This act will get the Forest Service back to work on conservation
logging, create jobs in the forest-products industry, create revenue
for Federal and local governments, and prevent the astronomical costs
of responding to wildfires and infestations.
{time} 1900
It also gives State and local government a voice in forest management
within their borders. Through good neighbor authority and community
forest demonstration areas, we're involving the people who actually
live near those forests who depend on that beautiful place to live.
Mr. Chair, this is one of the most commonsense bills I've had the
privilege of helping with. I urge its passage.
BEFORE THE COUNTY COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF
JEFFERSON
resolution no. r-015-13
In The Matter of a Resolution Supporting H.R. 1526, Restoring
Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act
Now, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners recognize
that Oregonians in our forested communities are facing
extreme poverty, systemic unemployment, and thousands of
children on free and reduced lunch.
Whereas, Jefferson County currently faces 10.8%
unemployment; and
Whereas, 81.3% of school children in Jefferson County are
eligible for Free or Reduced lunch programs; and
Whereas, Jefferson County's poverty rate is 20.2%; and
Whereas, these negative economic conditions can be
attributed to the reduction in timber harvests in our
National Forests (80% reduction over the past 30 years) and
corresponding mill closures; and
Whereas, Jefferson County cannot afford for any more mills
to close and desire to recover our lost mill capacity; and
Whereas, H.R. 1526 is a bipartisan effort that aims to put
people back to work in the woods, reduce litigation, provide
certainty for counties so that they can provide essential
services, lift families out of poverty, and prevent
catastrophic wildfires that we have been experiencing; Now
therefore be it
Resolved that the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners
hereby support H.R. 1526, Restoring Healthy Forests for
Healthy Communities Act, and urge all members of the U.S.
House of Representatives to support the passage and
implementation of this important legislation.
Dated this 25th day of September, 2013.
Board of Commissioners:
Wayne Fording,
Chair.
John Hatfield,
Commissioner.
Mike Ahern,
Commissioner.
____
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF UMATILLA COUNTY STATE OF OREGON
order no. bcc2013-077
In the matter of Support for Restoring Forest for Healthy
Communities Act (H.R. 1526)
Whereas, the Umatilla County Board of Commissioners
recognize that Oregonians in our forested communities are
facing extreme poverty, systemic unemployment, and thousands
of children on free and reduced lunch;
Whereas Umatilla County's poverty rate is 14.8%; and
Whereas Umatilla County currently faces 8.4% unemployment;
and
Whereas 59.5% of school children in Umatilla County are
eligible for Free or Reduced lunch programs; and
Whereas these negative economic conditions can be
attributed in part to the reduction in timber harvests in our
National Forests (79% reduction over the past 30 years) and
corresponding mill closure; and
Whereas Umatilla County cannot afford for any more mills to
close and desires to recover our lost mill capacity; and
Whereas H.R. 1526 is a bipartisan effort that aims to put
people back to work in the woods, reduce litigation, provide
certainty for counties so that they can provide essential
services, lift families out of poverty, and prevent
catastrophic wildfires that we have been experiencing; Now
therefore, the Umatilla County Board of Commissioners adds
its support to H.R. 1526, Restoring Healthy Forests For
Healthy Communities Act, and urges all members of the U.S.
House of Representatives to support the passage and the
implementation of this important legislation.
Dated this 18th day of September, 2013.
Umatilla County Board of Commissioners:
W. Lawrence Givens,
Chair.
William J. Elfering,
Commissioner.
George L. Murdock,
Commissioner.
Attest: Office of County Records: Betty Lesko,
Records Officer.
____
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WALLOWA IN
AND OF THE STATE OF OREGON
resolution 2013-005
In the matter of a Resolution Supporting H.R. 1526, Restoring
Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act
Now; The Wallowa County Board of Commissioners recognize
that Oregonians in our forested communities are facing
extreme poverty, systemic unemployment, and thousands of
children on free and reduced lunch programs.
Whereas; Wallowa County currently faces a seasonal
unemployment rate of 14%; and
Whereas; 54.8% of school children in Wallowa County are
eligible for free or reduced lunch programs; and
Whereas; Wallowa County's youth poverty rate is 26%; and
Whereas; these negative economic conditions can be
attributed to the reduction in timber harvests in our
National Forests (80% reduction over the past 30 years) and
corresponding mill closures; and
Whereas: Wallowa County cannot afford for any more
businesses to close and desire to recover our lost mill
capacity; and.
Whereas; H.R. 1526 is a bipartisan effort that aims to put
people back to work in the woods, reduce litigation, provide
certainty for counties so that they can provide essential
services, lift families out of poverty, and prevent
catastrophic wildfires that we have been experiencing; Now
Therefore; the Wallowa County Board of Commissioners hereby
Resolve to support H.R. 1526, Restoring Healthy Forests for
Healthy Communities Act, and urge our representatives in
Washington D.C. to support its passage and implementation.
Dated this 16th day of September, 2013.
Wallowa County Board of Commissioners:
Chairman Mike Hayward.
Commissioner Paul Castilleja.
Commissioner Susan Roberts.
Attest:
Sandy Lathrop,
Exec. Assistant.
____
In Said County and State, when were present: The Honorable
Mark D. Davidson, Chairman; Steve McClure, Commissioner;
William D. Rosholt, Commissioner.
When, on Wednesday the 18th day of September 2013, among
others the following proceedings were had to wit:
resolution 2013-11
In The Matter of a Resolution Supporting H.R. 1526, Restoring
Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act
Now, the Union County Board of Commissioners recognize that
Oregonians in our forested communities are facing extreme
poverty, systemic unemployment, and thousands of children on
free and reduced lunch.
Whereas, Union County currently faces 8.3% unemployment;
and
Whereas, 53% of school children in Union County are
eligible for Free or Reduced lunch programs; and
Whereas, Union County's poverty rate is 16.6%; and
Whereas, these negative economic conditions can be
attributed to the reduction in timber harvests in our
National Forests (80% reduction over the past 30 years) and
corresponding mill closures; and
Whereas, Union County cannot afford for any more mills to
close and desire to recover our lost mill capacity; and
Whereas H.R. 1526 is a bipartisan effort that aims to put
people back to work in the woods, reduce litigation, provide
certainty for counties so that they can provide essential
services, lift families out of poverty, and prevent
catastrophic wildfires that we have been experiencing, Now
therefore the Union County Board of Commissioners Hereby
Resolve to support H.R. 1526, Restoring Healthy Forests For
Healthy Communities Act, and urge all members of the U.S.
House of Representatives to support the passage and
implementation of this important legislation.
Dated this 18th day of September, 2013.
Mark D. Davidson,
Chairman.
Steve McClure,
Commissioner.
[[Page H5731]]
Mr. DeFAZIO. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Labrador), another member of the Natural
Resources Committee
Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1526. I
want to thank Chairman Hastings and the ranking member for all of the
work that they have done on this bill. And today I specifically rise in
support of title IV of H.R. 1526, which I originally introduced as H.R.
1294, the Self-Sufficient Community Lands Act. I thank Chairman
Hastings for recognizing the importance of this issue and including it
in the bill.
In Idaho and much of the West, the economies of rural communities
once relied upon the timber industry for job creation and tax revenues.
Over the last several decades, extreme environmentalists have hindered
the ability to develop timber from our public lands through litigation.
In fact, timber harvests have declined more than 80 percent over the
last 30 years. Counties that were once dependent on timber receipts to
fund schools, roads, and daily operations find themselves desolate and
broke.
In 2000, when the Federal Government operated with a budget surplus,
and in order to compensate for the decline in timber receipts, as
everybody knows, Congress passed the Secure Rural Schools and
Communities Self-Determination Act. These payments were supposed to be
phased out over time to allow counties to diversify their local
economies. However, last year alone, 35 of Idaho's 44 counties received
SRS payments totaling over $26 million. While Congress has continually
reauthorized this funding, we are still fighting the same issues about
multiple use on public land while leaving our counties in limbo.
To solve this problem, I introduced H.R. 1294. This legislation
empowers counties to generate much needed revenue by turning over
management of Federal forests to local and State officials who are best
equipped to make these important management decisions rather than
bureaucrats in Washington.
It is time to permanently provide our counties with a solution which
would create jobs, generate tax receipts for the counties, and improve
forest health. In a time of record deficits, it is time that we stopped
kicking the can down the road and started working toward a solution.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Collins of Georgia). The time of the gentleman
has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Chairman, our country continues to spend billions
of dollars on this program instead of fixing the program.
Traditional rural timber communities have been operating in an
environment of uncertainty for decades, and many public lands in
Western States have been inaccessible due to Federal policies and
litigation. It is time we find a long-term solution to help our
counties. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1526.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), a valued former member of the
Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on
this bipartisan bill that brings commonsense management back to our
forests.
Since Tom Tidwell took over the Forest Service, he said that he would
like to reintroduce fire into the wild. Well, he's done that. This
year, almost 10 million acres, more than twice the size of New Jersey.
In the years since 2009 when he took over, larger than Ohio, 27 million
acres have burned in our national forests.
Instead, this bill creates jobs--jobs in places like Cibola County in
New Mexico where Matt Allen used to have a thriving mill but now
survives on cutting one-by-four timber, one-by-four boards out of the
logs he is able to take out of the forest.
Our streams are choked with mud. Habitat is devastated. A 75-foot
deep lake near Ruidoso, New Mexico, that provides drinking water to the
city of Alamogordo has 50 feet of fill in that 70-foot lake. Our fish
are dead. Our streams are dead, choked with mud because the head of the
U.S. Forest Service says, Let it burn instead of cut it. Common sense
says cut it. This bill ensures that.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I will advise my friend
that I have no further requests for time, and I am prepared to close if
the gentleman is prepared to close.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As I stated earlier, this is an imperfect vehicle. I have major
concerns about three of the titles in this bill, but this is the
beginning of a legislative process. It's almost become pretty rare here
in Washington, D.C. We put something forward. We send it to the Senate.
The Senate takes up that or a similar legislation. We go to a
conference committee. We work things out. And we solve problems. It was
that for most of the first 25 years I was here. That's a rare thing
these days.
This holds promise to enter into the real legislative process, a real
beginning. Now, if we fail to act, we just reinforce the status quo;
and I've got to tell you, the status quo is totally unacceptable. There
are some who would prefer that. They think they win with the current
paralysis. Well, if you want permanent protection of our old growth, if
you want additional wilderness on the Rogue River, if you want the
Devil's Staircase wilderness, and if you want better forest health, the
status quo won't get you there. If that's what you really care about,
it won't get you there.
Now, my counties can't wait. The status quo, I have two counties who
are experimenting, essentially, with how does a county go bankrupt.
It's something that's never happened before and isn't provided for in
Oregon statute. And I have others who are not too far behind.
My rural communities are in desperate need of real jobs. They can't
wait either. So we cannot fail to act. We move forward tonight or
tomorrow with a vote, and then it will be time for the Senate to come
up with its version. Then we can go to a conference committee. We can
work out final legislation and take it to the President.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. How much time do I have, Mr. Chairman?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Lucas of the
Agriculture Committee for his cooperation in expediting this bill to
the floor. We have immortalized our agreement in an exchange of
letters.
And I want to thank the ranking member because I think in his closing
remarks, he made exactly the right statement, and that is that we in
the House will have our position. The Senate is obligated to do the
same, and it may be entirely different, and that's fine. But we work
out the differences. And I also want to thank the ranking member and
his two colleagues from Oregon because I understand the uniqueness of
what they are looking for and, frankly, their approach to their
unique--this was very similar to what I and others were thinking should
be applied elsewhere. So that's what is embodied in this bill.
But I want to just make one point here because sometimes we lose
sight of this fact. What is multiple use in timber, when we talk about
timber? Multiple use means, from a commercial standpoint, of thinning
and harvesting the timber. Where we get caught up in the differences,
we look at timber entirely different from any other crop.
I represent a very diversified agricultural area in central
Washington, and the crops are on a yearly basis. It's as diverse as
apples to wheat. But when farmers plant these crops, then they use
various chemicals at various times of year in order to manage whatever
may happen so that they can harvest a good crop at the end of the year.
Well, timber is exactly the same, except depending on the type of
timber, the harvest period is from 30 to 40 years. But if you have a
problem with pine beetles, as we've had throughout the West, and this
is a crop in a multiple-use area, you ought to manage that. You manage
that by using the chemicals that are available.
[[Page H5732]]
So the only difference when we talk about managing timber from a 1-
year management of yearly crops is the time span. But it should be
managed in a responsible way in that regard, and that's what we provide
for in this bill, to set targets and properly manage.
So I think this is a good bill. I certainly hope that my colleagues
will support this when we have the vote tomorrow so that we can
continue the process of negotiating with the Senate when they,
hopefully, pass a bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Board of County Commissioner,
Washington County Oregon,
Hillsboro, OR.
Senator Ron Wyden,
Senator Jeff Merkley,
U.S. Senate.
Congressman Peter DeFazio,
Congressman Earl Blumenauer,
Congressman Greg Walden,
Congressman Kurt Schrader,
Congresswoman Suzanne Bonamici,
House of Representatives.
Dear Oregon Congressional Delegation: As Chair of
Washington County Board of County Commissioners I am writing
to offer my support for H.R. 1526. This legislation provides
a real solution to timber dependent counties in Oregon that
have suffered from a history of lost opportunities.
H.R. 1526 creates an important template for restoring a
promise made over a century ago to actively manage federal
forests. I believe had federal agencies actively managed
public lands over the last twenty years we would not be
seeing the loss of resources and lives from a horrible summer
of wildfires throughout the western U.S.
Washington County has been fortunate to see economic growth
throughout the recession. That growth however, did not occur
by luck, but was instead the result of decisions made by
local governments, communities and business over the last
fifty years. My colleagues in more rural Oregon counties
don't have the same ability to make decisions because of the
federal government dominance in landownership. H.R. 1526
provides an important role for local decision making.
It is important to maintain a proper balance of resource
protection so water quality, critical habitat, and
recreational opportunities are addressed in a future forest
plan. I believe H.R. 1526 creates a pathway to achieve this
balance.
H.R 1526 provides a common sense approach for returning to
sustainable forest management where the planned harvest is
stable, resources are protected and communities start the
rebuilding process. For long term social and financial health
of rural communities it is important to re-establish a
healthy forest products industry and create a healthy forest
environment.
Sincerely,
Andy Duyck,
Chair,
Washington County Board of Commissioners.
____
IN THE COUNTY COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF HARNEY
RESOLUTION 2013-24
In the Matter of a Resolution Supporting H.R. 1526,
Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act
Now, the Harney County Court recognizes that Oregonians in
our forested communities are facing extreme poverty, systemic
unemployment, and thousands of children on free and reduced
lunch; and,
Whereas, Harney County currently faces 12.9% unemployment;
and
Whereas, 66% of school children in Harney County are
eligible for Free or Reduced lunch programs; and
Whereas, these negative economic conditions can be
attributed to the reduction in timber harvests in our
National Forests (80% reduction over the past 30 years) and
corresponding mill closures; and
Whereas, Harney County cannot afford for any more mills to
close and desire to recover our lost mill capacity; and
Whereas H.R. 1526 is a bipartisan effort that aims to put
people back to work in the woods, reduce litigation, provide
certainty for counties so that they can provide essential
services, lift families out of poverty, and prevent
catastrophic wildfires that we have been experiencing.
Now therefore, the Harney County Court hereby
Resolves to support H.R. 1526, Restoring Healthy Forests
For Healthy Communities Act, and urge all members of the U.S.
House of Representatives to support the passage and
implementation of this important legislation.
Dated this 18th day of September, 2013.
Harney County Court:
Steven E. Grasty,
Judge.
Dan Nichols,
Commissioner.
Pete Runnels,
Commissioner.
____
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON IN AND FOR WHEELER COUNTY
Resolution 2013-19
In the Matter of a Resolution Supporting H.R. 1526, Restoring
Healthy Forests For Healthy Communities Act
Now, the Wheeler County Court recognizes that Oregonians in
our forested communities are facing extreme poverty, systemic
unemployment, and thousands of children on free and reduced
lunch.
Whereas, Wheeler County faces 6.4% unemployment; and
Whereas, 67% of school children in Wheeler County are
eligible for Free or Reduced lunch programs; and
Whereas, Wheeler County's poverty rate is 12.6%; and
Whereas, the funding for maintenance of county road
infrastructure is imperative to public safety, access for
school busses, and to support access to federal forest lands
and national monument visitor sites; and
Whereas, these negative economic conditions can be
attributed to the reduction in timber harvests in our
National Forests (80% reduction over the past 30 years) and
corresponding mill closures; and
Whereas, H.R. 1526 is a bipartisan effort that aims to put
people back to work in the woods, reduce litigation, provide
certainty for counties so that they can provide essential
services, lift families out of poverty, and prevent
catastrophic wildfires that we have been experiencing;
Now, therefore, the Wheeler County Court hereby
Resolves to support H.R. 1526, Restoring Healthy Forests
For Healthy Communities Act, and urges all members of the
U.S. House of Representatives to support the passage and
implementation of this important legislation.
Dated this 18 day of September, 2013.
Patrick C. Perry,
Wheeler County Judge.
Robert L. Ordway,
County Commissioner.
Anne C. Mitchell,
County Commissioner.
____
Board of Commissioners,
Jackson County Oregon,
Medford, OR, September 16, 2013.
Hon. Peter DeFazio,
Hon. Greg Walden,
Hon. Earl Blumenauer,
Hon. Kurt Schrader,
Hon. Suzanne Bonamici.
Dear Members of Oregon's House of Representatives: I am
writing to request your support for H.R. 1526, the Restoring
Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act, and ask that you
vote in favor of this bill when the opportunity arises. H.R.
1526 would renew the commitment to manage federal forests for
the benefit of counties impacted by federal forestland,
improve forest health and help prevent catastrophic
wildfires.
Oregon continues to lose infrastructure and jobs due to
federal policies that have strangled sustainable management
of a renewable resource. We are harvesting less than five
percent of the annual growth in federal forests, resulting in
overstocked stands and conditions ripe for wildfire. H.R.
1526 would permit responsible, limited timber production on
Forest Service lands, would allow significant state and local
involvement, and would separately address management of the
unique O&C Lands by incorporating the bipartisan solution
crafted by Representatives DeFazio, Schrader and Walden. The
bill also would allow cooperative state and federal fire
mitigation projects in areas that cross ownership boundaries.
The expiration of the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) program in
2012 has resulted in drastic budget shortfalls in our
Counties. H.R. 1526 provides one year of bridge funding at
the SRS 2010 level, allowing transition to more active forest
management and a return to shared revenues from forest
management. These revenues would provide schools with
substantial funding and support public safety, road
maintenance, and social service programs. Improved management
and restoration of the nation's forests will generate
tremendous environmental and social benefits and create
desperately needed jobs and revenue for rural economies.
Thank you for your support of Oregon counties and schools
and for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
John Rachor,
County Commissioner.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC, September 10, 2013.
Hon. Doc Hastings,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Hastings: Thank you for the opportunity to
review the relevant provisions of the text of H.R. 1526, the
Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act. As you
are aware, the bill was primarily referred to the Committee
on Natural Resources, while the Agriculture Committee
received an additional referral.
I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this
legislation before the House in an expeditious manner and,
accordingly, I agree to discharge H.R. 1526 from further
consideration by the Committee on Agriculture. I do so with
the understanding that by discharging the bill, the Committee
on Agriculture does not waive any future jurisdictional claim
on this or similar matters. Further, the Committee on
Agriculture reserves the right to seek the appointment of
conferees, if it should become necessary.
I ask that you insert a copy of our exchange of letters
into the Congressional Record during consideration of this
measure on the House floor.
[[Page H5733]]
Thank you for your courtesy in this matter and I look
forward to continued cooperation between our respective
committees.
Sincerely,
Frank D. Lucas,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC, September 11, 2013.
Hon. Frank D. Lucas,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
1526, the Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities
Act. As you know, the Committee on Natural Resources ordered
reported the bill, as amended, on July 31, 2013. I appreciate
your support in bringing this legislation before the House of
Representatives, and accordingly, understand that the
Committee on Agriculture will forego action on the bill.
The Committee on Natural Resources concurs with the mutual
understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 1526 at
this time, the Committee on Agriculture does not waive any
jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or
similar legislation. In addition, should a conference on the
bill be necessary, I would support your request to have the
Committee on Agriculture represented on the conference
committee. Finally, I would be pleased to include your letter
and this response in the bill report filed by the Committee
on Natural Resources, as well as in the Congressional Record
during floor consideration, to memorialize our understanding.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Doc Hastings,
Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Natural Resources, an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 113-21,
modified by the amendment printed in part B of House Report 113-215, is
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill
for the purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall
be considered as read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 1526
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Restoring
Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--RESTORING THE COMMITMENT TO RURAL COUNTIES AND SCHOOLS
Sec. 101. Purposes.
Sec. 102. Definitions.
Sec. 103. Establishment of Forest Reserve Revenue Areas and annual
volume requirements.
Sec. 104. Management of Forest Reserve Revenue Areas.
Sec. 105. Distribution of forest reserve revenues.
TITLE II--HEALTHY FOREST MANAGEMENT AND CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRE
PREVENTION
Sec. 201. Purposes.
Sec. 202. Definitions.
Sec. 203. Hazardous fuel reduction projects and forest health projects
in at-risk forests.
Sec. 204. Environmental analysis.
Sec. 205. State designation of high-risk areas of National Forest
System and public lands.
Sec. 206. Use of hazardous fuels reduction or forest health projects
for high-risk areas.
TITLE III--OREGON AND CALIFORNIA RAILROAD GRANT LANDS TRUST,
CONSERVATION, AND JOBS
Sec. 301. Short title.
Sec. 302. Definitions.
Subtitle A--Trust, Conservation, and Jobs
Chapter 1--Creation and Terms of O&C Trust
Sec. 311. Creation of O&C Trust and designation of O&C Trust lands.
Sec. 312. Legal effect of O&C Trust and judicial review.
Sec. 313. Board of Trustees.
Sec. 314. Management of O&C Trust lands.
Sec. 315. Distribution of revenues from O&C Trust lands.
Sec. 316. Land exchange authority.
Sec. 317. Payments to the United States Treasury.
Chapter 2--Transfer of Certain Lands to Forest Service
Sec. 321. Transfer of certain Oregon and California Railroad Grant
lands to Forest Service.
Sec. 322. Management of transferred lands by Forest Service.
Sec. 323. Management efficiencies and expedited land exchanges.
Sec. 324. Review panel and old growth protection.
Sec. 325. Uniqueness of old growth protection on Oregon and California
Railroad Grant lands.
Chapter 3--Transition
Sec. 331. Transition period and operations.
Sec. 332. O&C Trust management capitalization.
Sec. 333. Existing Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service
contracts.
Sec. 334. Protection of valid existing rights and access to non-Federal
land.
Sec. 335. Repeal of superseded law relating to Oregon and California
Railroad Grant lands.
