[Senate Hearing 109-5]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-5
THE SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 2000
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
REVIEW THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TITLES I THROUGH III OF PUBLIC LAW 106-
393, THE SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF
2000
__________
FEBRUARY 8, 2005
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
20-304 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina, TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CONRAD BURNS, Montana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
GORDON SMITH, Oregon KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho, Chairman
CONRAD R. BURNS, Montana, Vice Chairman
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming RON WYDEN, Oregon
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
GORDON SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Frank Gladics, Professional Staff Member
Scott Miller, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico................ 5
Cantwell, Hon. Maria, U.S. Senator From Washington............... 21
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator From Idaho.................... 1
Creal, Dr. Timothy, Superintendent, Custer School District,
Custer, SD..................................................... 25
French, James B., Trinity County Superintendent of Schools,
Weaverville, CA................................................ 22
Griffith, Reta, Commissioner, Pocahontas County, WV.............. 34
Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota................ 4
Krulitz, Sherry, Commissioner, Shoshone County, ID on Behalf of
the National Association of Counties and the Idaho Association
of Counties.................................................... 36
Lillebo, Tim, Conservation Policy Advocate, Oregon Natural
Resources Council, Bend, OR.................................... 29
Rey, Mark, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment,
Department of Agriculture...................................... 6
Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator From Colorado.................... 22
Shepard, Ed, Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and
Planning, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior 10
Wehrheim, Ed, Chairman, Catron County Commission, Catron County,
NM............................................................. 46
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon........................ 2
THE SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 2000
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Larry E.
Craig presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. Of course, I want to
welcome my colleague and ranking member, Senator Wyden of
Oregon. Senator Johnson, welcome to the committee this morning.
I think both Senator Wyden and I view this as a very
important oversight hearing.
I would also like to recognize and welcome Commissioner
Sherry Krulitz of Shoshone County, Idaho, who will be providing
testimony this morning, along with other county officials on
the issue of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act and the value that that law has been to the
rural counties of many of our States.
Because of the enactment of this law, Senator Wyden and I
have built a reputation of working in a bipartisan manner on
important issues before this committee. I at this point
certainly want to thank him and his staff for their dedication
to this issue, as we embark on the reauthorization of a law
that has stabilized payments to rural forested counties and,
more importantly, has brought communities together to
accomplish projects on the ground that improve watersheds and
enhance habitat.
It should be remembered that the National Forest System was
founded in 1905 from the forest reserves, which were
established between 1891 and 1905 by Presidential proclamation.
In many cases, 65 to 90 percent of the land in a county was
sequestered into the new forest reserves, leaving little land
for economic development and diminishing the potential tax base
to support essential community infrastructure such as roads and
schools.
In 1908, in response to a mounting opposition to the
reserves in the West, Congress passed a bill which enacted a
revenue sharing mechanism to offset for forested counties the
effects of removing these lands from economic development.
People in our forested counties referred to this as the
``compact with the people of rural counties,'' which was part
of the foundation for establishing the National Forest System.
And from 1908 until 1993, this revenue sharing mechanism
worked extremely well. However, from 1986 to the present, we
have reduced our sustained active multiple-use management of
the national forests and the revenues have declined
precipitously. Most counties have seen a decline of 85 percent
in actual revenues generated on our national forests and
therefore an 85 percent reduction in the 25 percent payments to
counties, which are used to help fund schools and county road
departments.
In 2000, Congress passed the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self-Determination Act to address the needs of the
forested counties of America and to focus on creating a new
cooperative partnership between citizens in forest counties and
our Federal land management agencies to develop forest health
improvement projects on public lands and simultaneously to
stimulate job development and community economic stability.
This act is a remarkable success story for rural forested
counties. These funds have restored and sustained essential
infrastructures, such as county schools and county roads
through title I.
In Idaho, resource advisory committees are partnering with
the Forest Service and other organizations to fight the spread
of weeds in the Nez Perce National Forest, make road
improvements in the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, and
repair culverts and improve fish habitat on the Caribou-Targhee
National Forest.