Subtitle B--Coos Bay Wagon Roads
Sec. 341. Transfer of management authority over certain Coos Bay Wagon
Road Grant lands to Coos County, Oregon.
Sec. 342. Transfer of certain Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant lands to Forest
Service.
Sec. 343. Land exchange authority.
Subtitle C--Oregon Treasures
Chapter 1--Wilderness Areas
Sec. 351. Designation of Devil's Staircase Wilderness.
Sec. 352. Expansion of Wild Rogue Wilderness Area.
Chapter 2--Wild and Scenic River Designated and Related Protections
Sec. 361. Wild and scenic river designations, Molalla River.
Sec. 362. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act technical corrections related to
Chetco River.
Sec. 363. Wild and scenic river designations, Wasson Creek and Franklin
Creek.
Sec. 364. Wild and scenic river designations, Rogue River area.
Sec. 365. Additional protections for Rogue River tributaries.
Chapter 3--Additional Protections
Sec. 371. Limitations on land acquisition.
Sec. 372. Overflights.
Sec. 373. Buffer zones.
Sec. 374. Prevention of wildfires.
Sec. 375. Limitation on designation of certain lands in Oregon.
Chapter 4--Effective Date
Sec. 381. Effective date.
Subtitle D--Tribal Trust Lands
Part 1--Council Creek Land Conveyance
Sec. 391. Definitions.
Sec. 392. Conveyance.
Sec. 393. Map and legal description.
Sec. 394. Administration.
Part 2--Oregon Coastal Land Conveyance
Sec. 395. Definitions.
Sec. 396. Conveyance.
Sec. 397. Map and legal description.
Sec. 398. Administration.
TITLE IV--COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION
Sec. 401. Purpose and definitions.
Sec. 402. Establishment of community forest demonstration areas.
Sec. 403. Advisory committee.
Sec. 404. Management of community forest demonstration areas.
Sec. 405. Distribution of funds from community forest demonstration
area.
Sec. 406. Initial funding authority.
Sec. 407. Payments to United States Treasury.
Sec. 408. Termination of community forest demonstration area.
TITLE V--REAUTHORIZATION AND AMENDMENT OF EXISTING AUTHORITIES AND
OTHER MATTERS
Sec. 501. Extension of Secure Rural Schools and Community
Self-Determination Act of 2000 pending full operation
of Forest Reserve Revenue Areas.
Sec. 502. Restoring original calculation method for 25-percent
payments.
Sec. 503. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management good-neighbor
cooperation with States to reduce wildfire risks.
Sec. 504. Stewardship end result contracting project authority.
Sec. 505. Clarification of National Forest Management Act of 1976
authority.
Sec. 506. Treatment as supplemental funding.
Sec. 507. Exception of certain forest projects and activities from
Appeals Reform Act and other review.
TITLE I--RESTORING THE COMMITMENT TO RURAL COUNTIES AND SCHOOLS
SEC. 101. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this title are as follows:
(1) To restore employment and educational opportunities in,
and improve the economic stability of, counties containing
National Forest System land.
(2) To ensure that such counties have a dependable source
of revenue from National Forest System land.
(3) To reduce Forest Service management costs while also
ensuring the protection of United States forests resources.
SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Annual volume requirement.--
(A) In general.--The term ``annual volume requirement'',
with respect to a Forest Reserve Revenue Area, means a volume
of national forest materials no less than 50 percent of the
sustained yield of the Forest Reserve Revenue Area.
[[Page H5734]]
(B) Exclusions.--In determining the volume of national
forest materials or the sustained yield of a Forest Reserve
Revenue Area, the Secretary may not include non-commercial
post and pole sales and personal use firewood.
(2) Beneficiary county.--The term ``beneficiary county''
means a political subdivision of a State that, on account of
containing National Forest System land, was eligible to
receive payments through the State under title I of the
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of
2000 (16 U.S.C. 7111 et seq.).
(3) Catastrophic event.--The term ``catastrophic event''
means an event (including severe fire, insect or disease
infestations, windthrow, or other extreme weather or natural
disaster) that the Secretary determines will cause or has
caused substantial damage to National Forest System land or
natural resources on National Forest System land.
(4) Covered forest reserve project.--The terms ``covered
forest reserve project'' and ``covered project'' mean a
project involving the management or sale of national forest
materials within a Forest Reserve Revenue Area to generate
forest reserve revenues and achieve the annual volume
requirement for the Forest Reserve Revenue Area.
(5) Forest reserve revenue area.--
(A) In general.--The term ``Forest Reserve Revenue Area''
means National Forest System land in a unit of the National
Forest System designated for sustainable forest management
for the production of national forest materials and forest
reserve revenues.
(B) Inclusions.--Subject to subparagraph (C), but otherwise
notwithstanding any other provision of law, including
executive orders and regulations, the Secretary shall include
in Forest Reserve Revenue Areas not less than 50 percent of
the National Forest System lands identified as commercial
forest land capable of producing twenty cubic feet of timber
per acre.
(C) Exclusions.--A Forest Reserve Revenue Area may not
include National Forest System land--
(i) that is a component of the National Wilderness
Preservation System;
(ii) on which the removal of vegetation is specifically
prohibited by Federal statute; or
(iii) that is within a National Monument as of the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(6) Forest reserve revenues.--The term ``forest reserve
revenues'' means revenues derived from the sale of national
forest materials in a Forest Reserve Revenue Area.
(7) National forest materials.--The term ``national forest
materials'' has the meaning given that term in section
14(e)(1) of the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16
U.S.C. 472a(e)(1)).
(8) National forest system.--The term ``National Forest
System'' has the meaning given that term in section 11(a) of
the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of
1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)), except that the term does not
include the National Grasslands and land utilization projects
designated as National Grasslands administered pursuant to
the Act of July 22, 1937 (7 U.S.C. 1010-1012).
(9) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(10) Sustained yield.--The term ``sustained yield'' means
the maximum annual growth potential of the forest calculated
on the basis of the culmination of mean annual increment
using cubic measurement.
(11) State.--The term ``State'' includes the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico.
(12) 25-percent payment.--The term ``25-percent payment''
means the payment to States required by the sixth paragraph
under the heading of ``FOREST SERVICE'' in the Act of May 23,
1908 (35 Stat. 260; 16 U.S.C. 500), and section 13 of the Act
of March 1, 1911 (36 Stat. 963; 16 U.S.C. 500).
SEC. 103. ESTABLISHMENT OF FOREST RESERVE REVENUE AREAS AND
ANNUAL VOLUME REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Establishment of Forest Reserve Revenue Areas.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary
shall establish one or more Forest Reserve Revenue Areas
within each unit of the National Forest System.
(b) Deadline for Establishment.--The Secretary shall
complete establishment of the Forest Reserve Revenue Areas
not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this
Act,
(c) Purpose.--The purpose of a Forest Reserve Revenue Area
is to provide a dependable source of 25-percent payments and
economic activity through sustainable forest management for
each beneficiary county containing National Forest System
land.
(d) Fiduciary Responsibility.--The Secretary shall have a
fiduciary responsibility to beneficiary counties to manage
Forest Reserve Revenue Areas to satisfy the annual volume
requirement.
(e) Determination of Annual Volume Requirement.--Not later
than 30 days after the date of the establishment of a Forest
Reserve Revenue Area, the Secretary shall determine the
annual volume requirement for that Forest Reserve Revenue
Area.
(f) Limitation on Reduction of Forest Reserve Revenue
Areas.--Once a Forest Reserve Revenue Area is established
under subsection (a), the Secretary may not reduce the number
of acres of National Forest System land included in that
Forest Reserve Revenue Area.
(g) Map.--The Secretary shall provide a map of all Forest
Reserve Revenue Areas established under subsection (a) for
each unit of the National Forest System--
(1) to the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on
Natural Resources of the House of Representatives; and
(2) to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of
the Senate.
(h) Recognition of Valid and Existing Rights.--Neither the
establishment of Forest Reserve Revenue Areas under
subsection (a) nor any other provision of this title shall be
construed to limit or restrict--
(1) access to National Forest System land for hunting,
fishing, recreation, and other related purposes; or
(2) valid and existing rights regarding National Forest
System land, including rights of any federally recognized
Indian tribe.
SEC. 104. MANAGEMENT OF FOREST RESERVE REVENUE AREAS.
(a) Requirement To Achieve Annual Volume Requirement.--
Immediately upon the establishment of a Forest Reserve
Revenue Area, the Secretary shall manage the Forest Reserve
Revenue Area in the manner necessary to achieve the annual
volume requirement for the Forest Reserve Revenue Area. The
Secretary is authorized and encouraged to commence covered
forest reserve projects as soon as practicable after the date
of the enactment of this Act to begin generating forest
reserve revenues.
(b) Standards for Projects Within Forest Reserve Revenue
Areas.--The Secretary shall conduct covered forest reserve
projects within Forest Reserve Revenue Areas in accordance
with this section, which shall serve as the sole means by
which the Secretary will comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4331 et seq.) and
other laws applicable to the covered projects.
(c) Environmental Analysis Process for Projects in Forest
Reserve Revenue Areas.--
(1) Environmental assessment.--The Secretary shall give
published notice and complete an environmental assessment
pursuant to section 102(2) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)) for a covered forest
reserve project proposed to be conducted within a Forest
Reserve Revenue Area, except that the Secretary is not
required to study, develop, or describe any alternative to
the proposed agency action.
(2) Cumulative effects.--The Secretary shall consider
cumulative effects solely by evaluating the impacts of a
proposed covered forest reserve project combined with the
impacts of any other projects that were approved with a
Decision Notice or Record of Decision before the date on
which the Secretary published notice of the proposed covered
project. The cumulative effects of past projects may be
considered in the environmental assessment by using a
description of the current environmental conditions.
(3) Length.--The environmental assessment prepared for a
proposed covered forest reserve project shall not exceed 100
pages in length. The Secretary may incorporate in the
environmental assessment, by reference, any documents that
the Secretary determines, in the sole discretion of the
Secretary, are relevant to the assessment of the
environmental effects of the covered project.
(4) Deadline for completion.--The Secretary shall complete
the environmental assessment for a covered forest reserve
project within 180 days after the date on which the Secretary
published notice of the proposed covered project.
(5) Treatment of decision notice.-- The decision notice for
a covered forest reserve project shall be considered a final
agency action and no additional analysis under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4331 et seq.)
shall be required to implement any portion of the covered
project.
(6) Categorical exclusion.--A covered forest reserve
project that is proposed in response to a catastrophic event,
that covers an area of 10,000 acres or less, or an eligible
hazardous fuel reduction or forest health project proposed
under title II that involves the removal of insect-infected
trees, dead or dying trees, trees presenting a threat to
public safety, or other hazardous fuels within 500 feet of
utility or telephone infrastructure, campgrounds, roadsides,
heritage sites, recreation sites, schools, or other
infrastructure, shall be categorically excluded from the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4331 et seq.).
(d) Application of Land and Resource Management Plan.--The
Secretary may modify the standards and guidelines contained
in the land and resource management plan for the unit of the
National Forest System in which the covered forest reserve
project will be carried out as necessary to achieve the
requirements of this Act. Section 6(g)(3)(E)(iv) of the
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974
(16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(E)(iv)) shall not apply to a covered
forest reserve project.
(e) Compliance With Endangered Species Act.--
(1) Non-jeopardy assessment.--If the Secretary determines
that a proposed covered forest reserve project may affect the
continued existence of any species listed as endangered or
threatened under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533), the Secretary shall issue a
determination explaining the view of the Secretary that the
proposed covered project is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the species.
(2) Submission, review, and response.--
[[Page H5735]]
(A) Submission.--The Secretary shall submit a determination
issued by the Secretary under paragraph (1) to the Secretary
of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce, as appropriate.
(B) Review and response.--Within 30 days after receiving a
determination under subparagraph (A), the Secretary of the
Interior or the Secretary of Commerce, as appropriate, shall
provide a written response to the Secretary concurring in or
rejecting the Secretary's determination. If the Secretary of
the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce rejects the
determination, the written response shall include
recommendations for measures that--
(i) will avoid the likelihood of jeopardy to an endangered
or threatened species;
(ii) can be implemented in a manner consistent with the
intended purpose of the covered forest reserve project;
(iii) can be implemented consistent with the scope of the
Secretary's legal authority and jurisdiction; and
(iv) are economically and technologically feasible.
(3) Formal consultation.--If the Secretary of the Interior
or the Secretary of Commerce rejects a determination issued
by the Secretary under paragraph (1), the Secretary of the
Interior or the Secretary of Commerce also is required to
engage in formal consultation with the Secretary. The
Secretaries shall complete such consultation pursuant to
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1536) within 90 days after the submission of the written
response under paragraph (2).
(f) Administrative and Judicial Review.--
(1) Administrative review.--Administrative review of a
covered forest reserve project shall occur only in accordance
with the special administrative review process established
under section 105 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of
2003 (16 U.S.C. 6515).
(2) Judicial review.--
(A) In general.--Judicial review of a covered forest
reserve project shall occur in accordance with section 106 of
the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6516).
(B) Bond required.--A plaintiff challenging a covered
forest reserve project shall be required to post a bond or
other security acceptable to the court for the reasonably
estimated costs, expenses, and attorneys fees of the
Secretary as defendant. All proceedings in the action shall
be stayed until the security is given. If the plaintiff has
not complied with the order to post such bond or other
security within 90 days after the date of service of the
order, then the action shall be dismissed with prejudice.
(C) Recovery.--If the Secretary prevails in the case, the
Secretary shall submit to the court a motion for payment of
all litigation expenses.
(g) Use of All-terrain Vehicles for Management
Activities.--The Secretary may allow the use of all-terrain
vehicles within the Forest Reserve Revenue Areas for the
purpose of activities associated with the sale of national
forest materials in a Forest Reserve Revenue Area.
SEC. 105. DISTRIBUTION OF FOREST RESERVE REVENUES.
(a) 25-Percent Payments.--The Secretary shall use forest
reserve revenues generated by a covered forest reserve
project to make 25-percent payments to States for the benefit
of beneficiary counties.
(b) Deposit in Knutson-Vandenberg and Salvage Sale Funds.--
After compliance with subsection (a), the Secretary shall use
forest reserve revenues to make deposits into the fund
established under section 3 of the Act of June 9, 1930 (16
U.S.C. 576b; commonly known as the Knutson-Vandenberg Fund)
and the fund established under section 14(h) of the National
Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a(h); commonly
known as the salvage sale fund) in contributions equal to the
monies otherwise collected under those Acts for projects
conducted on National Forest System land.
(c) Deposit in General Fund of the Treasury.--After
compliance with subsections (a) and (b), the Secretary shall
deposit remaining forest reserve revenues into the general
fund of the Treasury.
TITLE II--HEALTHY FOREST MANAGEMENT AND CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRE
PREVENTION
SEC. 201. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this title are as follows:
(1) To provide the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Secretary of the Interior with the tools necessary to reduce
the potential for wildfires.
(2) To expedite wildfire prevention projects to reduce the
chances of wildfire on certain high-risk Federal lands.
(3) To protect communities and forest habitat from
uncharacteristic wildfires.
(4) To enhance aquatic conditions and terrestrial wildlife
habitat.
(5) To restore diverse and resilient landscapes through
improved forest conditions.
SEC. 202. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) At-risk community.--The term ``at-risk community'' has
the meaning given that term in section 101 of the Healthy
Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6511).
(2) At-risk forest.--The term ``at-risk forest'' means--
(A) Federal land in condition class II or III, as those
classes were developed by the Forest Service Rocky Mountain
Research Station in the general technical report titled
``Development of Coarse-Scale Spatial Data for Wildland Fire
and Fuel Management'' (RMRS-87) and dated April 2000 or any
subsequent revision of the report; or
(B) Federal land where there exists a high risk of losing
an at-risk community, key ecosystem, water supply, wildlife,
or wildlife habitat to wildfire, including catastrophic
wildfire and post-fire disturbances, as designated by the
Secretary concerned.
(3) Federal land.--
(A) Covered land.--The term ``Federal land'' means--
(i) land of the National Forest System (as defined in
section 11(a) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a))); or
(ii) public lands (as defined in section 103 of the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702)).
(B) Excluded land.--The term does not include land--
(i) that is a component of the National Wilderness
Preservation System;
(ii) on which the removal of vegetation is specifically
prohibited by Federal statute; or
(iii) that is within a National Monument as of the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(4) High-risk area.--The term ``high-risk area'' means an
area of Federal land identified under section 205 as an area
suffering from the bark beetle epidemic, drought, or
deteriorating forest health conditions, with the resulting
imminent risk of devastating wildfires, or otherwise at high
risk for bark beetle infestation, drought, or wildfire.
(5) Secretary concerned.--The term ``Secretary concerned''
means--
(A) the Secretary of Agriculture, in the case of National
Forest System land; and
(B) the Secretary of the Interior, in the case of public
lands.
(6) Eligible hazardous fuel reduction and forest health
projects.--The terms ``hazardous fuel reduction project'' or
``forest health project'' mean the measures and methods
developed for a project to be carried out on Federal land--
(A) in an at-risk forest under section 203 for hazardous
fuels reduction, forest health, forest restoration, or
watershed restoration, using ecological restoration
principles consistent with the forest type where such project
will occur; or
(B) in a high-risk area under section 206.
SEC. 203. HAZARDOUS FUEL REDUCTION PROJECTS AND FOREST HEALTH
PROJECTS IN AT-RISK FORESTS.
(a) Implementation.--As soon as practicable after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary concerned is
authorized to implement a hazardous fuel reduction project or
a forest health project in at-risk forests in a manner that
focuses on surface, ladder, and canopy fuels reduction
activities using ecological restoration principles consistent
with the forest type in the location where such project will
occur.
(b) Authorized Practices.--
(1) Inclusion of livestock grazing and timber harvesting.--
A hazardous fuel reduction project or a forest health project
may include livestock grazing and timber harvest projects
carried out for the purposes of hazardous fuels reduction,
forest health, forest restoration, watershed restoration, or
threatened and endangered species habitat protection or
improvement, if the management action is consistent with
achieving long-term ecological restoration of the forest type
in the location where such project will occur.
(2) Grazing.--Domestic livestock grazing may be used in a
hazardous fuel reduction project or a forest health project
to reduce surface fuel loads and to recover burned areas.
Utilization standards shall not apply when domestic livestock
grazing is used in such a project.
(3) Timber harvesting and thinning.--Timber harvesting and
thinning, where the ecological restoration principles are
consistent with the forest type in the location where such
project will occur, may be used in a hazardous fuel reduction
project or a forest health project to reduce ladder and
canopy fuel loads to prevent unnatural fire.
(c) Priority.--The Secretary concerned shall give priority
to hazardous fuel reduction projects and forest health
projects submitted by the Governor of a State as provided in
section 206(c) and to projects submitted under the Tribal
Forest Protection Act of 2004 (25 U.S.C. 3115a).
SEC. 204. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.
Subsections (b) through (f) of section 104 shall apply to
the implementation of a hazardous fuel reduction project or a
forest health project under this title.
SEC. 205. STATE DESIGNATION OF HIGH-RISK AREAS OF NATIONAL
FOREST SYSTEM AND PUBLIC LANDS.
(a) Designation Authority.--The Governor of a State may
designate high-risk areas of Federal land in the State for
the purposes of addressing--
(1) deteriorating forest health conditions in existence as
of the date of the enactment of this Act due to the bark
beetle epidemic or drought, with the resulting imminent risk
of devastating wildfires; and
(2) the future risk of insect infestations or disease
outbreaks through preventative treatments to improve forest
health conditions.
(b) Consultation.--In designating high-risk areas, the
Governor of a State shall consult with county government from
affected counties and with affected Indian tribes.
(c) Exclusion of Certain Areas.--The following Federal land
may not be designated as a high-risk area:
[[Page H5736]]
(1) A component of the National Wilderness Preservation
System.
(2) Federal land on which the removal of vegetation is
specifically prohibited by Federal statute.
(3) Federal land within a National Monument as of the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Standards for Designation.--Designation of high-risk
areas shall be consistent with standards and guidelines
contained in the land and resource management plan or land
use plan for the unit of Federal land for which the
designation is being made, except that the Secretary
concerned may modify such standards and guidelines to
correspond with a specific high-risk area designation.
(e) Time for Initial Designations.--The first high-risk
areas should be designated not later than 60 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, but high-risk areas may be
designated at any time consistent with subsection (a).
(f) Duration of Designation.--The designation of a high-
risk area in a State shall expire 20 years after the date of
the designation, unless earlier terminated by the Governor of
the State.
(g) Redesignation.--The expiration of the 20-year period
specified in subsection (f) does not prohibit the Governor
from redesignating an area of Federal land as a high-risk
area under this section if the Governor determines that the
Federal land continues to be subject to the terms of this
section.
(h) Recognition of Valid and Existing Rights.--The
designation of a high-risk area shall not be construed to
limit or restrict--
(1) access to Federal land included in the area for
hunting, fishing, and other related purposes; or
(2) valid and existing rights regarding the Federal land.
SEC. 206. USE OF HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION OR FOREST HEALTH
PROJECTS FOR HIGH-RISK AREAS.
(a) Project Proposals.--
(1) Proposals authorized.--Upon designation of a high-risk
area in a State, the Governor of the State may provide for
the development of proposed hazardous fuel reduction projects
or forest health projects for the high-risk area.
(2) Project criteria.--In preparing a proposed hazardous
fuel reduction project or a forest health project, the
Governor of a State and the Secretary concerned shall--
(A) take into account managing for rights of way,
protection of watersheds, protection of wildlife and
endangered species habitat, safe-guarding water resources,
and protecting at-risk communities from wildfires; and
(B) emphasize activities that thin the forest to provide
the greatest health and longevity of the forest.
(b) Consultation.--In preparing a proposed hazardous fuel
reduction project or a forest health project, the Governor of
a State shall consult with county government from affected
counties, and with affected Indian tribes.
(c) Submission and Implementation.--The Governor of a State
shall submit proposed emergency hazardous fuel reduction
projects and forest health projects to the Secretary
concerned for implementation as provided in section 203.
TITLE III--OREGON AND CALIFORNIA RAILROAD GRANT LANDS TRUST,
CONSERVATION, AND JOBS
SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``O&C Trust, Conservation,
and Jobs Act''.
SEC. 302. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) Affiliates.--The term ``Affiliates'' has the meaning
given such term in part 121 of title 13, Code of Federal
Regulations.
(2) Board of trustees.--The term ``Board of Trustees''
means the Board of Trustees for the Oregon and California
Railroad Grant Lands Trust appointed under section 313.
(3) Coos bay wagon road grant lands.--The term ``Coos Bay
Wagon Road Grant lands'' means the lands reconveyed to the
United States pursuant to the first section of the Act of
February 26, 1919 (40 Stat. 1179).
(4) Fiscal year.--The term ``fiscal year'' means the
Federal fiscal year, October 1 through the next September 30.
(5) Governor.--The term ``Governor'' means the Governor of
the State of Oregon.
(6) O&C region public domain lands.--The term ``O&C Region
Public Domain lands'' means all the land managed by the
Bureau of Land Management in the Salem District, Eugene
District, Roseburg District, Coos Bay District, and Medford
District in the State of Oregon, excluding the Oregon and
California Railroad Grant lands and the Coos Bay Wagon Road
Grant lands.
(7) O&C trust.--The terms ``Oregon and California Railroad
Grant Lands Trust'' and ``O&C Trust'' mean the trust created
by section 311, which has fiduciary responsibilities to act
for the benefit of the O&C Trust counties in the management
of O&C Trust lands.
(8) O&C trust county.--The term ``O&C Trust county'' means
each of the 18 counties in the State of Oregon that contained
a portion of the Oregon and California Railroad Grant lands
as of January 1, 2013, each of which are beneficiaries of the
O&C Trust.
(9) O&C trust lands.--The term ``O&C Trust lands'' means
the surface estate of the lands over which management
authority is transferred to the O&C Trust pursuant to section
311(c)(1). The term does not include any of the lands
excluded from the O&C Trust pursuant to section 311(c)(2),
transferred to the Forest Service under section 321, or
Tribal lands transferred under subtitle D.
(10) Oregon and california railroad grant lands.--The term
``Oregon and California Railroad Grant lands'' means the
following lands:
(A) All lands in the State of Oregon revested in the United
States under the Act of June 9, 1916 (39 Stat. 218),
regardless of whether the lands are--
(i) administered by the Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Bureau of Land Management, pursuant to the first
section of the Act of August 28, 1937 (43 U.S.C. 1181a); or
(ii) administered by the Secretary of Agriculture as part
of the National Forest System pursuant to the first section
of the Act of June 24, 1954 (43 U.S.C. 1181g).
(B) All lands in the State obtained by the Secretary of the
Interior pursuant to the land exchanges authorized and
directed by section 2 of the Act of June 24, 1954 (43 U.S.C.
1181h).
(C) All lands in the State acquired by the United States at
any time and made subject to the provisions of title II of
the Act of August 28, 1937 (43 U.S.C. 1181f).
(11) Reserve fund.--The term ``Reserve Fund'' means the
reserve fund created by the Board of Trustees under section
315(b).
(12) Secretary concerned.--The term ``Secretary concerned''
means--
(A) the Secretary of the Interior, with respect to Oregon
and California Railroad Grant lands that are transferred to
the management authority of the O&C Trust and, immediately
before such transfer, were managed by the Bureau of Land
Management; and
(B) the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to Oregon
and California Railroad Grant lands that--
(i) are transferred to the management authority of the O&C
Trust and, immediately before such transfer, were part of the
National Forest System; or
(ii) are transferred to the Forest Service under section
321.
(13) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Oregon.
(14) Transition period.--The term ``transition period''
means the three fiscal-year period specified in section 331
following the appointment of the Board of Trustees during
which--
(A) the O&C Trust is created; and
(B) interim funding of the O&C Trust is secured.
(15) Tribal lands.--The term ``Tribal lands'' means any of
the lands transferred to the Cow Creek Band of the Umpqua
Tribe of Indians or the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower
Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians under subtitle D.
Subtitle A--Trust, Conservation, and Jobs
CHAPTER 1--CREATION AND TERMS OF O&C TRUST
SEC. 311. CREATION OF O&C TRUST AND DESIGNATION OF O&C TRUST
LANDS.
(a) Creation.--The Oregon and California Railroad Grant
Lands Trust is established effective on October 1 of the
first fiscal year beginning after the appointment of the
Board of Trustees. As management authority over the surface
of estate of the O&C Trust lands is transferred to the O&C
Trust during the transition period pursuant to section 331,
the transferred lands shall be held in trust for the benefit
of the O&C Trust counties.
(b) Trust Purpose.--The purpose of the O&C Trust is to
produce annual maximum sustained revenues in perpetuity for
O&C Trust counties by managing the timber resources on O&C
Trust lands on a sustained-yield basis subject to the
management requirements of section 314.
(c) Designation of O&C Trust Lands.--
(1) Lands included.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
the O&C Trust lands shall include all of the lands containing
the stands of timber described in subsection (d) that are
located, as of January 1, 2013, on Oregon and California
Railroad Grant lands and O&C Region Public Domain lands.
(2) Lands excluded.--O&C Trust lands shall not include any
of the following Oregon and California Railroad Grant lands
and O&C Region Public Domain lands (even if the lands are
otherwise described in subsection (d)):
(A) Federal lands within the National Landscape
Conservation System as of January 1, 2013.
(B) Federal lands designated as Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern as of January 1, 2013.
(C) Federal lands that were in the National Wilderness
Preservation System as of January 1, 2013.
(D) Federal lands included in the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System of January 1, 2013.
(E) Federal lands within the boundaries of a national
monument, park, or other developed recreation area as of
January 1, 2013.
(F) Oregon treasures addressed in subtitle C, any portion
of which, as of January 1, 2013, consists of Oregon and
California Railroad Grant lands or O&C Region Public Domain
lands.
(G) Tribal lands addressed in subtitle D.
(d) Covered Stands of Timber.--
(1) Description.--The O&C Trust lands consist of stands of
timber that have previously been managed for timber
production or that have been materially altered by natural
disturbances since 1886. Most of these stands of timber are
80 years old or less, and all of such stands can be
classified as having a predominant stand age of 125 years or
less.
[[Page H5737]]
(2) Delineation of boundaries by bureau of land
management.--The Oregon and California Railroad Grant lands
and O&C Region Public Domain lands that, immediately before
transfer to the O&C Trust, were managed by the Bureau of Land
Management are timber stands that have predominant birth date
attributes of 1886 or later, with boundaries that are defined
by polygon spatial data layer in and electronic data
compilation filed by the Bureau of Land Management pursuant
to paragraph (4). Except as provided in paragraph (5), the
boundaries of all timber stands constituting the O&C Trust
lands are finally and conclusively determined for all
purposes by coordinates in or derived by reference to the
polygon spatial data layer prepared by the Bureau of Land
Management and filed pursuant to paragraph (4),
notwithstanding anomalies that might later be discovered on
the ground. The boundary coordinates are locatable on the
ground by use of global positioning system signals. In cases
where the location of the stand boundary is disputed or is
inconsistent with paragraph (1), the location of boundary
coordinates on the ground shall be, except as otherwise
provided in paragraph (5), finally and conclusively
determined for all purposes by the direct or indirect use of
global positioning system equipment with accuracy
specification of one meter or less.
(3) Delineation of boundaries by forest service.--The O&C
Trust lands that, immediately before transfer to the O&C
Trust, were managed by the Forest Service are timber stands
that can be classified as having predominant stand ages of
125 years old or less. Within 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
commence identification of the boundaries of such stands, and
the boundaries of all such stands shall be identified and
made available to the Board of Trustees not later than 180
days following the creation of the O&C Trust pursuant to
subsection (a). In identifying the stand boundaries, the
Secretary may use geographic information system data,
satellite imagery, cadastral survey coordinates, or any other
means available within the time allowed. The boundaries shall
be provided to the Board of Trustees within the time allowed
in the form of a spatial data layer from which coordinates
can be derived that are locatable on the ground by use of
global positioning system signals. Except as provided in
paragraph (5), the boundaries of all timber stands
constituting the O&C Trust lands are finally and conclusively
determined for all purposes by coordinates in or derived by
reference to the data provided by the Secretary within the
time provided by this paragraph, notwithstanding anomalies
that might later be discovered on the ground. In cases where
the location of the stand boundary is disputed or
inconsistent with paragraph (1), the location of boundary
coordinates on the ground shall be, except as otherwise
provided in paragraph (5), finally and conclusively
determined for all purposes by the boundary coordinates
provided by the Secretary as they are located on the ground
by the direct or indirect use of global positioning system
equipment with accuracy specifications of one meter or less.
All actions taken by the Secretary under this paragraph shall
be deemed to not involve Federal agency action or Federal
discretionary involvement or control.
(4) Data and maps.--Copies of the data containing boundary
coordinates for the stands included in the O&C Trust lands,
or from which such coordinates are derived, and maps
generally depicting the stand locations shall be filed with
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate,
the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives, and the office of the Secretary concerned.
The maps and data shall be filed--
(A) not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, in the case of the lands identified pursuant to
paragraph (2); and
(B) not later than 180 days following the creation of the
O&C Trust pursuant to subsection (a), in the case of lands
identified pursuant to paragraph (3).
(5) Adjustment authority and limitations.--
(A) No impact on determining title or property ownership
boundaries.--Stand boundaries identified under paragraph (2)
or (3) shall not be relied upon for purposes of determining
title or property ownership boundaries. If the boundary of a
stand identified under paragraph (2) or (3) extends beyond
the property ownership boundaries of Oregon and California
Railroad Grant lands or O&C Region Public Domain lands, as
such property boundaries exist on the date of enactment of
this Act, then that stand boundary is deemed adjusted by this
subparagraph to coincide with the property ownership
boundary.
(B) Effect of data errors or inconsistencies.--Data errors
or inconsistencies may result in parcels of land along
property ownership boundaries that are unintentionally
omitted from the O&C Trust lands that are identified under
paragraph (2) or (3). In order to correct such errors, any
parcel of land that satisfies all of the following criteria
is hereby deemed to be O&C Trust land:
(i) The parcel is within the ownership boundaries of Oregon
and California Railroad Grant lands or O&C Region Public
Domain lands on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(ii) The parcel satisfies the description in paragraph (1)
on the date of enactment of this Act.
(iii) The parcel is not excluded from the O&C Trust lands
pursuant to subsection (c)(2).
(C) No impact on land exchange authority.--Nothing in this
subsection is intended to limit the authority of the Trust
and the Forest Service to engage in land exchanges between
themselves or with owners of non-Federal land as provided
elsewhere in this title.
SEC. 312. LEGAL EFFECT OF O&C TRUST AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) Legal Status of Trust Lands.--Subject to the other
provisions of this section, all right, title, and interest in
and to the O&C Trust lands remain in the United States,
except that--
(1) the Board of Trustees shall have all authority to
manage the surface estate of the O&C Trust lands and the
resources found thereon;
(2) actions on the O&C Trust lands shall be deemed to
involve no Federal agency action or Federal discretionary
involvement or control and the laws of the State shall apply
to the surface estate of the O&C Trust lands in the manner
applicable to privately owned timberlands in the State; and
(3) the O&C Trust shall be treated as the beneficial owner
of the surface estate of the O&C Trust lands for purposes of
all legal proceedings involving the O&C Trust lands.
(b) Minerals.--
(1) In general.--Mineral and other subsurface rights in the
O&C Trust lands are retained by the United States or other
owner of such rights as of the date on which management
authority over the surface estate of the lands are
transferred to the O&C Trust.
(2) Rock and gravel.--
(A) Use authorized; purpose.--For maintenance or
construction on the road system under the control of the O&C
Trust or for non-Federal lands intermingled with O&C Trust
lands, the Board of Trustees may--
(i) utilize rock or gravel found within quarries in
existence immediately before the date of the enactment of
this Act on any Oregon and California Railroad Grant lands
and O&C Region Public Domain lands, excluding those lands
designated under subtitle C or transferred under subtitle D;
and
(ii) construct new quarries on O&C Trust lands, except that
any quarry so constructed may not exceed 5 acres.
(B) Exception.--The Board of Trustees shall not construct
new quarries on any of the lands transferred to the Forest
Service under section 321 or lands designated under subtitle
D.
(c) Roads.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the
Board of Trustees shall assume authority and responsibility
over, and have authority to use, all roads and the road
system specified in the following subparagraphs:
(A) All roads and road systems on the Oregon and California
Railroad and Grant lands and O&C Region Public Domain lands
owned or administered by the Bureau of Land Management
immediately before the date of the enactment of this Act,
except that the Secretary of Agriculture shall assume the
Secretary of Interior's obligations for pro-rata maintenance
expense and road use fees under reciprocal right-of-way
agreements for those lands transferred to the Forest Service
under section 321. All of the lands transferred to the Forest
Service under section 321 shall be considered as part of the
tributary area used to calculate pro-rata maintenance expense
and road use fees.
(B) All roads and road systems owned or administered by the
Forest Service immediately before the date of the enactment
of this Act and subsequently included within the boundaries
of the O&C Trust lands.
(C) All roads later added to the road system for management
of the O&C Trust lands.
(2) Lands transferred to forest service.--The Secretary of
Agriculture shall assume the obligations of the Secretary of
Interior for pro-rata maintenance expense and road use fees
under reciprocal rights-of-way agreements for those Oregon
and California Railroad Grant lands or O&C Region Public
Domain lands transferred to the Forest Service under section
321.
(3) Compliance with clean water act.--All roads used,
constructed, or reconstructed under the jurisdiction of the
O&C Trust must comply with requirements of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) applicable to
private lands through the use of Best Management Practices
under the Oregon Forest Practices Act.
(d) Public Access.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), public access to
O&C Trust lands shall be preserved consistent with the
policies of the Secretary concerned applicable to the O&C
Trust lands as of the date on which management authority over
the surface estate of the lands is transferred to the O&C
Trust.
(2) Restrictions.--The Board of Trustees may limit or
control public access for reasons of public safety or to
protect the resources on the O&C Trust lands.
(e) Limitations.--The assets of the O&C Trust shall not be
subject to the creditors of an O&C Trust county, or otherwise
be distributed in an unprotected manner or be subject to
anticipation, encumbrance, or expenditure other than for a
purpose for which the O&C Trust was created.
(f) Remedy.--An O&C Trust county shall have all of the
rights and remedies that would normally accrue to a
beneficiary of a trust. An O&C Trust county shall provide the
Board of Trustees, the Secretary concerned,
[[Page H5738]]
and the Attorney General with not less than 60 days notice of
an intent to sue to enforce the O&C Trust county's rights
under the O&C Trust.
(g) Judicial Review.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
judicial review of any provision of this title shall be
sought in the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit. Parties seeking judicial review of the
validity of any provision of this title must file suit within
90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and no
preliminary injunctive relief or stays pending appeal will be
permitted. If multiple cases are filed under this paragraph,
the Court shall consolidate the cases. The Court must rule on
any action brought under this paragraph within 180 days.
(2) Decisions of board of trustees.--Decisions made by the
Board of Trustees shall be subject to judicial review only in
an action brought by an O&C County, except that nothing in
this title precludes bringing a legal claim against the Board
of Trustees that could be brought against a private landowner
for the same action.
SEC. 313. BOARD OF TRUSTEES.
(a) Appointment Authorization.--Subject to the conditions
on appointment imposed by this section, the Governor is
authorized to appoint the Board of Trustees to administer the
O&C Trust and O&C Trust lands. Appointments by the Governor
shall be made within 60 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
(b) Members and Eligibility.--
(1) Number.--Subject to subsection (c), the Board of
Trustees shall consist of seven members.
(2) Residency requirement.--Members of the Board of
Trustees must reside within an O&C Trust county.
(3) Geographical representation.--To the extent
practicable, the Governor shall ensure broad geographic
representation among the O&C Trust counties in appointing
members to the Board of Trustees.
(c) Composition.--The Board of Trustees shall include the
following members:
(1)(A) Two forestry and wood products representatives,
consisting of--
(i) one member who represents the commercial timber, wood
products, or milling industries and who represents an Oregon-
based company with more than 500 employees, taking into
account its affiliates, that has submitted a bid for a timber
sale on the Oregon and California Railroad Grant lands, O&C
Region Public Domain lands, Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant lands,
or O&C Trust lands in the preceding five years; and
(ii) one member who represents the commercial wood products
or milling industries and who represents an Oregon-based
company with 500 or fewer employees, taking into account its
affiliates, that has submitted a bid for a timber sale on the
Oregon and California Railroad Grant lands, O&C Region Public
Domain lands, Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant lands, or O&C Trust
lands in the preceding five years.
(B) At least one of the two representatives selected in
this paragraph must own commercial forest land that is
adjacent to the O&C Trust lands and from which the
representative has not exported unprocessed timber in the
preceding five years.
(2) One representative of the general public who has
professional experience in one or more of the following
fields:
(A) Business management.
(B) Law.
(C) Accounting.
(D) Banking.
(E) Labor management.
(F) Transportation.
(G) Engineering.
(H) Public policy.
(3) One representative of the science community who, at a
minimum, holds a Doctor of Philosophy degree in wildlife
biology, forestry, ecology, or related field and has
published peer-reviewed academic articles in the
representative's field of expertise.
(4) Three governmental representatives, consisting of--
(A) two members who are serving county commissioners of an
O&C Trust county and who are nominated by the governing
bodies of a majority of the O&C Trust counties and approved
by the Governor, except that the two representatives may not
be from the same county; and
(B) one member who holds State-wide elected office (or is a
designee of such a person) or who represents a federally
recognized Indian tribe or tribes within one or more O&C
Trust counties.
(d) Term, Initial Appointment, Vacancies.--
(1) Term.--Except in the case of initial appointments,
members of the Board of Trustees shall serve for five-year
terms and may be reappointed for one consecutive term.
(2) Initial appointments.--In making the first appointments
to the Board of Trustees, the Governor shall stagger initial
appointment lengths so that two members have three-year
terms, two members have four-year terms, and three members
have a full five-year term.
(3) Vacancies.--Any vacancy on the Board of Trustees shall
be filled within 45 days by the Governor for the unexpired
term of the departing member.
(4) Board of trustees management costs.--Members of the
Board of Trustees may receive annual compensation from the
O&C Trust at a rate not to exceed 50 percent of the average
annual salary for commissioners of the O&C Trust counties for
that year.
(e) Chairperson and Operations.--
(1) Chairperson.--A majority of the Board of Trustees shall
select the chairperson for the Board of Trustees each year.
(2) Meetings.--The Board of Trustees shall establish
proceedings to carry out its duties. The Board shall meet at
least quarterly. Except for meetings substantially involving
personnel and contractual decisions, all meetings of the
Board shall comply with the public meetings law of the State.
(f) Quorum and Decision-making.--
(1) Quorum.--A quorum shall consist of five members of the
Board of Trustees. The presence of a quorum is required to
constitute an official meeting of the board of trustees to
satisfy the meeting requirement under subsection (e)(2).
(2) Decisions.--All actions and decisions by the Board of
Trustees shall require approval by a majority of members.
(g) Annual Audit.--Financial statements regarding operation
of the O&C Trust shall be independently prepared and audited
annually for review by the O&C Trust counties, Congress, and
the State.
SEC. 314. MANAGEMENT OF O&C TRUST LANDS.
(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this
title, the O&C Trust lands will be managed by the Board of
Trustees in compliance with all Federal and State laws in the
same manner as such laws apply to private forest lands.
(b) Timber Sale Plans.--The Board of Trustees shall approve
and periodically update management and sale plans for the O&C
Trust lands consistent with the purpose specified in section
311(b). The Board of Trustees may defer sale plans during
periods of depressed timber markets if the Board of Trustees,
in its discretion, determines that such delay until markets
improve is financially prudent and in keeping with its
fiduciary obligation to the O&C Trust counties.
(c) Stand Rotation.--
(1) 100-120 year rotation.--The Board of Trustees shall
manage not less than 50 percent of the harvestable acres of
the O&C Trust lands on a 100-120 year rotation. The acreage
subject to 100-120 year management shall be geographically
dispersed across the O&C Trust lands in a manner that the
Board of Trustees, in its discretion, determines will
contribute to aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem values.
(2) Balance.--The balance of the harvestable acreage of the
O&C Trust lands shall be managed on any rotation age the
Board of Trustees, in its discretion and in compliance with
applicable State law, determines will best satisfy its
fiduciary obligation to provide revenue to the O&C Trust
counties.
(3) Thinning.--Nothing in this subsection is intended to
limit the ability of the Board of Trustees to decide, in its
discretion, to thin stands of timber on O&C Trust lands.
(d) Sale Terms.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the
Board of Trustees is authorized to establish the terms for
sale contracts of timber or other forest products from O&C
Trust lands.
(2) Set aside.--The Board of Trustees shall establish a
program consistent with the program of the Bureau of Land
Management under a March 10, 1959 Memorandum of
Understanding, as amended, regarding calculation of shares
and sale of timber set aside for purchase by business
entities with 500 or fewer employees and consistent with the
regulations in part 121 of title 13, Code of Federal
Regulations applicable to timber sale set asides, except that
existing shares in effect on the date of enactment of this
Act shall apply until the next scheduled recomputation of
shares. In implementing its program that is consistent with
such Memorandum of Understanding, the Board of Trustees shall
utilize the Timber Sale Procedure Handbook and other
applicable procedures of the Bureau of Land Management,
including the Operating Procedures for Conducting the Five-
Year Recomputation of Small Business Share Percentages in
effect on January 1, 2013.
(3) Competitive bidding.--The Board of Trustees must sell
timber on a competitive bid basis. No less than 50 percent of
the total volume of timber sold by the Board of Trustees each
year shall be sold by oral bidding consistent with practices
of the Bureau of Land Management as of January 1, 2013.
(e) Prohibition on Export.--
(1) In general.--As a condition on the sale of timber or
other forest products from O&C Trust lands, unprocessed
timber harvested from O&C Trust lands may not be exported.
(2) Violations.--Any person who knowingly exports
unprocessed timber harvested from O&C Trust lands, who
knowingly provides such unprocessed timber for export by
another person, or knowingly sells timber harvested from O&C
Trust lands to a person who is disqualified from purchasing
timber from such lands pursuant to this section shall be
disqualified from purchasing timber or other forest products
from O&C Trust lands or from Federal lands administered under
this subtitle. Any person who uses unprocessed timber
harvested from O&C Trust lands in substitution for exported
unprocessed timber originating from private lands shall be
disqualified from purchasing timber or other forest products
from O&C Trust lands or from Federal lands administered under
this subtitle.
(3) Unprocessed timber defined.--In this subsection, the
term ``unprocessed timber'' has the meaning given such term
in section
[[Page H5739]]
493(9) of the Forest Resources Conservation and Shortage
Relief Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 620e(9)).
(f) Integrated Pest, Disease, and Weed Management Plan.--
The Board of Trustees shall develop an integrated pest and
vegetation management plan to assist forest managers in
prioritizing and minimizing the use of pesticides and
herbicides approved by the Environmental Protection Agency
and used in compliance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act.
The plan shall optimize the ability of the O&C Trust to re-
establish forest stands after harvest in compliance with the
Oregon Forest Practices Act and to create diverse early seral
stage forests. The plan shall allow for the eradication,
containment and suppression of disease, pests, weeds and
noxious plants, and invasive species as found on the State
Noxious Weed List and prioritize ground application of
herbicides and pesticides to the greatest extent practicable.
The plan shall be completed before the start of the second
year of the transition period. The planning process shall be
open to the public and the Board of Trustees shall hold not
less than two public hearings on the proposed plan before
final adoption.