These groups are reducing management gridlock and building
collaborative public land decisionmaking capacity in counties
across America. The resource advisory committees are a real and
working compact between the Federal land management agencies
and rural communities that include all interest groups. They
represent a true coupling of community with land managers that
is good not only for the land but good for the communities.
This law, in my opinion, should be extended so that we can
continue to benefit the forested counties, their schools, and
continue to contribute to improving the national forest health.
Just this last week, Senator Wyden and I introduced the
reauthorization language.
With that, let me turn to my colleague from Oregon, Senator
Ron Wyden.
Ron.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
think it is very appropriate for our subcommittee to be
starting with an oversight hearing on this issue, and I want to
thank you again for all the cooperation and effort to meet me
certainly halfway on these kinds of key issues.
It was not very long ago, I think the chairman knows, I had
a significant amount of people in the environmental community
picketing outside my office for my efforts on this. And suffice
it to say, the chairman had a lot of people coming to him
saying why was he not using the law to push this as a vehicle
to drive up the cut of timber around the country.
We said this was too important. This bill is essentially
the lifeblood for thousands of rural communities across this
country that are hurting. This is not some kind of ideological
trophy for them. This is a question of whether they get the
economic and education help to survive. A lot of these
communities are just barely hanging in there, and if the
Federal Government simply gives them short shrift in an area
where Federal policy has dominated their life on a day-to-day
basis, I am of the view, and I know Chairman Craig shares this
view, that a lot of these communities simply will not survive.
So this is a law that works.
I think it would be fair to say that if this law was a
credit card commercial it read something like this. Making
additional investments and creating new jobs: Thousands of
projects. Stabilization of payments to counties for roads and
schools: Millions of dollars. Improving the lives of families
living in forest-dependent communities nationwide: Priceless.
Now, suffice it to say, there is more Federal----
Senator Craig. That was rather original.
Senator Wyden. There you are.
[Laughter.]
Senator Wyden. After the Super Bowl, we all have these
commercials on our mind.
[Laughter.]
Senator Wyden. But suffice it to say that it is our view
that the county payments law has produced nothing less than a
revolution in resource-dependent communities. It is helping
Americans in more than 40 States and more than 700 counties
nationwide, including 32 counties in my home State of Oregon.
This is an oversight hearing today, and we are not going to
get into the details of the budget, per agreement of the
chairman and me. But suffice it to say--and I want to use this
forum as an opportunity to make the case that Chairman Craig
and I did: We are going to need the administration's strong
support in order to have this legislation properly funded.
This is a different climate, colleagues, than when we
brought together a bipartisan coalition before. When Senator
Craig and I began our work on this issue, there was a budget
surplus. Now there is a very significant budget deficit. There
is going to be an effort certainly to say every program is
going to have to tighten its belt. Absolutely. We are prepared
to make the case that this program is a cost effective one, but
we ought to make it clear that there is something different in
terms of belt-tightening than strangling these rural
communities. That is what we seek to get across in the course
of the debates.
Mr. Chairman, I know that we are going to have a strong
bipartisan coalition behind this once again, and I look forward
to working with you. I see Senator Johnson is here and he was
supportive. The ranking minority member was very helpful as we
worked through some of the legislation as it related to
resource advisory committees.
We are going to hear later today from Tim Lillebo, who is
representing the Oregon Natural Resources Council, talking
about the resource advisory committees. Suffice it to say,
through those RAC's, we have people talking to each other about
natural resources policy, who not only would not talk to each
other in the past, they would not even show up in the same room
together. I think that is an indication of what it takes to try
to build consensus.
And I look forward to working with you to get the bill
reauthorized.
Senator Craig. Ron, thank you very much.
Now let me turn to our colleague from South Dakota for any
opening comments he would like to make.
Senator Johnson.
STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, U.S. SENATOR
FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling
today's hearing on the implementation of the Secure Rural
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. I am
pleased to be here this morning to lend my support to the
efforts of my colleagues, you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Wyden.
Senator Bingaman has made very positive contributions to
reauthorize this important law. I have cosponsored this
legislation and look forward to working with you to see to it
that we pass a reauthorization before the current law expires
next year.
The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination
Act has been a key tool in ensuring a partnership between the
Federal Government and the many schools and communities that
are home to significant tracts of national forests. Under this
partnership, our local communities share in timber sales
revenue that is generated on Federal property. Among others,
this revenue sharing helps to finance projects that enhance our
natural resources, maintain roads and infrastructure, and
reimburse localities for search and rescue and other projects
related to the presence of the Federal land.
Under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act, communities in my home State of South Dakota
received nearly $3.8 million in forest payments last year.
Under this law, local communities were also granted a voice in
management of Federal land located in their community by
establishing resource advisory committees. These committees are
comprised of a diverse group of local interested parties that
enable communities to collaborate on how best to manage the
public land in their own back yard.
I am also very pleased to be here this morning to introduce
a constituent of mine, Dr. Tim Creal. Dr. Creal is the
superintendent of the Custer, South Dakota school District.
Somewhere in Dr. Creal's busy duties as superintendent, he
finds time to serve on the Federal Forest Counties Payments
Committee. The committee was charged with making
recommendations to Congress for finding a long-term solution to
making payments to States and counties and to evaluate payments
made under the current law, neither of which are easy tasks
given the diversity of individuals and the localities involved.
Dr. Creal was appointed to the committee in 2001, shortly after
Congress authorized its formation. And I believe he has been
very diligent in his duties and has done an outstanding job of
representing South Dakota's interests on the committee.
So, Dr. Creal, I am very happy to have you here before the
subcommittee today. I look forward to your testimony on the
second panel. I also look forward working with you and other
witnesses as we move forward with reauthorization of this
legislation.
I regret that my schedule has me attending two other
committee meetings simultaneous to this one, as well as three
different groups of South Dakotans who are waiting to talk with
me about their agenda on other matters. And so I will not be
able to spend the entire morning here with the committee, but
my staff is here. I look forward to reading the contributions
of our panel members.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this very timely
hearing.
Senator Craig. Tim, thank you very much.
We have been joined by the ranking member of the full
committee, Senator Bingaman, who I either call ranking member
or chairman. I have served with him on this committee for a
good number of years in both of those capacities. Senator,
thank you for joining us this morning.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
congratulations to you and Senator Wyden for your good work on
this legislation. I am in a similar circumstance to Senator
Johnson. I am not able to be here for the full hearing, but I
did want to mention one issue that I hope the witnesses can
address related to these RAC projects.
Under the law, as it currently exists, there is a provision
that says that the Forest Service will include detailed
monitoring plans that track and identify the positive and
negative impacts of the project implementation and provides for
validation. There have been a couple of studies, one out of
Boise State University and another out of the Watershed
Research and Training Center, essentially saying that these
monitoring plans are not being developed and used as the
legislation called for. I hope that can be addressed by the
witnesses.
Thank you very much for having the hearing. Again,
congratulations for your leadership on this legislation.
Senator Craig. Jeff, thank you very much.
Now we will turn to our first panel. Our first panel is
made up of Mark Rey, Under Secretary of Resources and the
Environment, Department of Agriculture; and Ed Shepard,
Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and Planning, Bureau of
Land Management, Department of the Interior.
Certainly Mark knows and I think that both Ron and I share
the belief that the work we did in behalf of this legislation
and now law was a precursor to Healthy Forests and a
relationship here on the Hill that allowed us to move another
piece of legislation that we think is very, very significant in
the lexicon of tools that you have to work with in managing our
public lands and especially our forests.
So, with that, gentlemen, welcome before the committee.
Mark, if you would please proceed.
STATEMENT OF MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL
RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee, for giving me the opportunity to share the
experience of the Department of Agriculture implementing titles
I through III of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act.