(g) Access to Lands Transferred to Forest Service.--Persons
acting on behalf of the O&C Trust shall have a right of
timely access over lands transferred to the Forest Service
under section 321 and Tribal lands transferred under subtitle
D as is reasonably necessary for the Board of Trustees to
carry out its management activities with regard to the O&C
Trust lands and the O&C Trust to satisfy its fiduciary duties
to O&C counties.
(h) Harvest Area Tree and Retention Requirements.--
(1) In general.--The O&C Trust lands shall include harvest
area tree and retention requirements consistent with State
law.
(2) Use of old growth definition.--To the greatest extent
practicable, and at the discretion of the Board of Trustees,
old growth, as defined by the Old Growth Review Panel created
by section 324, shall be used to meet the retention
requirements applicable under paragraph (1).
(i) Riparian Area Management.--
(1) In general.--The O&C Trust lands shall be managed with
timber harvesting limited in riparian areas as follows:
(A) Streams.--For all fish bearing streams and all
perennial non-fish-bearing streams, there shall be no removal
of timber within a distance equal to the height of one site
potential tree on both sides of the stream channel. For
intermittent, non-fish-bearing streams, there shall be no
removal of timber within a distance equal to one-half the
height of a site potential tree on both sides of the stream
channel. For purposes of this subparagraph, the stream
channel boundaries are the lines of ordinary high water.
(B) Larger lakes, ponds and reservoirs.--For all lakes,
ponds, and reservoirs with surface area larger than one
quarter of one acre, there shall be no removal of timber
within a distance equal to the height of one site potential
tree from the line of ordinary high water of the water body.
(C) Small ponds and natural wetlands, springs and seeps.--
For all ponds with surface area one quarter acre or less, and
for all natural wetlands, springs and seeps, there shall be
no removal of timber within the area dominated by riparian
vegetation.
(2) Measurements.--For purposes of paragraph (1), all
distances shall be measured along slopes, and all site
potential tree heights shall be average height at maturity of
the dominant species of conifer determined at a scale no
finer than the applicable fifth field watershed.
(3) Rules of construction.--Nothing in paragraph (1) shall
be construed--
(A) to prohibit the falling or placement of timber into
streams to create large woody debris for the benefit of
aquatic ecosystems; or
(B) to prohibit the falling of trees within riparian areas
as may be reasonably necessary for safety or operational
reasons in areas adjacent to the riparian areas, or for road
construction or maintenance pursuant to section 312(c)(3).
(j) Fire Protection and Emergency Response.--
(1) Reciprocal fire protection agreements.--
(A) Continuation of agreements.--Subject to subparagraphs
(B), (C), and (D), any reciprocal fire protection agreement
between the State or any other entity and the Secretary
concerned with regard to Oregon and California Railroad Grant
lands and O&C Region Public Domain lands in effect on the
date of the enactment of this Act shall remain in place for a
period of ten years after such date unless earlier terminated
by the State or other entity.
(B) Assumption of blm rights and duties.--The Board of
Trustees shall exercise the rights and duties of the Bureau
of Land Management under the agreements described in
subparagraph (A), except as such rights and duties might
apply to Tribal lands under subtitle D.
(C) Effect of expiration of period.--Following the
expiration of the ten-year period under subparagraph (A), the
Board of Trustees shall continue to provide for fire
protection of the Oregon and California Railroad Grant lands
and O&C Region Public Domain lands, including those
transferred to the Forest Service under section 331, through
continuation of the reciprocal fire protection agreements,
new cooperative agreements, or by any means otherwise
permitted by law. The means selected shall be based on the
review by the Board of Trustees of whether the reciprocal
fire protection agreements were effective in protecting the
lands from fire.
(D) Emergency response.--Nothing in this paragraph shall
prevent the Secretary of Agriculture from an emergency
response to a fire on the O&C Trust lands or lands
transferred to the Forest Service under section 321.
(2) Emergency response to fire.--Subject to paragraph (1),
if the Secretary of Agriculture determines that fire on any
of the lands transferred under section 321 is burning
uncontrolled or the Secretary, the Board of Trustees, or
contracted party does not have readily and immediately
available personnel and equipment to control or extinguish
the fire, the Secretary, or any forest protective association
or agency under contract or agreement with the Secretary or
the Board of Trustees for the protection of forestland
against fire, shall summarily and aggressively abate the
nuisance thus controlling and extinguishing the fire.
(k) Northern Spotted Owl.--So long as the O&C Trust
maintains the 100-120 year rotation on 50 percent of the
harvestable acres required in subsection (c), the section 321
lands representing the best quality habitat for the owl are
transferred to the Forest Service, and the O&C Trust protects
currently occupied northern spotted owl nest sites consistent
with the forest practices in the Oregon Forest Practices Act,
management of the O&C Trust land by the Board of Trustees
shall be considered to comply with section 9 of Public Law
93-205 (16 U.S.C. 1538) for the northern spotted owl. A
currently occupied northern spotted owl nest site shall be
considered abandoned if there are no northern spotted owl
responses following three consecutive years of surveys using
the Protocol for Surveying Management Activities that May
Impact Northern Spotted Owls dated February 2, 2013.
SEC. 315. DISTRIBUTION OF REVENUES FROM O&C TRUST LANDS.
(a) Annual Distribution of Revenues.--
(1) Time for distribution; use.--Payments to each O&C Trust
county shall be made available to the general fund of the O&C
Trust county as soon as practicable following the end of each
fiscal year, to be used as are other unrestricted county
funds.
(2) Amount.--The amount paid to an O&C Trust county in
relation to the total distributed to all O&C Trust counties
for a fiscal year shall be based on the proportion that the
total assessed value of the Oregon and California Railroad
Grant lands in each of the O&C Trust counties for fiscal year
1915 bears to the total assessed value of all of the Oregon
and California Railroad Grant lands in the State for that
same fiscal year. However, for the purposes of this
subsection the portion of the revested Oregon and California
Railroad Grant lands in each of the O&C Trust counties that
was not assessed for fiscal year 1915 shall be deemed to have
been assessed at the average assessed value of the Oregon and
California Railroad Grant lands in the county.
(3) Limitation.--After the fifth payment made under this
subsection, the payment to an O&C Trust county for a fiscal
year shall not exceed 110 percent of the previous year's
payment to the O&C Trust county, adjusted for inflation based
on the consumer price index applicable to the geographic area
in which the O&C Trust counties are located.
(b) Reserve Fund.--
(1) Establishment of reserve fund.--The Board of Trustees
shall generate and maintain a reserve fund.
(2) Deposits to reserve fund.--Within 10 years after
creation of the O&C Trust or as soon thereafter as is
practicable, the Board of Trustees shall establish and seek
to maintain an annual balance of $125,000,000 in the Reserve
Fund, to be derived from revenues generated from management
activities involving O&C Trust lands. All annual revenues
generated in excess of operating costs and payments to O&C
Trust counties required by subsection (a) and payments into
the Conservation Fund as provided in subsection (c) shall be
deposited in the Reserve Fund.
(3) Expenditures from reserve fund.--The Board of Trustees
shall use amounts in the Reserve Fund only--
(A) to pay management and administrative expenses or
capital improvement costs on O&C Trust lands; and
(B) to make payments to O&C Trust counties when payments to
the counties under subsection (a) are projected to be 90
percent or less of the previous year's payments.
(c) O&C Trust Conservation Fund.--
(1) Establishment of conservation fund.--The Board of
Trustees shall use a portion of revenues generated from
activity on the O&C Trust lands, consistent with paragraph
(2), to establish and maintain a O&C Trust Conservation Fund.
The O&C Trust Conservation Fund shall include no Federal
appropriations.
(2) Revenues.--Following the transition period, five
percent of the O&C Trust's annual net operating revenue,
after deduction of all management costs and expenses,
including the payment required under section 317, shall be
deposited to the O&C Trust Conservation Fund.
(3) Expenditures from conservation fund.--The Board of
Trustees shall use amounts from the O&C Trust Conservation
Fund only--
(A) to fund the voluntary acquisition of conservation
easements from willing private landowners in the State;
[[Page H5740]]
(B) to fund watershed restoration, remediation and
enhancement projects within the State; or
(C) to contribute to balancing values in a land exchange
with willing private landowners proposed under section
323(b), if the land exchange will result in a net increase in
ecosystem benefits for fish, wildlife, or rare native plants.
SEC. 316. LAND EXCHANGE AUTHORITY.
(a) Authority.--Subject to approval by the Secretary
concerned, the Board of Trustees may negotiate proposals for
land exchanges with owners of lands adjacent to O&C Trust
lands in order to create larger contiguous blocks of land
under management by the O&C Trust to facilitate resource
management, to improve conservation value of such lands, or
to improve the efficiency of management of such lands.
(b) Approval Required; Criteria.--The Secretary concerned
may approve a land exchange proposed by the Board of Trustees
administratively if the exchange meets the following
criteria:
(1) The non-Federal lands are completely within the State.
(2) The non-Federal lands have high timber production
value, or are necessary for more efficient or effective
management of adjacent or nearby O&C Trust lands.
(3) The non-Federal lands have equal or greater value to
the O&C Trust lands proposed for exchange.
(4) The proposed exchange is reasonably likely to increase
the net income to the O&C Trust counties over the next 20
years and not decrease the net income to the O&C Trust
counties over the next 10 years.
(c) Acreage Limitation.--The Secretary concerned shall not
approve land exchanges under this section that, taken
together with all previous exchanges involving the O&C Trust
lands, have the effect of reducing the total acreage of the
O&C Trust lands by more than five percent from the total
acreage to be designated as O&C Trust land under section
311(c)(1).
(d) Inapplicability of Certain Laws.--Section 3 of the
Oregon Public Lands Transfer and Protection Act of 1998
(Public Law 105-321; 112 Stat. 3022), the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et. seq.),
including the amendments made by the Federal Land Exchange
Facilitation Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-409; 102 Stat.
1086), the Act of March 20, 1922 (16 U.S.C. 485, 486), and
the Act of March 1, 1911 (commonly known as the Weeks Act; 16
U.S.C. 480 et seq.) shall not apply to the land exchange
authority provided by this section.
(e) Exchanges With Forest Service.--
(1) Exchanges authorized.--The Board of Trustees is
authorized to engage in land exchanges with the Forest
Service if approved by the Secretary pursuant to section
323(c).
(2) Management of exchanged lands.--Following completion of
a land exchange under paragraph (1), the management
requirements applicable to the newly acquired lands by the
O&C Trust or the Forest Service shall be the same
requirements under this subtitle applicable to the other
lands that are managed by the O&C Board or the Forest
Service.
SEC. 317. PAYMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES TREASURY.
As soon as practicable after the end of the third fiscal
year of the transition period and in each of the subsequent
seven fiscal years, the O&C Trust shall submit a payment of
$10,000,000 to the United States Treasury.
CHAPTER 2--TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS TO FOREST SERVICE
SEC. 321. TRANSFER OF CERTAIN OREGON AND CALIFORNIA RAILROAD
GRANT LANDS TO FOREST SERVICE.
(a) Transfer Required.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
transfer administrative jurisdiction over all Oregon and
California Railroad Grant lands and O&C Region Public Domain
lands not designated as O&C Trust lands by subparagraphs (A)
through (F) of section 311(c)(1), including those lands
excluded by section 311(c)(2), to the Secretary of
Agriculture for inclusion in the National Forest System and
administration by the Forest Service as provided in section
322.
(b) Exception.--This section does not apply to Tribal lands
transferred under subtitle D.
SEC. 322. MANAGEMENT OF TRANSFERRED LANDS BY FOREST SERVICE.
(a) Assignment to Existing National Forests.--To the
greatest extent practicable, management responsibilities for
the lands transferred under section 321 shall be assigned to
the unit of the National Forest System geographically closest
to the transferred lands. The Secretary of Agriculture shall
have ultimate decision-making authority, but shall assign the
transferred lands to a unit not later than the applicable
transfer date provided in the transition period.
(b) Application of Northwest Forest Plan.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
lands transferred under section 321 shall be managed under
the Northwest Forest Plan and shall retain Northwest Forest
Plan land use designations until or unless changed in the
manner provided by Federal laws applicable to the
administration and management of the National Forest System.
(2) Exception for certain designated lands.--The lands
excluded from the O&C Trust by subparagraphs (A) through (F)
of section 311(c)(2) and transferred to the Forest Service
under section 321 shall be managed as provided by Federal
laws applicable to the lands.
(c) Protection of Old Growth.--Old growth, as defined by
the Old Growth Review Panel pursuant to rulemaking conducted
in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States
Code, shall not be harvested by the Forest Service on lands
transferred under section 321.
(d) Emergency Response to Fire.--Subject to section 314(i),
if the Secretary of Agriculture determines that fire on any
of the lands transferred under section 321 is burning
uncontrolled or the Secretary or contracted party does not
have readily and immediately available personnel and
equipment to control or extinguish the fire, the Secretary,
or any forest protective association or agency under contract
or agreement with the Secretary for the protection of
forestland against fire, and within whose protection area the
fire exists, shall summarily and aggressively abate the
nuisance thus controlling and extinguishing the fire.
SEC. 323. MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES AND EXPEDITED LAND
EXCHANGES.
(a) Land Exchange Authority.--The Secretary of Agriculture
may conduct land exchanges involving lands transferred under
section 321, other than the lands excluded from the O&C Trust
by subparagraphs (A) through (F) of section 311(c)(2), in
order create larger contiguous blocks of land under
management of the Secretary to facilitate resource
management, to improve conservation value of such lands, or
to improve the efficiency of management of such lands.
(b) Criteria for Exchanges With Non-Federal Owners.--The
Secretary of Agriculture may conduct a land exchange
administratively under this section with a non-Federal owner
(other than the O&C Trust) if the land exchange meets the
following criteria:
(1) The non-Federal lands are completely within the State.
(2) The non-Federal lands have high wildlife conservation
or recreation value or the exchange is necessary to increase
management efficiencies of lands administered by the Forest
Service for the purposes of the National Forest System.
(3) The non-Federal lands have equal or greater value to
the Federal lands purposed for exchange or a balance of
values can be achieved--
(A) with a grant of funds provided by the O&C Trust
pursuant to section 315(c); or
(B) from other sources.
(c) Criteria for Exchanges With O&C Trust.--The Secretary
of Agriculture may conduct land exchanges with the Board of
Trustees administratively under this subsection, and such an
exchange shall be deemed to not involve any Federal action or
Federal discretionary involvement or control if the land
exchange with the O&C Trust meets the following criteria:
(1) The O&C Trust lands to be exchanged have high wildlife
value or ecological value or the exchange would facilitate
resource management or otherwise contribute to the management
efficiency of the lands administered by the Forest Service.
(2) The exchange is requested or approved by the Board of
Trustees for the O&C Trust and will not impair the ability of
the Board of Trustees to meet its fiduciary responsibilities.
(3) The lands to be exchanged by the Forest Service do not
contain stands of timber meeting the definition of old growth
established by the Old Growth Review Panel pursuant to
section 324.
(4) The lands to be exchanged are equal in acreage.
(d) Acreage Limitation.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall
not approve land exchanges under this section that, taken
together with all previous exchanges involving the lands
described in subsection (a), have the effect of reducing the
total acreage of such lands by more than five percent from
the total acreage originally transferred to the Secretary.
(e) Inapplicability of Certain Laws.--Section 3 of the
Oregon Public Lands Transfer and Protection Act of 1998
(Public Law 105-321; 112 Stat. 3022), the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et. seq.),
including the amendments made by the Federal Land Exchange
Facilitation Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-409; 102 Stat.
1086), the Act of March 20, 1922 (16 U.S.C. 485, 486), and
the Act of March 1, 1911 (commonly known as the Weeks Act; 16
U.S.C. 480 et seq.) shall not apply to the land exchange
authority provided by this section.
SEC. 324. REVIEW PANEL AND OLD GROWTH PROTECTION.
(a) Appointment; Members.--Within 60 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act the Secretary of Agriculture shall
appoint an Old Growth Review Panel consisting of five
members. At a minimum, the members must hold a Doctor of
Philosophy degree in wildlife biology, forestry, ecology, or
related field and published peer-reviewed academic articles
in their field of expertise.
(b) Purpose of Review.--Members of the Old Growth Review
Panel shall review existing, published, peer-reviewed
articles in relevant academic journals and establish a
definition or definitions of old growth as it applies to the
ecologically, geographically and climatologically unique
Oregon and California Railroad Grant lands and O&C Region
Public Domain lands managed by the O&C Trust or the Forest
Service only. The definition or definitions shall bear no
legal force, shall not be used as a precedent for, and shall
not apply to any lands other than the Oregon and California
Railroad Grant lands and O&C Region Public Domain lands
managed by the O&C Trust or the Forest Service
[[Page H5741]]
in western Oregon. The definition or definitions shall not
apply to Tribal lands.
(c) Submission of Results.--The definition or definitions
for old growth in western Oregon established under subsection
(b), if approved by at least four members of the Old Growth
Review Panel, shall be submitted to the Secretary of
Agriculture within six months after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
SEC. 325. UNIQUENESS OF OLD GROWTH PROTECTION ON OREGON AND
CALIFORNIA RAILROAD GRANT LANDS.
All sections of this subtitle referring to the term ``old
growth'' are uniquely suited to resolve management issues for
the lands covered by this subtitle only, and shall not be
construed as precedent for any other situation involving
management of other Federal, State, Tribal, or private lands.
CHAPTER 3--TRANSITION
SEC. 331. TRANSITION PERIOD AND OPERATIONS.
(a) Transition Period.--
(1) Commencement; duration.--Effective on October 1 of the
first fiscal year beginning after the appointment of the
Board of Trustees under section 313, a transition period of
three fiscal years shall commence.
(2) Exceptions.--Unless specifically stated in the
following subsections, any action under this section shall be
deemed not to involve Federal agency action or Federal
discretionary involvement or control.
(b) Year One.--
(1) Applicability.--During the first fiscal year of the
transition period, the activities described in this
subsection shall occur.
(2) Board of trustees activities.--The Board of Trustees
shall employ sufficient staff or contractors to prepare for
beginning management of O&C Trust lands and O&C Region Public
Domain lands in the second fiscal year of the transition
period, including preparation of management plans and a
harvest schedule for the lands over which management
authority is transferred to the O&C Trust in the second
fiscal year.
(3) Forest service activities.--The Forest Service shall
begin preparing to assume management authority of all Oregon
and California Railroad Grant lands and O&C Region Public
Domain lands transferred under section 321 in the second
fiscal year.
(4) Secretary concerned activities.--The Secretary
concerned shall continue to exercise management authority
over all Oregon and California Railroad Grant lands and O&C
Region Public Domain lands under all existing Federal laws.
(5) Information sharing.--Upon written request from the
Board of Trustees, the Secretary of the Interior shall
provide copies of any documents or data, however stored or
maintained, that includes the requested information
concerning O&C Trust lands. The copies shall be provided as
soon as practicable and to the greatest extent possible, but
in no event later than 30 days following the date of the
request.
(6) Exception.--This subsection does not apply to Tribal
lands transferred under subtitle D.
(c) Year Two.--
(1) Applicability.--During the second fiscal year of the
transition period, the activities described in this
subsection shall occur.
(2) Transfer of o&c trust lands.--Effective on October 1 of
the second fiscal year of the transition period, management
authority over the O&C Trust lands shall be transferred to
the O&C Trust.
(3) Transfer of lands to forest service.--The transfers
required by section 321 shall occur.
(4) Information sharing.--The Secretary of Agriculture
shall obtain and manage, as soon as practicable, all
documents and data relating to the Oregon and California
Railroad Grant lands, O&C Region Public Domain lands, and
Coos Bay Wagon Road lands previously managed by the Bureau of
Land Management. Upon written request from the Board of
Trustees, the Secretary of Agriculture shall provide copies
of any documents or data, however stored or maintained, that
includes the requested information concerning O&C Trust
lands. The copies shall be provided as soon as practicable
and to the greatest extent possible, but in no event later
than 30 days following the date of the request.
(5) Implementation of management plan.--The Board of
Trustees shall begin implementing its management plan for the
O&C Trust lands and revise the plan as necessary.
Distribution of revenues generated from all activities on the
O&C Trust lands shall be subject to section 315.
(d) Year Three and Subsequent Years.--
(1) Applicability.--During the third fiscal year of the
transition period and all subsequent fiscal years, the
activities described in this subsection shall occur.
(2) Board of trustees management.--The Board of Trustees
shall manage the O&C Trust lands pursuant to subtitle A.
SEC. 332. O&C TRUST MANAGEMENT CAPITALIZATION.
(a) Borrowing Authority.--The Board of Trustees is
authorized to borrow from any available private sources and
non-Federal, public sources in order to provide for the costs
of organization, administration, and management of the O&C
Trust during the three-year transition period provided in
section 331.
(b) Support.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
O&C Trust counties are authorized to loan to the O&C Trust,
and the Board of Trustees is authorized to borrow from
willing O&C Trust counties, amounts held on account by such
counties that are required to be expended in accordance with
the Act of May 23,1908 (35. Stat. 260; 16 U.S.C. 500) and
section 13 of the Act of March 1, 1911 (36 Stat.963; 16
U.S.C. 500), except that, upon repayment by the O&C Trust,
the obligation of such counties to expend the funds in
accordance with such Acts shall continue to apply.
SEC. 333. EXISTING BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND FOREST
SERVICE CONTRACTS.
(a) Treatment of Existing Contracts.--Any work or timber
contracts sold or awarded by the Bureau of Land Management or
Forest Service on or with respect to Oregon and California
Railroad Grant lands or O&C Region Public Domain lands before
the transfer of the lands to the O&C Trust or the Forest
Service, or Tribal lands transferred under subtitle D, shall
remain binding and effective according to the terms of the
contracts after the transfer of the lands. The Board of
Trustees and Secretary concerned shall make such
accommodations as are necessary to avoid interfering in any
way with the performance of the contracts.
(b) Treatment of Payments Under Contracts.--Payments made
pursuant to the contracts described in subsection (a), if
any, shall be made as provided in those contracts and not
made to the O&C Trust.
SEC. 334. PROTECTION OF VALID EXISTING RIGHTS AND ACCESS TO
NON-FEDERAL LAND.
(a) Valid Rights.--Nothing in this title, or any amendment
made by this title, shall be construed as terminating any
valid lease, permit, patent, right-of-way, agreement, or
other right of authorization existing on the date of the
enactment of this Act with regard to Oregon and California
Railroad Grant lands or O&C Region Public Domain lands,
including O&C Trust lands over which management authority is
transferred to the O&C Trust pursuant to section 311(c)(1),
lands transferred to the Forest Service under section 321,
and Tribal lands transferred under subtitle D.
(b) Access to Lands.--
(1) Existing access rights.--The Secretary concerned shall
preserve all rights of access and use, including (but not
limited to) reciprocal right-of-way agreements, tail hold
agreements, or other right-of-way or easement obligations
existing on the date of the enactment of this Act, and such
rights shall remain applicable to lands covered by this
subtitle in the same manner and to the same extent as such
rights applied before the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) New access rights.--If a current or future landowner of
land intermingled with Oregon and California Railroad Grant
lands or O&C Region Public Domain lands does not have an
existing access agreement related to the lands covered by
this subtitle, the Secretary concerned shall enter into an
access agreement, including appurtenant lands, to secure the
landowner the reasonable use and enjoyment of the landowner's
land, including the harvest and hauling of timber.
(c) Management Cooperation.--The Board of Trustees and the
Secretary concerned shall provide current and future
landowners of land intermingled with Oregon and California
Railroad Grant lands or O&C Region Public Domain lands the
permission needed to manage their lands, including to locate
tail holds, tramways, and logging wedges, to purchase
guylines, and to cost-share property lines surveys to the
lands covered by this subtitle, within 30 days after
receiving notification of the landowner's plan of operation.
(d) Judicial Review.--Notwithstanding section 312(g)(2), a
private landowner may obtain judicial review of a decision of
the Board of Trustees to deny--
(1) the landowner the rights provided by subsection (b)
regarding access to the landowner's land; or
(2) the landowner the reasonable use and enjoyment of the
landowner's land.
SEC. 335. REPEAL OF SUPERSEDED LAW RELATING TO OREGON AND
CALIFORNIA RAILROAD GRANT LANDS.
(a) Repeal.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the Act
of August 28, 1937 (43 U.S.C. 1181a et seq.) is repealed
effective on October 1 of the first fiscal year beginning
after the appointment of the Board of Trustees.
(b) Effect of Certain Court Rulings.--If, as a result of
judicial review authorized by section 312, any provision of
this subtitle is held to be invalid and implementation of the
provision or any activity conducted under the provision is
then enjoined, the Act of August 28, 1937 (43 U.S.C. 1181a et
seq.), as in effect immediately before its repeal by
subsection (a), shall be restored to full legal force and
effect as if the repeal had not taken effect.
Subtitle B--Coos Bay Wagon Roads
SEC. 341. TRANSFER OF MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY OVER CERTAIN COOS
BAY WAGON ROAD GRANT LANDS TO COOS COUNTY,
OREGON.
(a) Transfer Required.--Except in the case of the lands
described in subsection (b), the Secretary of the Interior
shall transfer management authority over the Coos Bay Wagon
Road Grant lands reconveyed to the United States pursuant to
the first section of the Act of February 26, 1919 (40 Stat.
1179), and the surface resources thereon, to the Coos County
government. The transfer shall be completed not later than
one year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Lands Excluded.--The transfer under subsection (a)
shall not include any of the following Coos Bay Wagon Road
Grant lands:
[[Page H5742]]
(1) Federal lands within the National Landscape
Conservation System as of January 1, 2013.
(2) Federal lands designated as Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern as of January 1, 2013.
(3) Federal lands that were in the National Wilderness
Preservation System as of January 1, 2013.
(4) Federal lands included in the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System of January 1, 2013.
(5) Federal lands within the boundaries of a national
monument, park, or other developed recreation area as of
January 1, 2013.
(6) All stands of timber generally older than 125 years
old, as of January 1, 2011, which shall be conclusively
determined by reference to the polygon spatial data layer in
the electronic data compilation filed by the Bureau of Land
Management based on the predominant birth-date attribute, and
the boundaries of such stands shall be conclusively
determined for all purposes by the global positioning system
coordinates for such stands.
(7) Tribal lands addressed in subtitle D.
(c) Management.--
(1) In general.--Coos County shall manage the Coos Bay
Wagon Road Grant lands over which management authority is
transferred under subsection (a) consistent with section 314,
and for purposes of applying such section, ``Board of
Trustees'' shall be deemed to mean ``Coos County'' and ``O&C
Trust lands'' shall be deemed to mean the transferred lands.
(2) Responsibility for management costs.--Coos County shall
be responsible for all management and administrative costs of
the Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant lands over which management
authority is transferred under subsection (a).
(3) Management contracts.--Coos County may contract, if
competitively bid, with one or more public, private, or
tribal entities, including (but not limited to) the Coquille
Indian Tribe, if such entities are substantially based in
Coos or Douglas Counties, Oregon, to manage and administer
the lands.
(d) Treatment of Revenues.--
(1) In general.--All revenues generated from the Coos Bay
Wagon Road Grant lands over which management authority is
transferred under subsection (a) shall be deposited in the
general fund of the Coos County treasury to be used as are
other unrestricted county funds.
(2) Treasury.--As soon as practicable after the end of the
third fiscal year of the transition period and in each of the
subsequent seven fiscal years, Coos County shall submit a
payment of $400,000 to the United States Treasury.
(3) Douglas county.--Beginning with the first fiscal year
for which management of the Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant lands
over which management authority is transferred under
subsection (a) generates net positive revenues, and for all
subsequent fiscal years, Coos County shall transmit a payment
to the general fund of the Douglas County treasury from the
net revenues generated from the lands. The payment shall be
made as soon as practicable following the end of each fiscal
year and the amount of the payment shall bear the same
proportion to total net revenues for the fiscal year as the
proportion of the Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant lands in Douglas
County in relation to all Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant lands in
Coos and Douglas Counties as of January 1, 2013.
SEC. 342. TRANSFER OF CERTAIN COOS BAY WAGON ROAD GRANT LANDS
TO FOREST SERVICE.
The Secretary of the Interior shall transfer administrative
jurisdiction over the Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant lands
excluded by paragraphs (1) through (6)of section 341(b) to
the Secretary of Agriculture for inclusion in the National
Forest System and administration by the Forest Service as
provided in section 322.
SEC. 343. LAND EXCHANGE AUTHORITY.
Coos County may recommend land exchanges to the Secretary
of Agriculture and carry out such land exchanges in the
manner provided in section 316.
Subtitle C--Oregon Treasures
CHAPTER 1--WILDERNESS AREAS
SEC. 351. DESIGNATION OF DEVIL'S STAIRCASE WILDERNESS.
(a) Designation.--In furtherance of the purposes of the
Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the Federal land in
the State of Oregon administered by the Forest Service and
the Bureau of Land Management, comprising approximately
30,520 acres, as generally depicted on the map titled
``Devil's Staircase Wilderness Proposal'', dated October 26,
2009, are designated as a wilderness area for inclusion in
the National Wilderness Preservation System and to be known
as the ``Devil's Staircase Wilderness''.
(b) Map and Legal Description.--As soon as practicable
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall file with the Committee on Natural Resources of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources of the Senate a map and legal description
of wilderness area designated by subsection (a). The map and
legal description shall have the same force and effect as if
included in this Act, except that the Secretary may correct
clerical and typographical errors in the map and description.
In the case of any discrepancy between the acreage specified
in subsection (a) and the map, the map shall control. The map
and legal description shall be on file and available for
public inspection in the Office of the Chief of the Forest
Service.
(c) Administration.--
(1) In general.--Subject to valid existing rights, the
Devil's Staircase Wilderness Area shall be administered by
the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, in
accordance with the Wilderness Act and the Oregon Wilderness
Act of 1984, except that, with respect to the wilderness
area, any reference in the Wilderness Act to the effective
date of that Act shall be deemed to be a reference to the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Forest service roads.--As provided in section 4(d)(1)
of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(1)), the Secretary
of Agriculture shall--
(A) decommission any National Forest System road within the
wilderness boundaries; and
(B) convert Forest Service Road 4100 within the wilderness
boundary to a trail for primitive recreational use.
(d) Incorporation of Acquired Land and Interests.--Any land
within the boundary of the wilderness area designated by this
section that is acquired by the United States shall--
(1) become part of the Devil's Staircase Wilderness Area;
and
(2) be managed in accordance with this section and any
other applicable law.
(e) Fish and Wildlife.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed as affecting the jurisdiction or responsibilities
of the State of Oregon with respect to wildlife and fish in
the national forests.
(f) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid rights in existence on
the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal land
designated as wilderness area by this section is withdrawn
from all forms of--
(1) entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land
laws;
(2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
(3) disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral and
geothermal leasing or mineral materials.
(g) Protection of Tribal Rights.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to diminish--
(1) the existing rights of any Indian tribe; or
(2) tribal rights regarding access to Federal lands for
tribal activities, including spiritual, cultural, and
traditional food gathering activities.
SEC. 352. EXPANSION OF WILD ROGUE WILDERNESS AREA.
(a) Expansion.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16
U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), certain Federal land managed by the
Bureau of Land Management, comprising approximately 58,100
acres, as generally depicted on the map entitled ``Wild
Rogue'', dated September 16, 2010, are hereby included in the
Wild Rogue Wilderness, a component of the National Wilderness
Preservation System.
(b) Maps and Legal Descriptions.--
(1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall
file a map and a legal description of the wilderness area
designated by this section, with--
(A) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the
Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives.
(2) Force of law.--The maps and legal descriptions filed
under paragraph (1) shall have the same force and effect as
if included in this subtitle, except that the Secretary may
correct typographical errors in the maps and legal
descriptions.
(3) Public availability.--Each map and legal description
filed under paragraph (1) shall be on file and available for
public inspection in the appropriate offices of the Forest
Service.
(c) Administration.--Subject to valid existing rights, the
area designated as wilderness by this section shall be
administered by the Secretary of Agriculture in accordance
with the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).
(d) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid rights in existence on
the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal land
designated as wilderness by this section is withdrawn from
all forms of--
(1) entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land
laws;
(2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
(3) disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral and
geothermal leasing or mineral materials.
CHAPTER 2--WILD AND SCENIC RIVER DESIGNATED AND RELATED PROTECTIONS
SEC. 361. WILD AND SCENIC RIVER DESIGNATIONS, MOLALLA RIVER.
(a) Designations.--Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(__) Molalla river, oregon.--The following segments in
the State of Oregon, to be administered by the Secretary of
the Interior as a recreational river:
``(A) The approximately 15.1-mile segment from the southern
boundary line of T. 7 S., R. 4 E., sec. 19, downstream to the
edge of the Bureau of Land Management boundary in T. 6 S., R.
3 E., sec. 7.
``(B) The approximately 6.2-mile segment from the
easternmost Bureau of Land Management boundary line in the
NE\1/4\ sec. 4, T. 7 S., R. 4 E., downstream to the
confluence with the Molalla River.''.
(b) Technical Corrections.--Section 3(a)(102) of the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)(102)) is amended--
[[Page H5743]]
(1) in the heading, by striking ``Squaw Creek'' and
inserting ``Whychus Creek'';
(2) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``McAllister Ditch, including the Soap Fork Squaw Creek, the
North Fork, the South Fork, the East and West Forks of Park
Creek, and Park Creek Fork'' and inserting ``Plainview Ditch,
including the Soap Creek, the North and South Forks of
Whychus Creek, the East and West Forks of Park Creek, and
Park Creek''; and
(3) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``McAllister Ditch''
and inserting ``Plainview Ditch''.
SEC. 362. WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS
RELATED TO CHETCO RIVER.
Section 3(a)(69) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16
U.S.C. 1274(a)(69)) is amended--
(1) by inserting before the ``The 44.5-mile'' the
following:
``(A) Designations.--'';
(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as
clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), respectively (and by moving the
margins 2 ems to the right);
(3) in clause (i), as redesignated--
(A) by striking ``25.5-mile'' and inserting ``27.5-mile'';
and
(B) by striking ``Boulder Creek at the Kalmiopsis
Wilderness boundary'' and inserting ``Mislatnah Creek'';
(4) in clause (ii), as redesignated--
(A) by striking ``8'' and inserting ``7.5'';
(B) by striking ``Boulder Creek'' and inserting ``Mislatnah
Creek''; and
(C) by striking ``Steel Bridge'' and inserting ``Eagle
Creek'';
(5) in clause (iii), as redesignated--
(A) by striking ``11'' and inserting ``9.5''; and
(B) by striking ``Steel Bridge'' and inserting ``Eagle
Creek''; and
(6) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid rights, the Federal
land within the boundaries of the river segments designated
by subparagraph (A), is withdrawn from all forms of--
``(i) entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public
land laws;
``(ii) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws;
and
``(iii) disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral
and geothermal leasing or mineral materials.''.
SEC. 363. WILD AND SCENIC RIVER DESIGNATIONS, WASSON CREEK
AND FRANKLIN CREEK.
Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C.
1274(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(__) Franklin creek, oregon.--The 4.5-mile segment from
the headwaters to the private land boundary in section 8 to
be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture as a wild
river.
``(__) Wasson creek, oregon.--
``(A) The 4.2-mile segment from the eastern edge of section
17 downstream to the boundary of sections 11 and 12 to be
administered by the Secretary of Interior as a wild river.
``(B) The 5.9-mile segment downstream from the boundary of
sections 11 and 12 to the private land boundary in section 22
to be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture as a wild
river.''.
SEC. 364. WILD AND SCENIC RIVER DESIGNATIONS, ROGUE RIVER
AREA.
(a) Designations.--Section 3(a)(5) of the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)(5)) (relating to the Rogue
River, Oregon) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``In addition to the segment described in the previous
sentence, the following segments in the Rogue River area are
designated:
``(A) Kelsey creek.--The approximately 4.8 miles of Kelsey
Creek from east section line of T32S, R9W, sec. 34, W.M. to
the confluence with the Rogue River as a wild river.
``(B) East fork kelsey creek.--The approximately 4.6 miles
of East Fork Kelsey Creek from the Wild Rogue Wilderness
boundary in T33S, R8W, sec. 5, W.M. to the confluence with
Kelsey Creek as a wild river.
``(C) Whisky creek.--
``(i) The approximately 0.6 miles of Whisky Creek from the
confluence of the East Fork and West Fork to 0.1 miles
downstream from road 33-8-23 as a recreational river.
``(ii) The approximately 1.9 miles of Whisky Creek from 0.1
miles downstream from road 33-8-23 to the confluence with the
Rogue River as a wild river.
``(D) East fork whisky creek.--
``(i) The approximately 2.8 miles of East Fork Whisky Creek
from the Wild Rogue Wilderness boundary in T33S, R8W, sec.
11, W.M. to 0.1 miles downstream of road 33-8-26 crossing as
a wild river.
``(ii) The approximately .3 miles of East Fork Whisky Creek
from 0.1 miles downstream of road 33-8-26 to the confluence
with Whisky Creek as a recreational river.
``(E) West fork whisky creek.--The approximately 4.8 miles
of West Fork Whisky Creek from its headwaters to the
confluence with Whisky Creek as a wild river.
``(F) Big windy creek.--
``(i) The approximately 1.5 miles of Big Windy Creek from
its headwaters to 0.1 miles downstream from road 34-9-17.1 as
a scenic river.
``(ii) The approximately 5.8 miles of Big Windy Creek from
0.1 miles downstream from road 34-9-17.1 to the confluence
with the Rogue River as a wild river.
``(G) East fork big windy creek.--
``(i) The approximately 0.2 miles of East Fork Big Windy
Creek from its headwaters to 0.1 miles downstream from road
34-8-36 as a scenic river.
``(ii) The approximately 3.7 miles of East Fork Big Windy
Creek from 0.1 miles downstream from road 34-8-36 to the
confluence with Big Windy Creek as a wild river.
``(H) Little windy creek.--The approximately 1.9 miles of
Little Windy Creek from 0.1 miles downstream of road 34-8-36
to the confluence with the Rogue River as a wild river.
``(I) Howard creek.--
``(i) The approximately 0.3 miles of Howard Creek from its
headwaters to 0.1 miles downstream of road 34-9-34 as a
scenic river.
``(ii) The approximately 6.9 miles of Howard Creek from 0.1
miles downstream of road 34-9-34 to the confluence with the
Rogue River as a wild river.
``(J) Mule creek.--The approximately 6.3 miles of Mule
Creek from east section line of T32S, R10W, sec. 25, W.M to
the confluence with the Rogue River as a wild river.
``(K) Anna creek.--The approximately 3.5-mile section of
Anna Creek from its headwaters to the confluence with Howard
Creek as a wild river.
``(L) Missouri creek.--The approximately 1.6 miles of
Missouri Creek from the Wild Rogue Wilderness boundary in
T33S, R10W, sec. 24, W.M. to the confluence with the Rogue
River as a wild river.
``(M) Jenny creek.--The approximately 1.8 miles of Jenny
Creek from the Wild Rogue Wilderness boundary in T33S, R9W,
sec.28, W.M. to the confluence with the Rogue River as a wild
river.
``(N) Rum creek.--The approximately 2.2 miles of Rum Creek
from the Wild Rogue Wilderness boundary in T34S, R8W, sec. 9,
W.M. to the confluence with the Rogue River as a wild river.
``(O) East fork rum creek.--The approximately 1.5 miles of
East Rum Creek from the Wild Rogue Wilderness boundary in
T34S, R8W, sec. 10, W.M. to the confluence with Rum Creek as
a wild river.
``(P) Wildcat creek.--The approximately 1.7-mile section of
Wildcat Creek from its headwaters downstream to the
confluence with the Rogue River as a wild river.
``(Q) Montgomery creek.--The approximately 1.8-mile section
of Montgomery Creek from its headwaters downstream to the
confluence with the Rogue River as a wild river.
``(R) Hewitt creek.--The approximately 1.2 miles of Hewitt
Creek from the Wild Rogue Wilderness boundary in T33S, R9W,
sec. 19, W.M. to the confluence with the Rogue River as a
wild river.
``(S) Bunker creek.--The approximately 6.6 miles of Bunker
Creek from its headwaters to the confluence with the Rogue
River as a wild river.
``(T) Dulog creek.--
``(i) The approximately 0.8 miles of Dulog Creek from its
headwaters to 0.1 miles downstream of road 34-8-36 as a
scenic river.
``(ii) The approximately 1.0 miles of Dulog Creek from 0.1
miles downstream of road 34-8-36 to the confluence with the
Rogue River as a wild river.
``(U) Quail creek.--The approximately 1.7 miles of Quail
Creek from the Wild Rogue Wilderness boundary in T33S, R10W,
sec. 1, W.M. to the confluence with the Rogue River as a wild
river.
``(V) Meadow creek.--The approximately 4.1 miles of Meadow
Creek from its headwaters to the confluence with the Rogue
River as a wild river.
``(W) Russian creek.--The approximately 2.5 miles of
Russian Creek from the Wild Rogue Wilderness boundary in
T33S, R8W, sec. 20, W.M. to the confluence with the Rogue
River as a wild river.
``(X) Alder creek.--The approximately 1.2 miles of Alder
Creek from its headwaters to the confluence with the Rogue
River as a wild river.
``(Y) Booze creek.--The approximately 1.5 miles of Booze
Creek from its headwaters to the confluence with the Rogue
River as a wild river.
``(Z) Bronco creek.--The approximately 1.8 miles of Bronco
Creek from its headwaters to the confluence with the Rogue
River as a wild river.
``(AA) Copsey creek.--The approximately 1.5 miles of Copsey
Creek from its headwaters to the confluence with the Rogue
River as a wild river.
``(BB) Corral creek.--The approximately 0.5 miles of Corral
Creek from its headwaters to the confluence with the Rogue
River as a wild river.
``(CC) Cowley creek.--The approximately 0.9 miles of Cowley
Creek from its headwaters to the confluence with the Rogue
River as a wild river.
``(DD) Ditch creek.--The approximately 1.8 miles of Ditch
Creek from the Wild Rogue Wilderness boundary in T33S, R9W,
sec. 5, W.M. to its confluence with the Rogue River as a wild
river.
``(EE) Francis creek.--The approximately 0.9 miles of
Francis Creek from its headwaters to the confluence with the
Rogue River as a wild river.
``(FF) Long gulch.--The approximately 1.1 miles of Long
Gulch from the Wild Rogue Wilderness boundary in T33S, R10W,
sec. 23, W.M. to the confluence with the Rogue River as a
wild river.
``(GG) Bailey creek.--The approximately 1.7 miles of Bailey
Creek from the west section line of T34S, R8W, sec.14, W.M.
to the confluence of the Rogue River as a wild river.
``(HH) Shady creek.--The approximately 0.7 miles of Shady
Creek from its headwaters
[[Page H5744]]
to the confluence with the Rogue River as a wild river.
``(II) Slide creek.--
``(i) The approximately 0.5-mile section of Slide Creek
from its headwaters to 0.1 miles downstream from road 33-9-6
as a scenic river.
``(ii) The approximately 0.7-mile section of Slide Creek
from 0.1 miles downstream of road 33-9-6 to the confluence
with the Rogue River as a wild river.''.
(b) Management.--All wild, scenic, and recreation
classified segments designated by the amendment made by
subsection (a) shall be managed as part of the Rogue Wild and
Scenic River.
(c) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid rights, the Federal land
within the boundaries of the river segments designated by the
amendment made by subsection (a) is withdrawn from all forms
of--
(1) entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land
laws;
(2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
(3) disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral and
geothermal leasing or mineral materials.
SEC. 365. ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS FOR ROGUE RIVER TRIBUTARIES.
(a) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid rights, the Federal land
within a quarter-mile on each side of the streams listed in
subsection (b) is withdrawn from all forms of--
(1) entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land
laws;
(2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
(3) disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral and
geothermal leasing or mineral materials.
(b) Stream Segments.--Subsection (a) applies the following
tributaries of the Rogue River:
(1) Kelsey creek.--The approximately 4.5 miles of Kelsey
Creek from its headwaters to the east section line of 32S 9W
sec. 34.
(2) East fork kelsey creek.--The approximately .2 miles of
East Fork Kelsey Creek from its headwaters to the Wild Rogue
Wilderness boundary in 33S 8W sec. 5.
(3) East fork whisky creek.--The approximately .7 miles of
East Fork Whisky Creek from its headwaters to the Wild Rogue
Wilderness boundary in 33S 8W section 11.
(4) Little windy creek.--The approximately 1.2 miles of
Little Windy Creek from its headwaters to west section line
of 33S 9W sec. 34.
(5) Mule creek.--The approximately 5.1 miles of Mule Creek
from its headwaters to east section line of 32S 10W sec. 25.
(6) Missouri creek.--The approximately 3.1 miles of
Missouri Creek from its headwaters to the Wild Rogue
Wilderness boundary in 33S 10W sec. 24.
(7) Jenny creek.--The approximately 3.1 miles of Jenny
Creek from its headwaters to the Wild Rogue Wilderness
boundary in 33S 9W sec. 28.
(8) Rum creek.--The approximately 2.2 miles of Rum Creek
from its headwaters to the Wild Rogue Wilderness boundary in
34S 8W sec. 9.
(9) East fork rum creek.--The approximately .5 miles of
East Fork Rum Creek from its headwaters to the Wild Rogue
Wilderness boundary in 34S 8W sec. 10.
(10) Hewitt creek.--The approximately 1.4 miles of Hewitt
Creek from its headwaters to the Wild Rogue Wilderness
boundary in 33S 9W sec. 19.
(11) Quail creek.--The approximately .8 miles of Quail
Creek from its headwaters to the Wild Rogue Wilderness
boundary in 33S 10W sec. 1.