On October 30, 2000, that legislation was signed into law,
in part to offset the effect of decreased revenues available to
States from declining timber harvests on Federal lands. This
act authorized an alternative to a receipts-based payment.
Generally the act embraced three objectives: first, to
establish a stable payment for schools and roads that
supplements other available funds; second, to make additional
investments in public and adjacent private lands; and third, to
improve the cooperative relationships among the people who use
and care for Federal lands and the agencies who manage them. I
think it is fair to say that the implementation of the act to
date has achieved each of those three objectives.
Title I of the legislation determines a stable full payment
amount for eligible States to benefit public education and
transportation. Of the 717 counties in 41 States that were
eligible for their share of the State's amount under the act,
550, or 77 percent, initially decided to accept that payment in
fiscal year 2001. In fiscal year 2003, the counties were given
another opportunity to receive their share of a State's full
payment amount. 65 additional counties chose to take that
payment, bringing the total to 615 counties, or 86 percent of
the eligible counties.
Counties receiving their share of a State's full payment
amount are found in 39 of the 41 States that are eligible for
funding. The majority of these counties are located in the
Western or Southern portions of the country, while those that
have remained under the 25 percent fund are primarily in the
Great Lakes area.
Payments from national forests authorized by the act have
totaled $1.2 billion and average over $301 million each year
since the act was implemented.
Funding derived from the Treasury has provided
participating counties not only more stable funding but also
significantly higher payments than would have been the case
under the 25 percent fund. For example, if payments were based
on 25 percent of receipts in fiscal year 2004, the total
payment to all States would have been $71.4 million, based upon
total national forest receipts that contribute to payments
under the act of $285.5 million. By comparison, the full
payment amount for all States for fiscal year 2005 is $395.7
million.
Title I requires counties to receive a share of the State's
full payment amount of $100,000 or more to set aside 15 to 20
percent of the payment for projects under titles II or III, or
both. Under title II, funds may be used for a variety of
projects on or near Federal lands.
Title II also directs the establishment of 15-person
resource advisory committees, comprised of a balanced
representation of stakeholder groups, to recommend projects on
National Forest System lands and BLM lands affected using State
allocated title II funds.
To date, the Forest Service has established 56 resource
advisory committees under the act. The committees operate at
the community level and are found in 13 of the eligible States.
The committees have recommended and the Forest Service has
approved over 1,800 resource projects on or near Federal lands,
with an investment value of over $100 million.
Interviews with committee members, county officials, and
Forest Service officials conducted under a study by Boise State
University suggest that cooperative relationships between the
national forests and their surrounding communities are
improving. All groups interviewed noted increased cooperation
among the various groups that use, care for, and manage Federal
lands.
Title III authorizes counties to use funds allocated under
title I for title III projects for certain specific purposes:
search, rescue, and emergency services on Federal lands;
community service work camps; conservation and recreation
easements; forestry related after-school activities; and fire
prevention and planning. Unlike title II funds, which are used
for carry out projects proposed by resource advisory
committees, counties decide how to use title III funds. Many
counties have used these funds to establish Fire Safe councils
and for other community fire planning activities, particularly
in the aftermath of the passage of the Healthy Forests
Restoration Act.
When we examine what is working best with Public Law 106-
393, I would have to go back to comments made by resource
advisory committee members who said that the law encourages
relationship building, discourse on public policy issues, and a
dialog among groups through the interaction found in the
resource advisory committees. Additionally, approximately $88
million in title II projects and $94 million in title III
projects have been used on National Forest System lands during
the act's first 3 years. These projects have had a significant
impact on improving natural resource conditions on national
forest and grasslands.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy
to answer any questions you have at the appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Rey, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
Environment, Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for giving
me the opportunity to present the views of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture regarding the implementation of Titles I through III of
P.L. 106-393, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination
Act of 2000.