(12) Russian creek.--The approximately .1 miles of Russian
Creek from its headwaters to the Wild Rogue Wilderness
boundary in 33S 8W sec. 20.
(13) Ditch creek.--The approximately .7 miles of Ditch
Creek from its headwaters to the Wild Rogue Wilderness
boundary in 33S 9W sec. 5.
(14) Long gulch.--The approximately 1.4 miles of Long Gulch
from its headwaters to the Wild Rogue Wilderness boundary in
33S 10W sec. 23.
(15) Bailey creek.--The approximately 1.4 miles of Bailey
Creek from its headwaters to west section line of 34S 8W sec.
14.
(16) Quartz creek.--The approximately 3.3 miles of Quartz
Creek from its headwaters to its confluence with the North
Fork Galice Creek.
(17) North fork galice creek.--The approximately 5.7 miles
of the North Fork Galice Creek from its headwaters to its
confluence with Galice Creek.
(18) Grave creek.--The approximately 10.2 mile section of
Grave Creek from the confluence of Wolf Creek downstream to
the confluence with the Rogue River.
(19) Centennial gulch.--The approximately 2.2 miles of
Centennial Gulch from its headwaters to its confluence with
the Rogue River.
CHAPTER 3--ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS
SEC. 371. LIMITATIONS ON LAND ACQUISITION.
(a) Prohibition on Use of Condemnation.--The Secretary of
the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture may not acquire
by condemnation any land or interest within the boundaries of
the river segments or wilderness designated by this subtitle.
(b) Landowner Consent Required.--Private or non-Federal
public property shall not be included within the boundaries
of the river segments or wilderness designated by this
subtitle unless the owner of the property has consented in
writing to having that property included in such boundaries.
SEC. 372. OVERFLIGHTS.
(a) In General.--Nothing in this subtitle or the Wilderness
Act shall preclude low-level overflights and operations of
military aircraft, helicopters, missiles, or unmanned aerial
vehicles over the wilderness designated by this subtitle,
including military overflights and operations that can be
seen or heard within the wilderness.
(b) Special Use Airspace and Training Routes.--Nothing in
this subtitle or the Wilderness Act shall preclude the
designation of new units of special use airspace, the
expansion of existing units of special use airspace, or the
use or establishment of military training routes over
wilderness designated by this subtitle.
SEC. 373. BUFFER ZONES.
Nothing in this subtitle--
(1) establishes or authorizes the establishment of a
protective perimeter or buffer zone around the boundaries of
the river segments or wilderness designated by this subtitle;
or
(2) precludes, limits, or restricts an activity from being
conducted outside such boundaries, including an activity that
can be seen or heard from within such boundaries.
SEC. 374. PREVENTION OF WILDFIRES.
The designation of a river segment or wilderness by this
subtitle or the withdrawal of the Federal land under this
subtitle shall not be construed to interfere with the
authority of the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary
of Agriculture to authorize mechanical thinning of trees or
underbrush to prevent or control the spread of wildfires, or
conditions creating the risk of wildfire that threatens areas
outside the boundary of the wilderness, or the use of
mechanized equipment for wildfire pre-suppression and
suppression.
SEC. 375. LIMITATION ON DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN LANDS IN
OREGON.
A national monument designation under the Act of June 8,
1906 (commonly known as the Antiquities Act; 16 U.S.C. 431 et
seq.) within or on any portion of the Oregon and California
Railroad Grant Lands or the O&C Region Public Domain lands,
regardless of whether management authority over the lands are
transferred to the O&C Trust pursuant to section 311(c)(1),
the lands are excluded from the O&C Trust pursuant to section
311(c)(2), or the lands are transferred to the Forest Service
under section 321, shall only be made pursuant to
Congressional approval in an Act of Congress.
CHAPTER 4--EFFECTIVE DATE
SEC. 381. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--This subtitle and the amendments made by
this subtitle shall take effect on October 1 of the second
fiscal year of the transition period.
(b) Exception.--If, as a result of judicial review
authorized by section 312, any provision of subtitle A is
held to be invalid and implementation of the provision or any
activity conducted under the provision is enjoined, this
subtitle and the amendments made by this subtitle shall not
take effect, or if the effective date specified in subsection
(a) has already occurred, this subtitle shall have no force
and effect and the amendments made by this subtitle are
repealed.
Subtitle D--Tribal Trust Lands
PART 1--COUNCIL CREEK LAND CONVEYANCE
SEC. 391. DEFINITIONS.
In this part:
(1) Council creek land.--The term ``Council Creek land''
means the approximately 17,519 acres of land, as generally
depicted on the map entitled ``Canyon Mountain Land
Conveyance'' and dated June 27, 2013.
(2) Tribe.--The term ``Tribe'' means the Cow Creek Band of
Umpqua Tribe of Indians.
SEC. 392. CONVEYANCE.
(a) In General.--Subject to valid existing rights,
including rights-of-way, all right, title, and interest of
the United States in and to the Council Creek land, including
any improvements located on the land, appurtenances to the
land, and minerals on or in the land, including oil and gas,
shall be--
(1) held in trust by the United States for the benefit of
the Tribe; and
(2) part of the reservation of the Tribe.
(b) Survey.--Not later than one year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall
complete a survey of the boundary lines to establish the
boundaries of the land taken into trust under subsection (a).
SEC. 393. MAP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
(a) In General.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall
file a map and legal description of the Council Creek land
with--
(1) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the
Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives.
(b) Force and Effect.--The map and legal description filed
under subsection (a) shall have the same force and effect as
if included in this Act, except that the Secretary of the
Interior may correct any clerical or typographical errors in
the map or legal description.
(c) Public Availability.--The map and legal description
filed under subsection (a) shall be on file and available for
public inspection in the Office of the Secretary of the
Interior.
SEC. 394. ADMINISTRATION.
(a) In General.--Unless expressly provided in this part,
nothing in this part affects any
[[Page H5745]]
right or claim of the Tribe existing on the date of enactment
of this Act to any land or interest in land.
(b) Prohibitions.--
(1) Exports of unprocessed logs.--Federal law (including
regulations) relating to the export of unprocessed logs
harvested from Federal land shall apply to any unprocessed
logs that are harvested from the Council Creek land.
(2) Non-permissible use of land.--Any real property taken
into trust under section 392 shall not be eligible, or used,
for any gaming activity carried out under Public Law 100-497
(25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.).
(c) Forest Management.--Any forest management activity that
is carried out on the Council Creek land shall be managed in
accordance with all applicable Federal laws.
PART 2--OREGON COASTAL LAND CONVEYANCE
SEC. 395. DEFINITIONS.
In this part:
(1) Oregon coastal land.--The term ``Oregon Coastal land''
means the approximately 14,804 acres of land, as generally
depicted on the map entitled ``Oregon Coastal Land
Conveyance'' and dated March 5, 2013.
(2) Confederated tribes.--The term ``Confederated Tribes''
means the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and
Siuslaw Indians.
SEC. 396. CONVEYANCE.
(a) In General.--Subject to valid existing rights,
including rights-of-way, all right, title, and interest of
the United States in and to the Oregon Coastal land,
including any improvements located on the land, appurtenances
to the land, and minerals on or in the land, including oil
and gas, shall be--
(1) held in trust by the United States for the benefit of
the Confederated Tribes; and
(2) part of the reservation of the Confederated Tribes.
(b) Survey.--Not later than one year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall
complete a survey of the boundary lines to establish the
boundaries of the land taken into trust under subsection (a).
SEC. 397. MAP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
(a) In General.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall
file a map and legal description of the Oregon Coastal land
with--
(1) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the
Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives.
(b) Force and Effect.--The map and legal description filed
under subsection (a) shall have the same force and effect as
if included in this Act, except that the Secretary of the
Interior may correct any clerical or typographical errors in
the map or legal description.
(c) Public Availability.--The map and legal description
filed under subsection (a) shall be on file and available for
public inspection in the Office of the Secretary of the
Interior.
SEC. 398. ADMINISTRATION.
(a) In General.--Unless expressly provided in this part,
nothing in this part affects any right or claim of the
Consolidated Tribes existing on the date of enactment of this
Act to any land or interest in land.
(b) Prohibitions.--
(1) Exports of unprocessed logs.--Federal law (including
regulations) relating to the export of unprocessed logs
harvested from Federal land shall apply to any unprocessed
logs that are harvested from the Oregon Coastal land.
(2) Non-permissible use of land.--Any real property taken
into trust under section 396 shall not be eligible, or used,
for any gaming activity carried out under Public Law 100-497
(25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.).
(c) Forest Management.--Any forest management activity that
is carried out on the Oregon Coastal land shall be managed in
accordance with all applicable Federal laws.
TITLE IV--COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATION
SEC. 401. PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS.
(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to generate
dependable economic activity for counties and local
governments by establishing a demonstration program for
local, sustainable forest management.
(b) Definitions.--In this title:
(1) Advisory committee.--The term ``Advisory Committee''
means the Advisory Committee appointed by the Governor of a
State for the community forest demonstration area established
for the State.
(2) Community forest demonstration area.--The term
``community forest demonstration area'' means a community
forest demonstration area established for a State under
section 402.
(3) National forest system.--The term ``National Forest
System'' has the meaning given that term in section 11(a) of
the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of
1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)), except that the term does not
include the National Grasslands and land utilization projects
designated as National Grasslands administered pursuant to
the Act of July 22, 1937 (7 U.S.C. 1010-1012).
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture or the designee of the Secretary of
Agriculture.
(5) State.--The term ``State'' includes the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico.
SEC. 402. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMUNITY FOREST DEMONSTRATION
AREAS.
(a) Establishment Required; Time for Establishment.--
Subject to subsection (c) and not later than one year after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Agriculture shall establish a community forest demonstration
area at the request of the Advisory Committee appointed to
manage community forest demonstration area land in that
State.
(b) Covered Land.--
(1) Inclusion of national forest system land.--The
community forest demonstration areas of a State shall consist
of the National Forest System land in the State identified
for inclusion by the Advisory Committee of that State.
(2) Exclusion of certain land.--A community forest
demonstration area shall not include National Forest System
land--
(A) that is a component of the National Wilderness
Preservation System;
(B) on which the removal of vegetation is specifically
prohibited by Federal statute;
(C) National Monuments; or
(D) over which administration jurisdiction was first
assumed by the Forest Service under title III.
(c) Conditions on Establishment.--
(1) Acreage requirement.--A community forest demonstration
area must include at least 200,000 acres of National Forest
System land. If the unit of the National Forest System in
which a community forest demonstration area is being
established contains more than 5,000,000 acres, the community
forest demonstration area may include 900,000 or more acres
of National Forest System land.
(2) Management law or best management practices
requirement.--A community forest demonstration area may be
established in a State only if the State--
(A) has a forest practices law applicable to State or
privately owned forest land in the State; or
(B) has established silvicultural best management practices
or other regulations for forest management practices related
to clean water, soil quality, wildlife or forest health.
(3) Revenue sharing requirement.--As a condition of the
inclusion in a community forest demonstration area of
National Forest System land located in a particular county in
a State, the county must enter into an agreement with the
Governor of the State that requires that, in utilizing
revenues received by the county under section 406(b), the
county shall continue to meet any obligations under
applicable State law as provided under title I of the Secure
Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000
(16 U.S.C. 7111 et seq.) or as provided in the sixth
paragraph under the heading ``FOREST SERVICE'' in the Act of
May 23, 1908 (16 U.S.C. 500) and section 13 of the Act of
March 1, 1911 (16 U.S.C. 500).
(d) Treatment Under Certain Other Laws.--National Forest
System land included in a community forest demonstration area
shall not be considered Federal land for purposes of--
(1) making payments to counties under the sixth paragraph
under the heading ``FOREST SERVICE'' in the Act of May 23,
1908 (16 U.S.C. 500) and section 13 of the Act of March 1,
1911 (16 U.S.C. 500); or
(2) title I.
(e) Acreage Limitation.--Not more than a total of 4,000,000
acres of National Forest System land may be established as
community forest demonstration areas.
(f) Recognition of Valid and Existing Rights.--Nothing in
this title shall be construed to limit or restrict--
(1) access to National Forest System land included in a
community forest demonstration area for hunting, fishing, and
other related purposes; or
(2) valid and existing rights regarding such National
Forest System land, including rights of any federally
recognized Indian tribe.
SEC. 403. ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
(a) Appointment.--A community forest demonstration area for
a State shall be managed by an Advisory Committee appointed
by the Governor of the State.
(b) Composition.--The Advisory Committee for a community
forest demonstration area in a State shall include, but is
not limited to, the following members:
(1) One member who holds county or local elected office,
appointed from each county or local governmental unit in the
State containing community forest demonstration area land.
(2) One member who represents the commercial timber, wood
products, or milling industry.
(3) One member who represents persons holding Federal
grazing or other land use permits.
(4) One member who represents recreational users of
National Forest System land.
(c) Terms.--
(1) In general.--Except in the case of certain initial
appointments required by paragraph (2), members of an
Advisory Committee shall serve for a term of three years.
(2) Initial appointments.--In making initial appointments
to an Advisory Committee, the Governor making the
appointments shall stagger terms so that at least one-third
of the members will be replaced every three years.
(d) Compensation.--Members of a Advisory Committee shall
serve without pay, but may be reimbursed from the funds made
available for the management of a community forest
[[Page H5746]]
demonstration area for the actual and necessary travel and
subsistence expenses incurred by members in the performance
of their duties.
SEC. 404. MANAGEMENT OF COMMUNITY FOREST DEMONSTRATION AREAS.
(a) Assumption of Management.--
(1) Confirmation.--The Advisory Committee appointed for a
community forest demonstration area shall assume all
management authority with regard to the community forest
demonstration area as soon as the Secretary confirms that--
(A) the National Forest System land to be included in the
community forest demonstration area meets the requirements of
subsections (b) and (c) of section 402;
(B) the Advisory Committee has been duly appointed under
section 403 and is able to conduct business; and
(C) provision has been made for essential management
services for the community forest demonstration area.
(2) Scope and time for confirmation.--The determination of
the Secretary under paragraph (1) is limited to confirming
whether the conditions specified in subparagraphs (A) and (B)
of such paragraph have been satisfied. The Secretary shall
make the determination not later than 60 days after the date
of the appointment of the Advisory Committee.
(3) Effect of failure to confirm.--If the Secretary
determines that either or both conditions specified in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) are not satisfied
for confirmation of an Advisory Committee, the Secretary
shall--
(A) promptly notify the Governor of the affected State and
the Advisory Committee of the reasons preventing
confirmation; and
(B) make a new determination under paragraph (2) within 60
days after receiving a new request from the Advisory
Committee that addresses the reasons that previously
prevented confirmation.
(b) Management Responsibilities.--Upon assumption of
management of a community forest demonstration area, the
Advisory Committee for the community forest demonstration
area shall manage the land and resources of the community
forest demonstration area and the occupancy and use thereof
in conformity with this title, and to the extent not in
conflict with this title, the laws and regulations applicable
to management of State or privately-owned forest lands in the
State in which the community forest demonstration area is
located.
(c) Applicability of Other Federal Laws.--
(1) In general.--The administration and management of a
community forest demonstration area, including implementing
actions, shall not be considered Federal action and shall be
subject to the following only to the extent that such laws
apply to the State or private administration and management
of forest lands in the State in which the community forest
demonstration area is located:
(A) The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
note).
(B) The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).
(C) The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).
(D) Federal laws and regulations governing procurement by
Federal agencies.
(E) Except as provided in paragraph (2), other Federal
laws.
(2) Applicability of native american graves protection and
repatriation act.--Notwithstanding the assumption by an
Advisory Committee of management of a community forest
demonstration area, the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.) shall continue to
apply to the National Forest System land included in the
community forest demonstration area.
(d) Consultation.--
(1) With indian tribes.--The Advisory Committee for a
community forest demonstration area shall cooperate and
consult with Indian tribes on management policies and
practices for the community forest demonstration area that
may affect the Indian tribes. The Advisory Committee shall
take into consideration the use of lands within the community
forest demonstration area for religious and cultural uses by
Native Americans.
(2) With collaborative groups.--The Advisory Committee for
a community forest demonstration area shall consult with any
applicable forest collaborative group.
(e) Recreation.--Nothing in this section shall affect
public use and recreation within a community forest
demonstration area.
(f) Fire Management.--The Secretary shall provide fire
presuppression, suppression, and rehabilitation services on
and with respect to a community forest demonstration area to
the same extent generally authorized in other units of the
National Forest System.
(g) Prohibition on Export.--As a condition on the sale of
timber or other forest products from a community forest
demonstration area, unprocessed timber harvested from a
community forest demonstration area may not be exported in
accordance with subpart F of part 223 of title 36, Code of
Federal Regulations.
SEC. 405. DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS FROM COMMUNITY FOREST
DEMONSTRATION AREA.
(a) Retention of Funds for Management.--The Advisory
Committee appointed for a community forest demonstration area
may retain such sums as the Advisory Committee considers to
be necessary from amounts generated from that community
forest demonstration area to fund the management,
administration, restoration, operation and maintenance,
improvement, repair, and related expenses incurred with
respect to the community forest demonstration area.
(b) Funds to Counties or Local Governmental Units.--Subject
to subsection (a) and section 407, the Advisory Committee for
a community forest demonstration area in a State shall
distribute funds generated from that community forest
demonstration area to each county or local governmental unit
in the State in an amount proportional to the funds received
by the county or local governmental unit under title I of the
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of
2000 (16 U.S.C. 7111 et seq.).
SEC. 406. INITIAL FUNDING AUTHORITY.
(a) Funding Source.--Counties may use such sum as the
counties consider to be necessary from the amounts made
available to the counties under section 501 to provide
initial funding for the management of community forest
demonstration areas.
(b) No Restriction on Use of Non-federal Funds.--Nothing in
this title restricts the Advisory Committee of a community
forest demonstration area from seeking non-Federal loans or
other non-Federal funds for management of the community
forest demonstration area.
SEC. 407. PAYMENTS TO UNITED STATES TREASURY.
(a) Payment Requirement.--As soon as practicable after the
end of the fiscal year in which a community forest
demonstration area is established and as soon as practicable
after the end of each subsequent fiscal year, the Advisory
Committee for a community forest demonstration area shall
make a payment to the United States Treasury.
(b) Payment Amount.--The payment for a fiscal year under
subsection (a) with respect to a community forest
demonstration area shall be equal to 75 percent of the
quotient obtained by dividing--
(1) the number obtained by multiplying the number of acres
of land in the community forest demonstration area by the
average annual receipts generated over the preceding 10-
fiscal year period from the unit or units of the National
Forest System containing that community forest demonstration
area; by
(2) the total acres of National Forest System land in that
unit or units of the National Forest System.
SEC. 408. TERMINATION OF COMMUNITY FOREST DEMONSTRATION AREA.
(a) Termination Authority.--Subject to approval by the
Governor of the State, the Advisory Committee for a community
forest demonstration area may terminate the community forest
demonstration area by a unanimous vote.
(b) Effect of Termination.--Upon termination of a community
forest demonstration area, the Secretary shall immediately
resume management of the National Forest System land that had
been included in the community forest demonstration area, and
the Advisory Committee shall be dissolved.
(c) Treatment of Undistributed Funds.--Any revenues from
the terminated area that remain undistributed under section
405 more than 30 days after the date of termination shall be
deposited in the general fund of the Treasury for use by the
Forest Service in such amounts as may be provided in advance
in appropriation Acts.
TITLE V--REAUTHORIZATION AND AMENDMENT OF EXISTING AUTHORITIES AND
OTHER MATTERS
SEC. 501. EXTENSION OF SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY
SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 2000 PENDING FULL
OPERATION OF FOREST RESERVE REVENUE AREAS.
(a) Beneficiary Counties.--No later than February 2014, the
Secretary of Agriculture shall distribute to each beneficiary
county (as defined in section 102(2)) a payment equal to the
amount distributed to the beneficiary county for fiscal year
2010 under section 102(c)(1) of the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C.
7112(c)(1)).
(b) Counties That Were Eligible for Direct County
Payments.--
(1) Total amount available for payments.--During the month
of February 2015, the Secretary of the Inteiror shall
distribute to all counties that received a payment for fiscal
year 2010 under subsection (a)(2) of section 102 of the
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of
2000 (16 U.S.C. 7112) payments in a total amount equal to the
difference between--
(A) the total amount distributed to all such counties for
fiscal year 2010 under subsection (c)(1) of such section; and
(B) $27,000,000.
(2) Couty share.--From the total amount determined under
paragraph (1), each county described in such paragraph shall
receive, during the month of February 2015, an amount that
bears the same proportion to the total amount made available
under such paragraph as that county's payment for fiscal year
2010 under subsection (c)(1) of section 102 of the Secure
Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination act of 2000
(16 U.S.C. 7112) bears to the total amount distributed to all
such counties for fiscal year 2010 under such subsection.
(c) Effect on 25-percent and 50-percent payments.--A county
that receives a payment made under subsection (a) and (b) may
not receive a 25-percent payment or 50-percent payment (as
those terms are defined in
[[Page H5747]]
section 3 of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 7102)) for fiscal year
2015.
SEC. 502. RESTORING ORIGINAL CALCULATION METHOD FOR 25-
PERCENT PAYMENTS.
(a) Amendment of Act of May 23, 1908.--The sixth paragraph
under the heading ``FOREST SERVICE'' in the Act of May 23,
1908 (16 U.S.C. 500) is amended in the first sentence--
(1) by striking ``the annual average of 25 percent of all
amounts received for the applicable fiscal year and each of
the preceding 6 fiscal years'' and inserting ``25 percent of
all amounts received for the applicable fiscal year'';
(2) by striking ``said reserve'' both places it appears and
inserting ``the national forest''; and
(3) by striking ``forest reserve'' both places it appears
and inserting ``national forest''.
(b) Conforming Amendment to Weeks Law.--Section 13 of the
Act of March 1, 1911 (commonly known as the Weeks Law; 16
U.S.C. 500) is amended in the first sentence by striking
``the annual average of 25 percent of all amounts received
for the applicable fiscal year and each of the preceding 6
fiscal years'' and inserting ``25 percent of all amounts
received for the applicable fiscal year''.
SEC. 503. FOREST SERVICE AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT GOOD-
NEIGHBOR COOPERATION WITH STATES TO REDUCE
WILDFIRE RISKS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Eligible state.--The term ``eligible State'' means a
State that contains National Forest System land or land under
the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means--
(A) the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to National
Forest System land; or
(B) the Secretary of the Interior, with respect to land
under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management.
(3) State forester.--The term ``State forester'' means the
head of a State agency with jurisdiction over State forestry
programs in an eligible State.
(b) Cooperative Agreements and Contracts Authorized.--The
Secretary may enter into a cooperative agreement or contract
(including a sole source contract) with a State forester to
authorize the State forester to provide the forest,
rangeland, and watershed restoration, management, and
protection services described in subsection (c) on National
Forest System land or land under the jurisdiction of the
Bureau of Land Management, as applicable, in the eligible
State.
(c) Authorized Services.--The forest, rangeland, and
watershed restoration, management, and protection services
referred to in subsection (b) include the conduct of--
(1) activities to treat insect infected forests;
(2) activities to reduce hazardous fuels;
(3) activities involving commercial harvesting or other
mechanical vegetative treatments; or
(4) any other activities to restore or improve forest,
rangeland, and watershed health, including fish and wildlife
habitat.
(d) State as Agent.--Except as provided in subsection (g),
a cooperative agreement or contract entered into under
subsection (b) may authorize the State forester to serve as
the agent for the Secretary in providing the restoration,
management, and protection services authorized under
subsection (b).
(e) Subcontracts.--In accordance with applicable contract
procedures for the eligible State, a State forester may enter
into subcontracts to provide the restoration, management, and
protection services authorized under a cooperative agreement
or contract entered into under subsection (b).
(f) Timber Sales.--Subsections (d) and (g) of section 14 of
the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a)
shall not apply to services performed under a cooperative
agreement or contract entered into under subsection (b).
(g) Retention of NEPA Responsibilities.--Any decision
required to be made under the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) with respect to any
restoration, management, or protection services to be
provided under this section by a State forester on National
Forest System land or Bureau of Land Management land, as
applicable, shall not be delegated to a State forester or any
other officer or employee of the eligible State.
(h) Applicable Law.--The restoration, management, and
protection services to be provided under this section shall
be carried out on a project-to-project basis under existing
authorities of the Forest Service or Bureau of Land
Management, as applicable.
SEC. 504. STEWARDSHIP END RESULT CONTRACTING PROJECT
AUTHORITY.
(a) Extension of Authority.--Effective October 1, 2014,
section 347(a) of the Department of the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in section
101(e) of division A of Public Law 105-277; 16 U.S.C. 2104
note) is amended by striking ``2013'' and inserting ``2017''.
(b) Duration of Contracts.--Section 347(c)(2) of the
Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in section 101(e) of
division A of Public Law 105-277; 16 U.S.C. 2104 note) is
amended by striking ``10 years'' and inserting ``20 years''.
(c) Cancellation Ceiling.--Section 347(c) of the Department
of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999
(as contained in section 101(e) of division A of Public Law
105-277; 16 U.S.C. 2104 note) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs
(6) and (7), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraph (4):
``(4) Cancellation ceiling.--
``(A) Authority.--The Chief of the Forest Service and the
Director of the Bureau of Land Management may obligate funds
to cover any potential cancellation or termination costs for
an agreement or contract under subsection (a) in stages that
are economically or programmatically viable.
``(B) Notice to congress.--Not later than 30 days before
entering into a multiyear agreement or contract under
subsection (a) that includes a cancellation ceiling in excess
of $25,000,000, but does not include proposed funding for the
costs of cancelling the agreement or contract up to the
cancellation ceiling established in the agreement or
contract, the Chief or the Director, as the case may be,
shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
of the Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the
House of Representatives a written notice that includes--
``(i) the cancellation ceiling amounts proposed for each
program year in the agreement or contract and the reasons for
such cancellation ceiling amounts;
``(ii) the extent to which the costs of contract
cancellation are not included in the budget for the agreement
or contract; and
``(iii) an assessment of the financial risk of not
including budgeting for the costs of agreement or contract
cancellation.
``(C) Notice to omb.--At least 14 days before the date on
which the Chief or Director enters into an agreement or
contract under subsection (a), the Chief or Director shall
transmit to the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget a copy of any written notice submitted under
subparagraph (B) with regard to such agreement or
contract.''.
(d) Fire Liability.--Section 347(c) of the Department of
the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999
(as contained in section 101(e) of division A of Public Law
105-277; 16 U.S.C. 2104 note) is amended by inserting after
paragraph (4), as added by subsection (c) of this section,
the following new paragraph:
``(5) Fire liability provisions.--Not later than 90 days
after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the Chief of
the Forest Service and the Director of the Bureau of Land
Management shall issue, for use in all contracts and
agreements under subsection (a), fire liability provisions
that are in substantially the same form as the fire liability
provisions contained in--
``(A) integrated resource timber contracts, as described in
the Forest Service contract numbered 2400-13, part H, section
H.4; and
``(B) timber sale contracts conducted pursuant to section
14 of the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C.
472a).''.
SEC. 505. CLARIFICATION OF NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT ACT OF
1976 AUTHORITY.
Section 14(g) of the National Forest Management Act of 1976
(16 U.S.C. 472a(g)) is amended by striking ``Designation,
marking when necessary,'' and inserting ``Designation,
including marking when necessary, or designation by
description or by prescription,''.
SEC. 506. TREATMENT AS SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING.
None of the funds made available to a beneficiary county
(as defined in section 102(2)) or other political subdivision
of a State under this Act shall be used in lieu of or to
otherwise offset State funding sources for local schools,
facilities, or educational purposes.
SEC. 507. EXCEPTION OF CERTAIN FOREST PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES
FROM APPEALS REFORM ACT AND OTHER REVIEW.
Section 322 of the Department of the Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102-381; 16
U.S.C. 1612 note) and section 428 of Division E of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112-74; 125
Stat. 1046; 16 U.S.C. 6515 note) shall not apply to any
project or activity implementing a land and resource
management plan developed under section 6 of the Forest and
Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C.
1604) that is categorically excluded from documentation in an
environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
=========================== NOTE ===========================
September 19, 2013, pages H5733 through H5747, the following
text of HR 1526 appeared in roman type: Be it enacted by the
Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
American in Congress assembled. . . . environmental impact
statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
The online version should be corrected to read in italic type:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of American in Congress assembled. . . .
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
========================= END NOTE =========================
The Acting CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall
be in order except those printed in part C of House Report 113-215.
Each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Daines
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in part C of House Report 113-215.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
[[Page H5748]]
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 16, line 7, insert before the period the following:
``, except that a court of the United States may not issue a
restraining order, preliminary injunction, or injunction
pending appeal covering a covered forest reserve project in
response to an allegation that the Secretary violated any
procedural requirement applicable to how the project was
selected, planned, or analyzed''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 351, the gentleman
from Montana (Mr. Daines) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montana.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. Chairman, as a fifth generation Montanan and an avid
sportsman, I understand how protecting our beautiful landscapes and
unmatched recreational opportunities are important to our way of life
in Montana.
As much a part of Montana as our enjoyment of the great outdoors is
our timber industry--or at least what used to be one. The timber
industry has declined by 90 percent since I was a kid. Since then, the
wildfires and beetle kill have worsened. Our loggers play an important
role on the front lines of protecting our outdoor heritage, and we must
never forget that.
I'm very concerned that many of these special places are being
destroyed because the Forest Service does not have the tools necessary
to manage these lands responsibly. H.R. 1526 gives the Forest Service
the tools to protect and enhance our forests and will allow our timber
industry to get back to work. It will cut the red tape that has held up
responsible forest management and timber production. It includes
comprehensive reforms to discourage and limit the flood of frivolous
appeals and litigation. It also requires the Forest Service to increase
timber harvests on nonwilderness lands now that it will have much
needed latitude to do its work.
This improved management will protect the health of our forests and
watersheds, the safety of our communities, jobs in the timber industry,
and our cherished access to the outdoors. H.R. 1526 would help create
68,000 jobs and nearly 5,000 jobs in Montana. H.R. 1526 would allow
access to marketable timber for our mills in Montana and breathe life
back into this dying industry.
This bill keeps the Federal Government's commitment to provide
crucial revenue to our forest counties. It extends the Secure Rural
Schools program for 1 year as the new timber program stands up. SRS has
provided essential stopgap funding for timber counties since 2000, but
many of our counties are tired of seeing the funds depend on the whims
of Congress.
This bill has the support of the National Association of Forested
Counties. This bill also has the support of the National Education
Association because they recognize the economic development and revenue
that will be generated by our bill will strengthen our rural schools in
States like Montana. Importantly, this bill helps to protect healthy
forest management from habitual lawsuits brought by fringe groups.
My amendment would strengthen the bill's protections against court-
ordered obstruction. Unfortunately, obstructionist tactics too often
stop them from going forward. In region one alone, at least 40 percent
of timber sales in fiscal '12 and fiscal '13 have been appealed or
litigated. A top U.S. Forest Service official recently acknowledged
that the abundance of litigation has played a ``huge role'' in blocking
responsible timber sales.
In March of this year, the Friends of the Wild Swan, Alliance for the
Wild Rockies, and others halted a much needed timber sale called the
Colt Summit Project near Seeley Lake in Montana due to a minor
technical error by the Forest Service involving the impact on the
habitat of a listed species, the Canadian lynx.
{time} 1915
Like the Colt Summit Project, oftentimes timber sales are stopped in
their tracks by court-issued injunctions that are based solely on
alleged procedural violations such as mere paperwork errors. My
amendment would prohibit these injunctions that are based on
nonsubstantive allegations.
Injunctions on timber sales often turn into permanent delays, leaving
dying timber to rot and lose value. My amendment would allow these
critical projects to move forward while litigation on the merits of the
case is pending. In doing so, it will help ensure that responsible
timber sales come to fruition.
My amendment simply allows projects like the Colt Summit Project to
move forward while the merits of the case continue to be examined. I
urge my colleagues to join me in support of making our forests
healthier.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAINES. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I want to tell the gentleman I think this
amendment adds a great deal to this legislation, and I will support
your amendment.
Mr. DAINES. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of making our
forests healthier, and for the adoption of my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Like many here tonight, I'm frustrated by the seemingly
endless appeals and litigation on efforts to responsibly manage our
forests, but not all appeals and litigation are frivolous. We know that
some zero-cut groups seeking to end all logging in national forests
have been successful in nitpicking the Forest Service's submission in
Montana. However, this amendment literally tips the scales of justice.
The underlying bill already places extraordinary restrictions on
parties--which I mentioned earlier, over which I have concern--on
parties seeking to protect public resources. Do we really want to tell
people they can't protest a government activity if the Federal
Government violates a procedural requirement?
Failing to give notice of a major activity is a procedural
requirement. Shouldn't the community be able to appeal an activity
that's moving forward if they think it might impact their drinking
water and they were never notified about the proposal?
Failing to properly advertise for bids is a procedural requirement.
Shouldn't a small business be able to stop a project from being awarded
to an out-of-State company if the Forest Service failed to follow
proper contracting protocol?
The underlying bill already has numerous provisions that accelerate
the approval of the projects and makes litigation much more difficult.
We don't need to tip the scales further towards the power of Big
Government and away from the public.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. Chairman, I respect the comments made by the
gentleman from Oregon; but when we look at the State of Montana and see
a 90 percent reduction in forest timber harvest on national
forestlands, and when we hear from the Forest Service officials the
number 1 issue is litigation, it is time that we put in place measures
and reforms this amendment addresses, that addresses that those kind of
concerns of procedural nature will not stop an entire forest project.
This is a very real issue in my home State. I saw it literally
firsthand when I was visiting the Pyramid sawmill in Seeley Lake, when
we saw, because of, literally, a small, little procedural error on one
of 14 counts, that stopped an entire timber harvest.
This is getting out in front and saying, let's not let the trial
lawyers and the courts control the forests. Let's let the people have
control of the forests and restore the jobs that are needed and the
revenue back to our schools.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield myself the balance of the time.
We did have a hearing on this and similar issues, and I did find
common ground with folks on the other side of the aisle.
We had a vigorous debate over fuel reduction 13 years ago, which
ultimately resulted in a law called HFRA,
[[Page H5749]]
and I participated in writing that law here on the House side, very
much a bipartisan law with myself and Mr. Miller on the Democratic side
and Scott McInnis, John Shadegg, and Greg Walden on the other. And we
gave this tool to the Forest Service, and they pretty much haven't used
it. They've used it in very minor ways.
And at the hearing, I asked the Deputy Chief, What about HFRA? Do we
really need to change the laws further or prevent--do these radical
things like preventing appeals and litigation?
And he said, Well, no. We're moving ahead with a major, major
landscape-scale collaborative process in the Black Hills.
I said, Well, that's great, Mr. Deputy. I said, How about all the
rest of the intermountain West? How about central Oregon and other
places where we need these sort of landscape-scale projects that can't
be nitpicked, you know, acre by acre, but they are developed
collaboratively and we move forward? And as I mentioned earlier, we can
do them under stewardship contracts, which will attract investors who
will utilize the biomass and lower the cost to the Forest Service.
There is a way to better do this. We need to push the Forest Service
on these issues. If there are minor changes that need to be made in
HFRA, they should let us know.
I believe one is that it doesn't allow for them to go into areas of
bug kill, and that is something that should be fixed and was fixed in a
bipartisan bill in the Senate, which we recommended, in part, in a
Democratic alternative here which was offered in committee but not
allowed on the floor because of scoring issues.
So I believe there is a way to move forward here and solve some of
these problems, but this is not the proper way.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, on that I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Daines
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in part C of House Report 113-215.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of title I, page 17, after line 23, add the
following new section:
SEC. 106. ANNUAL REPORT.
(a) Report Required.--Not later than 60 days after the end
of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
an annual report specifying the annual volume requirement in
effect for that fiscal year for each Forest Reserve Revenue
Area, the volume of board feet actually harvested for each
Forest Reserve Revenue Area, the average cost of preparation
for timber sales, the forest reserve revenues generated from
such sales, and the amount of receipts distributed to each
beneficiary county.
(b) Form of Report.--The information required by subsection
(a) to be provided with respect to a Forest Reserve Revenue
Area shall be presented on a single page. In addition to
submitting each report to Congress, the Secretary shall also
make the report available on the website of the Forest
Service.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 351, the gentleman
from Montana (Mr. Daines) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montana.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. Chairman, nationwide, more than 73 million acres of
Forest Service lands and hundreds of millions of acres of other Federal
lands are at risk for catastrophic wildfire. As our timber industry has
declined by 90 percent in recent decades, however, our National Forest
System has lost much of the labor force to sustain our forested
ecosystems and to protect our communities.
The Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act addresses
both challenges, providing the Forest Service with much-needed latitude
to reduce the risk of catastrophic fires while revitalizing our
country's dying timber industry.
I'm offering an amendment to hold the Forest Service accountable for
doing the work required in this legislation. My amendment would simply
require the Secretary of Agriculture to submit to Congress an annual
report. In fact, the amendment specifies this annual report is one page
in length. Rarely do we see a report here in Washington that is less
than about 3 inches thick. This is going to require that it's just a
one-page summary, simple, focused on the results for each Forest
Service revenue area.
On this report, we would report the annual volume requirements in
effect for that fiscal year: the volume of board feet actually
harvested, the average cost of preparation of timber sales, the
revenues generated from such sales, and the amount of receipts
distributed to each beneficiary county. The amendment would also
require that the Forest Service place the report on its Web site.
The American people whose lives are often in the paths of
catastrophic wildfire, whose jobs rely on access to timber, and whose
school systems and public works rely on revenues generated from Federal
land within its borders deserve transparency and accountability in our
Federal Government's land management, and our country needs results.
My amendment brings all three principles to the Forest Service as the
agency implements H.R. 1526.
I urge the adoption of my amendment.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAINES. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for offering this
amendment. I think it adds a lot to it because, as we transition to
targets in the future, I think something like this would be very
beneficial. And so I congratulate the gentleman and I support his
amendment.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, the previous amendment was going to limit public
access to information. Now we're going to ask the public, the Forest
Service, to produce more information. Although, actually, we aren't
asking them to produce more information. We're asking them to produce
less information than they currently make publicly available.
It would require an annual report to Congress as a result of
implementing title I, amendment requiring an annual report, volume of
timber, cost of preparing timber sales, revenue from the sales, and how
it's distributed to counties on one page.
Well, the Forest Service does prepare these reports on a quarterly
basis--it is available online--but no, it's not one page. I guess we
could put it on one page. I'm having trouble reading it at this scale,
which is 18 pages. This is the 18-page report for the Beaverhead-
Deerlodge Forest.
If we look at the report, they offer 3.4 million board feet of
timber, the amount of timber delayed, withdrawn from sale, what was
successfully bid on, what didn't get any bids. There are also quarterly
cut and sold reports, showing the value of these sales. In the first
quarter of 2013, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge sold $312,000 worth of
timber, nearly all of it Lodgepole pine.
If we limit it to one page, we might lose other things, like the
report on Christmas trees--$6,050 value for sales of Christmas trees;
mushrooms, $1,500 in the Bitterroot National Forest.
So the Forest Service is already producing this information. They are
posting it online. I know it's kind of de rigueur around here to say
let's get it all down to one page. Well, we could put it on one page,
but you're going to need a microscope to read it, unless you want to
leave out a lot of the stuff we're getting. And that's kind of
interesting, if you really want to know what's going on in the forest.
If you want to know valid bids, no bids, delayed bids, withdrawn,
resold, re-offered, regular sales, cancelled, opted other volume,
resold, re-offered, previous fiscal year volume, replacement volume, I
mean, how are you going to fit all this stuff on one page?
[[Page H5750]]
So we're just going to tell them, ``Don't bother anymore to produce
this data. We don't want it. The public doesn't want it''?
So under the guise of asking for information, we're actually going to
tell the Forest Service to produce less, which, you know, they might be
kind of happy with because they will be less accountable if they
produce less information.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAINES. I appreciate the gentleman from Oregon's remarks there.
Let me say this. I spent 28 years in the private sector having
managed complex operations. And so what this amendment does, it doesn't
preclude the Forest Service from generating all the data in the format
that the gentleman from Oregon referenced. What this is asking for here
is a one-page summary, a dashboard, if you will, so we can see, kind of
cut to the bottom line in terms of the numbers that I pointed out here.
So often in Washington we are drowning in data. We're starving for
wisdom. This is a simple dashboard that cuts to the bottom line here of
looking for the volume of board feet actually harvested, the cost of
the preparation of sales, the revenues generated from the sales, and
the amount of receipts distributed to the beneficiary counties. That's
the one-page summary.
All the other data can be contained in the other reports for the
perusal of Members and others who want to see it, but this just cuts to
the chase to give a simple, one-page dashboard of what the bottom-line
results are as a result of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Well, the Forest Service isn't always responsive, but I believe if
the committee chairman--in fact, I would be happy to join as the
ranking member with the committee chairman and the gentleman from
Montana and any other members of the committee interested in a letter
to the Forest Service saying, Hey, you produce all this incredible
amount of data. Some people think it's too much. So how about a one-
page executive summary that covers these points, which would precede
the other 18 pages online--they don't have to print them, so there's no
cost to the government--I think that might solve this problem.
I don't believe we need to pass a law to get an executive summary. I
mean, most Federal agencies provide executive summaries of all sorts of
stuff for people who don't have time or interest in knowing things in
more detail.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAINES. I just would say that, as I've been back here, moving
from the private sector to the public sector, sometimes you have got to
lay out in specificity the need for a one-page summary of what's going
on so that Members and anybody else that wants to see can see, can take
the 30,000-foot view here in terms of this program being successful or
not.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I have the right to close, and I'm prepared to close if
the gentleman wants to summarize his previous arguments.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1930
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. McClintock
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in part C of House Report 113-215.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 23, line 10, add after the period the following new
sentence: ``In addition, if the primary purpose of a
hazardous fuel reduction project or a forest health project
under this title is the salvage of dead, damaged, or down
timber resulting from wildfire occurring in 2013, the
hazardous fuel reduction project or forest health project,
and any decision of the Secretary concerned in connection
with the project, shall not be subject to judicial review or
to any restraining order or injunction issued by a United
States court.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 351, the gentleman
from California (Mr. McClintock) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
An estimated 1 billion board feet of fire-killed timber can still be
salvaged out of the forests devastated by the Yosemite Rim fire, but it
requires immediate action. As time passes, the value of this dead
timber declines until after a year or so, when it becomes
unsalvageable.
It has been the practice of radical environmental groups to file
lawsuits against such projects, with the objective of delaying salvage
until the timber is worthless. This amendment waives judicial review of
the salvage plans for the 2013 fires. This is exactly the same approach
taken in legislation offered by Tom Daschle a few years ago to allow
salvage of beetle-killed timber in the Black Hills National Forest.
Salvaging this timber would throw an economic lifeline to communities
already devastated by this fire, as local mills can be brought to full
employment for the first time in many years. It would provide a new
stream of revenue for the Federal Government as this salvageable timber
is auctioned.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for offering this
amendment.
Last year, in my home State of Washington, over 300,000 acres burned.
And yet the Forest Service has yet to service anything. And I dare say
now that whatever value there is to that salvage timber, it probably
has gone away.
I think this amendment addresses that issue very, very well, and I
support the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time a I may consume.
Again, this is an area where we do have some grounds for potential
agreement. Part of the problem is the Forest Service budget. Not only
are they spending half their budget on fighting fires, they've had a
brain drain because of cuts in personnel and staffing, and they really
don't have the personnel to go out.
I suggested a number of years ago, the last time we had a salvage
rider, that a great alternative would be to have the Forest Service
establish a strike team to go out to major fires--in fact, while
they're probably still burning--and begin to map out a recovery
effort--where it might be appropriate to go in and do some salvage,
where there are critical watersheds at risk and there's going to have
to be some immediate mitigation with the planting of grass or other
efforts to mitigate problems that will come with the rainy season in a
few months in California.
I believe there is a better way to get there. But there's a new kind
of current trend online. It's called throw-back Thursday. To me, this
is really throw-back Thursday to one of the most controversial pieces
of legislation ever adopted by this body back in the 1990s, which was a
massive salvage rider.
I have participated in a much more discrete, individual process when
I was first here as a sophomore Member of Congress with Senator Mark
Hatfield from Oregon. We sat down with an area that had been burned and
we negotiated and legislated a salvage which preserved the areas that
needed to be preserved.
There was a potential for 186 million board feet. We ended up
legislating somewhere around 70 million board feet. The industry was
disappointed. The environmentalists were appalled. But in the end, we
got no additional sedimentation, we didn't get any slope slumping, and
we did get 70 million board feet of timber out of there. We
[[Page H5751]]
didn't build a road into a sensitive, roadless area. We did it with
helicopter logging. And the Forest Service still made money.
So there are ways to do this. But this, I don't think, is the best
way to go forward. The underlying legislation already allows
significant waivers of NEPA. Any project less than 10,000 acres is not
required to go through an analysis. But this would allow a project to
move forward no matter what the size or where it's located, without
judicial review, if the project is salvaged, dead, damaged, or downed
timber in an area impacted by fire this year.
We don't really know yet. I don't think a lot of the areas of Rim
fire have yet been surveyed. Certainly, the Forest Service doesn't have
the assets to do and find out what the impacts were--where the spot
burns are, where the through burns are, what the conditions are, what
areas would be critical to surviving wildlife, what areas are critical
to watersheds and how we will deal with those areas, how we're going to
recover the recreation in that area in the future, what would happen
with building of roads and logging and salvage logging in those areas.
So I believe that this is a bridge too far in terms of expediting
recovery and/or potentially salvage efforts, and I would oppose the
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. LaMalfa), my neighbor to the north.
Mr. LaMALFA Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, Mr. McClintock, for
bringing this measure forward.
The crazy thing about this is each year you have devastating
wildfires in California, the West, and other areas of the country. We
act like we're reinventing the wheel each time when we need to go out
and do the basic salvage work.
You have a narrow window of time that you can get value out of it
before the trees there that have value can be salvaged and turned into
something useful. You could have participatory people in the industry
helping bring that value up. If you lose that window of time, then you
have higher costs maybe as areas don't get recovered because nobody can
make a living out of this.
So this is a commonsense measure. It's really a no-brainer. It ought
to be used to move forward for this 2013 season but to also establish a
template long term so that we can have a sensible forest management
policy and get in and do these strike teams. Let's get a template so we
don't have to reinvent the wheel each time there's a fire, but instead
move quickly, get the industry to do it, and have our forests start
their restoration and recovery project as soon as possible with that
value.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Denham), my neighbor to the south, also a coauthor of the measure.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McClintock-
McCarthy-LaMalfa-Denham amendment. I'm proud to cosponsor this
amendment to speed up the timber salvage project on the acres burned in
this catastrophic Yosemite Rim fire.
I'm never surprised by some of the arguments that are made down here.
You will hear that we just don't have enough people to go out there and
survey. But yet by harvesting this very timber that will be rotted or
infested in several months, it would actually pay not only for the
Forest Service to go out there and survey and help to pay for the
Forest Service salaries, but actually, in a community like ours, help
to pay for our schooling and some of our local costs as well.
The timber salvage can go a long way to benefit local economies
throughout the State. This timely amendment limits the amount of
lawsuits that could be used to slow down and hold up the salvage
process.
Under the proposed amendment, wood salvaged from the Yosemite Rim
fire could be quickly sent to mills across California, fueling
construction projects and benefiting local economies receiving the
timber and providing much-needed local jobs and revenues to the
impacted counties.
Our communities have suffered untold damage with the historic and
catastrophic wildfire that burned over 400 square miles.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 15
seconds.
Mr. DENHAM. The air quality is worsened, the fertile range land near
the fire may have been sterilized by the heat, our water sources will
experience degradation from runoff, and our beautiful forest land will
remain blackened and sparse for years to come.
I ask your assistance in passing this critical amendment to put
people back to work and start cleaning up this catastrophic situation.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to close.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I can't put it any plainer
than this: without this amendment, 1 billion board feet of timber owned
by the people of the United States will be lost forever. We do not have
time for endless years of litigation.
Within a year, this timber which can now be salvaged for productive
use and can provide jobs for the people of our region and provide a
stream of revenues for our ailing U.S. Treasury will be rendered
utterly worthless. This is precisely the same approach that was used
when Democrat Tom Daschle faced the same problem in his district over
beetle-killed timber. We are applying exactly the same policy to
salvage this timber.
I would hope that the gentleman from Oregon, in the spirit of
bipartisanship, will recognize that the same remedy used in a
Democratic region ought now to be used for this district in California.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, actually, this wouldn't apply just to the
Rim fire, as I read it. The gentleman can correct me if I'm wrong. I
believe it applies to any area that burned in 2013 anywhere in the
United States of America, which would certainly include both Democratic
and Republican districts. Fires are not very partisan in their
destruction.
So that is an incredibly broad brush. That would mean there could be
no analysis done by the Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife, or anybody
else, before salvage efforts might begin on forests all across America.
If you're bidding on a salvage sale, it isn't your job to care about
whether or not the road you're going to build in or the area you're
going to access is subject to the slope slumping when the rain starts
in a couple of months or the snows come in the inner mountain regions
or up in the Northwest.
So this is extraordinarily and overly broad. We've already exempted
things up to 10,000 acres. I believe there's a better way to approach
this.
The other gentleman from California talked about getting in there and
then we would have the money for strike teams. I would say that's just
a little bit backwards. These are public assets. This fire is a
disaster not only for the people of your district, the people of
California, but the people of the Nation, particularly with the
proximity to one of the Nation's most loved parks.
If we did have a strike team, we could have areas like that surveyed
by spring and plans in place by spring to know where it might be
appropriate to salvage and where it isn't appropriate to salvage, and
it would still be valuable.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Smith of Missouri
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in part C of House Report 113-215.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
[[Page H5752]]
At the end of title II (page 26, after line 22), add the
following new section:
SEC. 207. MORATORIUM ON USE OF PRESCRIBED FIRE IN MARK TWAIN
NATIONAL FOREST, MISSOURI, PENDING REPORT.
(a) Moratorium.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the
Secretary of Agriculture may not conduct any prescribed fire
in Mark Twain National Forest, Missouri, under the
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Project until the
report required by subsection (c) is submitted to Congress.
(b) Exception for Wildfire Suppression.--Subsection (a)
does not prohibit the use of prescribed fire as part of
wildfire suppression activities.
(c) Report Required.--Not later than one year after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Agriculture shall submit to Congress a report containing an
evaluation of recent and current Forest Service management
practices for Mark Twain National Forest, including lands in
the National Forest enrolled, or under consideration for
enrollment, in the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration
Project to convert certain lands into shortleaf pine-oak
woodlands, to determine the impact of such management
practices on forest health and tree mortality. The report
shall specifically address--
(1) the economic costs associated with the failure to
utilize hardwoods cut as part of the Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration Project and the subsequent loss of
hardwood production from the treated lands in the long term;
(2) the extent of increased tree mortality due to excessive
heat generated by prescribed fires;
(3) the impacts to water quality and rate of water run off
due to erosion of the scorched earth left in the aftermath of
the prescribed fires; and
(4) a long-term plan for evaluation of the impacts of
prescribed fires on lands previously burned within the Eleven
Point Ranger District.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 351, the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Let me begin first by saying I fully support increasing the timber
harvest on Federal lands, and I'm excited for the opportunity to create
jobs and stimulate the economy in my rural Missouri district.
The issue that my amendment deals with, prescribed fires within the
Mark Twain National Forest, is a symptom of the larger problem that
H.R. 1526 seeks to fix. To put it simply, our national forest system
could be better managed. Fifty million board feet of timber, with an
estimated value of $4.75 million, dies every year in the Mark Twain
National Forest. Only 38 million board feet of timber, with an
estimated value of $4.37 million, is harvested. There are individuals
ready, willing, and able to harvest the timber, but they are prevented
from acting by the Federal Government.
The Forest Service has made the harvest problem even worse by burning
whole swaths of harvestable acreage. While prescribed fire has been
used in the past as an effective technique to manage and prevent forest
fires, in this instance the fires are being used to change the
landscape of the area from its current forested state to pine-oak
woodlands.
I have personally visited sites where trees that could be harvested
for timber are being burned. Folks, it just doesn't make sense to be
burning this timber that could be used to bring new jobs and economic
prosperity to my district.
The forest products industry in my district is alive and well, and we
certainly could make use of these trees that are instead being burned.
The wood flooring, the barrel industry, and timber and charcoal
industries are major employers in my district that will put people back
to work turning these trees into valuable finished products.
{time} 1945
My constituents who have evaluated the impacts of the initial
prescribed fires are very concerned about the results. The large size
of the burns and the failure to utilize cut hardwoods has created a
residual forest condition with scorched trees and bare mineral soil.
A number of trees the burns intended to promote were exposed to
excessive heat, which has caused these trees to die unnecessarily. The
burns have also caused the forest floor to become more susceptible to
erosion. As a result of this situation, we need to place a moratorium
on these prescribed fires in the Mark Twain National Forest until such
time as their effects on the forest can be determined. I wrote a letter
to the Forest Service in August, along with five of my colleagues from
Missouri, seeking this information and have yet to receive a response.
I ask this body to approve my amendment so that we can get more
information from the Forest Service about this situation and that in
the meantime more of our valuable Missouri hardwoods will not be
indiscriminately burned.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank him for offering this amendment. I think his amendment takes care
of a unique problem, although it may be applicable in other parts. But
I think the gentleman has the right approach, and I support his
amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I certainly don't know what is best for the Mark Twain
Forest. And you had five Members sign your letter, so that would leave
430 who probably don't think they have any clue either about what would
be appropriate in your forest.
We do have a committee of jurisdiction. There are times when the
Forest Service bureaucracy is doing things that I do not approve of. I
don't believe that the committee has done any oversight on this issue.
I don't know if the issue was brought to the chairman before it was
offered as an amendment here on the floor. This amendment wasn't
offered in committee, nor was--I was there, there was no discussion of
this in committee.
It's a very, very localized problem. I would suggest again, as we did
earlier, that, first off, this bill is not going to become law before
they're going to burn this winter--which is when they burn in the
Northwest. I assume they do the same thing in your district, when the
risk of fire is down because of other vegetation and when the moisture
levels are higher.
This isn't going to be law by then--if it ever became law. If you're
doing it to get their attention, perhaps you will get their attention
if they're listening. But I would suggest that the gentleman initiate a
process through the committee. Ask for a meeting with the Forest
Service under the auspices of the chair and attempt to get answers to
the questions he has. Doing it through this particular amendment is
really not going to accomplish those goals in time if indeed there are
immediate plans to go forward this winter.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. McClintock
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in part C of House Report 113-215.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 508. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN ACTIONS REGARDING FOREST
SERVICE ROADS AND TRAILS.
The Forest Service shall not remove or otherwise eliminate
or obliterate any legally created road or trail unless there
has been a specific decision, which included adequate and
appropriate public involvement, to decommission the specific
road or trail in question. The fact that any road or trail is
not a Forest System road or trail, or does not appear on a
Motor Vehicle Use Map, shall not constitute a decision.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 351, the gentleman
from California (Mr. McClintock) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
[[Page H5753]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment guarantees that the
public has the full opportunity to comment before a forest road is
closed or destroyed.
These roads are vital to tourism, and tourism is vital to the economy
of these communities. Yet the U.S. Forest Service has become very
aggressive in recent years in shutting down these roads, restricting
public access to the public lands, and replacing Gifford Pinchot's
inclusionary vision for the Forest Service, which he once described as
serving ``the greatest good for the greatest number in the long run,''
into an exclusionary vision that can best be described as: look, but
don't touch.
The Forest Service has now bypassed Congress and has adopted a rule
that effectively allows it to close any road that it deems to be
unnecessary or undesirable without environmental review or public
consultation or comment. My amendment simply reasserts Congress'
authority to protect public access to the public lands and requires
that road or trail closures follow the established process of public
notification and input.
Under this provision, the Forest Service can still decommission
trails or roads that it considers obsolete, but only after ``adequate
and appropriate public involvement.'' That's it. Before you
decommission or destroy an existing road or trail, you have to ask the
public. It codifies one of Pinchot's maxims for what he called ``the
behavior of foresters in public office.'' He said: It is more trouble
to consult the public than to ignore them, but that is what you are
hired for.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for offering this
amendment.
If I were to categorize this amendment, it would just simply prohibit
the Forest Service from removing or eliminating roads without public
involvement.
In my district, in the Naches Ranger District, there was a case where
they were in fact using other funds that were used to maintain roads,
and they were using them to close roads, but all the time there was no
public involvement. I think your amendment addresses that issue, and I
support the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Again, there are grounds for some agreement here. I
agree with the gentleman from California that this very sensitive
issue, access to forest lands, is critically important to people who
live in, around or near the forest, or people who choose to travel
there to recreate.
We recently had a disastrous example in my State. The Proposed Travel
Management Plan in the Wallowa-Whitman Forest, which is in Mr. Walden's
district in northeast Oregon, the plan was developed in 2009, little
public input; would have closed a substantial amount of the road
network. It became a huge, huge controversy because of the lack of
public involvement. I had complaints from my constituents and we're 250
miles away. Although I do recreate sometimes in that forest, but it's
not on the road. I access the areas by forest roads. So this is
something that was of major concern.
A regional forester who was new said, yeah, you're right, they really
screwed this up; let's do it over again. They started all over again in
a very collaborative public process.
But this goes a little bit beyond requiring the public to be notified
and involved. In fact, it's a little contradictory because major parts
of this bill do away with NEPA, which does require meaningful public
involvement and response to comments by the public meaningfully by the
agency. So I don't know whether we've removed that requirement from the
existing law for the removal of roads and that's why we have to have
this amendment or not.
But this goes a little further. It says these would be legally
created roads. As you know, I mean, we get people down in Nevada and
elsewhere arguing with the government or even attempting to take back
government property by saying these are legally created and are not the
property of the Forest Service.
So first you have to decide which roads are legal, which are covered,
which are illegal, not covered. Who is going to decide that? The Forest
Service user group who has an informal road that they have established?
How will that help with this problem?
It also requires the Forest Service to make a specific decision
regarding a road or trail closure, including adequate and appropriate
public involvement. Okay. Well, what are those standards as opposed to,
say, the NEPA standards which should apply in these cases? So I think
that this could actually lead to more confusion and litigation.
I agree with the gentleman that there is a problem. This is a
sensitive area. In some areas the Forest Service has not dealt well
with it and believe there are other avenues to a solution.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could assist the gentleman in
his confusion by simply reading the amendment, which is simple,
straightforward, and clear:
The Forest Service shall not remove or otherwise eliminate
or obliterate any legally created road or trail unless there
has been a specific decision, which included adequate and
appropriate public involvement, to decommission the specific
road or trail in question. The fact that any road or trail is
not a Forest System road or trail, or does not appear on a
Motor Vehicle Use Map, shall not constitute a decision.
That is it. That is the alpha and omega of this amendment in its
entirety. If you're going to close a public road to the public, you
need to ask them first.
I cannot emphasize enough how important this is to the mountain
communities of the Sierra Nevada that depend on mountain tourism for
their economies. Tourists don't go where they're not welcomed. Tourists
don't visit where they can't get to. The public's use of mountain
trails and roads is absolutely central to mountain tourism, and
removing or closing these trails or roads is not something that should
be done behind closed doors by administrative fiat.
I ask for your ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, that doesn't address the concern about legally
created road or trail. Again, I'm not aware that there is a definition
elsewhere in the bill, nor in this amendment, for ``legally created.''
And there is tremendous controversy and litigation over the issue of
``legally created.''
It does go on to say:
The fact that any road or trail is not a Forest System road
or trail, or does not appear on a Motor Vehicle Use Map,
shall not constitute a decision.
That leaves open the issue of informal-use roads, potentially in
sensitive areas, that would have to go through a process before they
could be closed. What if it's a newly developed ORV trail through a
sensitive meadow? We had someone running doughnuts up in a very
sensitive meadow in the Three Sisters Wilderness in an area--on the
edge of the Three Sisters Wilderness. I mean, did that become a road or
a trail that then would be available to vehicles and we couldn't close
that area? And they did, they put in big rocks and other things to
close the area off to motor vehicles. Would that have been precluded
under this amendment? I don't know.
This opens too many questions to controversy and interpretation.
There are times when we do need to act quickly when abuse is taking
place. There are other times when the Forest Service has to act more
deliberately. I believe the Forest Service can do a better job. I
believe in having the public notified, the public fully involved; And
the best way to do that on these roads is through NEPA.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
[[Page H5754]]
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. LaMalfa
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in part C of House Report 113-215.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 508. LIMITATIONS ON TYPES OF DAMAGES THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT MAY SEEK ARISING FROM WILDFIRES.
The Attorney General, acting on behalf of the United
States, may not seek intangible damages from a landowner from
whose land wildfire escaped to Federal land when such
intangible damages are not permitted by the law of the State
in which the landowner's land is located.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 351, the gentleman
from California (Mr. LaMalfa) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. LaMALFA. I appreciate working with the chairman of the committee,
Doc Hastings, on the amendments to this legislation.
This amendment seeks to prevent the Department of Justice from
seeking excessive, unquantifiable damages from property owners who have
fires accidentally escape from their property onto public lands.
We have seen U.S. Attorneys sue landowners for hundreds of millions
of dollars above the damage to national forests and the costs of
firefighting based on very speculative claims about the value of
habitat--claims which appear to be based not on science, not on fact,
but only on the desire to generate revenue for the government.
When the Forest Service gains as much revenue from lawsuits as it
does from timber receipts from an actual working forest, something is
surely wrong with the system. This language would help to end that
problem in many Western States. However, I plan to continue working on
this issue until we develop a 50-State solution to this problem. So it
is for these reasons that I respectfully ask unanimous consent to
withdraw this amendment at this time.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. LaMalfa
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in part C of House Report 113-215.
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 508. DEFINITION OF FIRE SUPPRESSION TO INCLUDE CERTAIN
RELATED ACTIVITIES.
For purposes of utilizing amounts made available to the
Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior for
fire suppression activities, including funds made available
from the FLAME Fund, the term ``fire suppression'' includes
reforestation, site rehabilitation, salvage operations, and
replanting occurring following fire damage on lands under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary concerned or following fire
suppression efforts on such lands by the Secretary concerned.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 351, the gentleman
from California (Mr. LaMalfa) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
{time} 2000
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, disasters like the massive Rim fire that
impacts my colleague's, Mr. McClintock's, district in Yosemite National
Park, which many people believe is a national treasure, and I agree,
not only threaten residents, homes, and other structures, they also
destroy valuable public property: forests that provide jobs in rural
communities, revenue for local governments, and recreation for
Americans.
Unfortunately, planning and procedural hurdles often prevent the
Forest Service from salvaging usable timber and returning the land to a
healthy condition.
This amendment enables the Forest Service to rapidly undertake
salvage, rehabilitation, and replanting by allowing those activities to
be included in fire suppression operational and funding plans.
When wildfires impact private timberland, owners know that salvage
and restoration work must be conducted immediately. The window before
decay and insects eliminates timber's value can be only weeks. Site
rehabilitation must be done before the rainy season to prevent
landslides and sediment from clogging waterways. However, the Forest
Service's ability to conduct these operations on public lands is so
restricted that timber which could generate jobs and revenue literally
rots on the ground, even as adjacent private timberland is rapidly
rehabilitated.
After the 46,000 Bagley fire in my district last year, private
landowners sprang into action and, it is my understanding, that salvage
and rehab operations are already complete on nearly all these private
lands. These areas have been replanted and rehabilitated and soon will
once again be healthy, productive forests. The Forest Service lands,
however, lie nearly untouched as the value of the burned timber
disappears.
In Trinity County, in northern California, 13 lightning-sparked fires
burned over 250,000 acres during the memorable 2008 fire season and
caused $150 million in suppression costs. However, the Forest Service
conducted salvage and rehabilitation on just a few hundred acres,
leaving an area one-third the size of Rhode Island blackened and
scarred.
This amendment speeds the salvage and rehabilitation process by
allowing the Forest Service to plan this work in conjunction with
suppression plans and removes procedural hurdles by defining these
activities as part of suppression efforts. The amendment allows, but
does not mandate, the use of suppression funds for these efforts.
Again, it does not mandate, but allows, the use of suppression funds
for these efforts. The CBO has stated this amendment has no impact on
overall Federal spending.
Finally, this language will offset firefighting costs by generating
revenue for local communities and the Federal Government through
salvage operations. Federal agencies spent over $1.9 billion on
firefighting in 2012, and every dollar derived from salvaged timber is
one less dollar diverted from other programs.
As you may know, I have cosponsored an amendment with Representative
McClintock streamlining judicial delays that slow salvage operations.
This amendment complements that language by accelerating the salvage
and rehabilitation planning progress but functions independently.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaMALFA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for offering this
amendment.
The issue of salvage is a very important part of proper management in
forests, and I think your amendment adds to that.
I support your amendment.
Mr. LaMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I respectfully request your support, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has made the point that it
is not mandatory, but the problem would be we already have inadequate
funds for firefighting. As the gentleman, I'm certain, well knows, the
Forest Service has devastated the remaining funds for fuel reduction,
probably restoration activities, and a whole bunch of recreation
activities and other things that have all been ripped from this year's
budget because they had to spend $1 billion fighting fires, and I
believe Congress appropriated less than half that amount.
This is an annual problem, and it's time to get real around here
about the problem. One is to adequately invest in fuel reduction and
not underinvest in firefighting. Until we do a lot more fuel
[[Page H5755]]
reduction across the West, we are going to have big fires. If we have
big fires, we need to fight them. But we don't need to make the big
fires more prevalent, more common, by cutting the fuel reduction
budgets.
We had this discussion a bit in committee and actually found there
was some common ground in this discussion. Certainly site
rehabilitation and other activities, those are very desirable. But,
again, to categorize them under firefighting I think could create major
problems.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaMALFA Mr. Chairman, in speaking of inadequate funds, if we were
actually generating the funds by having actual timber harvest receipts,
we wouldn't be looking to the government for the money for the type of
fuel reductions that are needed. We would actually be making a living
at it by taking adequate marketable timber, as well as operations that
go along under a timber harvest plan that requires cleanup and
replanting.
So we would be generating the receipts at the same time we would be
doing this if we had this type of thinking involved with more of our
forest management, not only in the current year where you're gaining
those receipts, but in the future as you have a regenerated forest.
I would harken back to Weaverville, in Trinity County, in my area,
where there was a fire some years ago that nearly burned the town; but
then with no management, with no restoration, the land laid idle with
brush, with snags, with all sorts of things growing back and remaining
behind from that fire. It burned again just 7, 8, 9 years later and
almost devastated the town once again. Whereas, we see on private
lands, they're out there. They're salving. They're getting the job
going again and restoring the forest, which is better for the habitat,
better for siltation, better for the wildlife, better for the economy,
better for everybody.
So let's move in the direction of fuel reductions, as my colleague
from Oregon was talking about. Let's do the fuel reductions. But we
don't have to do it with tax dollars. We can do it with the private
sector having marketable timber being taken off and get the job done.
I, again, think this amendment will really help in this regard, so I
respectfully, again, seek your support for this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Fuel reduction and salvage are two infinitely different categories.
Salvage needs to be carefully planned. We already discussed earlier,
the Forest Service doesn't have the resources to do that. Yet, if we
take and add that onto suppression costs, that will take money away
from fuel reduction and other programs of the agency.
I know around here we spend a lot of time talking about sequestration
and a lot of people think it doesn't have much real impact or it's just
waste coming out of the government. That came out of the fuel
suppression budget. Then a bunch of the firefighting money came out of
the fuel suppression budget. And now we are going to act like there was
enough money in the fuel suppression budget or the firefighting budget
that we could spend it on other activities. Yes, we want to do
restoration activity, but at some point we have got to suck it up and
make the investments we need to make in our resource agencies so they
can get the job done right.
We had a discussion of how to properly approach salvage earlier
tonight. I'm not going to reiterate that issue. This amendment is not
mandatory, but as an addition to an already inadequate account, which
is stealing from other accounts, would not be good policy.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee
do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Bentivolio) having assumed the chair, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Acting
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union,
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 1526) to restore employment and educational opportunities in, and
improve the economic stability of, counties containing National Forest
System land, while also reducing Forest Service management costs, by
ensuring that such counties have a dependable source of revenue from
National Forest System land, to provide a temporary extension of the
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, and
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________