Since enactment of the law known as the 25 Percent Fund Act (16
U.S.C. sec. 500) in 1908, the Forest Service has distributed 25% of the
gross receipts derived from the sale or use of commodities on each
national forest to the state in which each national forest is located.
Beginning in the late 1980s, timber sale receipts, the primary
funding source for the 25 Percent Fund Act, began a precipitous
decline, which continued and then stabilized at a much lower level in
the 1990's. The decline in receipts impacted rural communities in the
West, particularly communities in Washington, Oregon, northern
California, and Idaho. For example, FY 1998 national forest revenues
were $557 million, only 36% of the FY 1989 peak revenues of $1.531
billion. In FY2004, national forest revenues were $281.1 million.
Payments to many states under the Twenty-five Percent Fund Act declined
by an average of 70 percent from 1986 through 1998.
On October 30, 2000, P.L. 106-393 was signed into law in part to
offset the effect of decreased revenues available to states from
declining timber harvests on Federal lands. This Act authorized an
alternative to a receipts based payment.
The Act embraced three objectives: 1) to establish a stable payment
for schools and roads that supplements other available funds; 2) to
make additional investments in public and adjacent private lands; and
3) to improve the cooperative relationships among the people who use
and care for federal lands, and the agencies who manage them.
This statute provided annual payments to states for fiscal years
2001-2006. An eligible county had the option of electing to receive its
share of the states 25-percent payment or its share of the average of
the state's three highest 25-percent payments from fiscal years 1986
through 1999.
TITLE I--SECURE PAYMENTS FOR STATES AND COUNTIES CONTAINING FEDERAL
LANDS
Title I of P.L. 106-393 determines a stable full payment amount for
eligible states to benefit public education and transportation. Of the
717 counties in 41 states that were eligible for their share of the
state's amount under the Act, 550 or 77% initially decided to accept
that payment in FY 2001. In FY 2003 the counties were given another
opportunity to receive their share of a state's full payment amount, 65
additional counties chose to take that payment, bringing the total to
615 counties, or 86% of the eligible counties.
Counties receiving their share of a state's full payment amount are
found in 39 of the 41 states that are eligible for funding. The
majority of these counties are located in the western and southern
portions of the country, while those that have remained under the 25
Percent Fund Act are primarily in the Great Lakes area. Timber sale
receipts for states in the Great Lakes area have resulted in 25 Percent
Fund payments that tend to be higher than the full payment amounts for
these states. Thus, it makes more economic sense for the counties in
these states to continue receiving the 25 Percent payments.
Payments from National Forests authorized by P.L. 106-393 have
totaled $1.2 billion and average over $301 million each year since the
Act was implemented. Payments have varied by region of the country. For
example, the FY 2004 payments distribution included approximately, $37
million to southern states, $14 million to the northeast and Midwest
states, $273 million to Oregon, Washington and California and $71
million to the other western states.
Funding derived from the Treasury has provided participating
counties not only more stable funding but also significantly higher
payments than would have been the case under the 25 Percent Fund. For
example, if payments were based on 25 percent of receipts in FY 2004,
the total payment to all states would be $71.4 million based on total
National Forest receipts that contribute to payments under P.L. 106-393
of $285.5 million. In comparison, the full payment amount for all
states for FY 2005 is $395.7 million.
TITLE II--SPECIAL PROJECTS ON FEDERAL LANDS
Title I requires counties that receive a share of the state's full
payment amount of $100,000 or more to set aside 15 to 20 percent of the
payment for projects under Titles II or III, or both. Under title II,
funds may be used for a variety of projects on, or near, federal lands.
Title II also directs the establishment of 15-person resource
advisory committees (RAC's) comprised of a balanced representation of
stakeholder groups, to recommend projects on National Forests System
lands and O&C lands using state allocated Title II funds. Under the
law, RAC's may submit proposals to combine Title II funds with other
funds to complete projects. The role of a RAC is to solicit, review,
and recommend resource improvement projects to the designated federal
official. The RAC structure included in P.L. 106-393 was the first
attempt to create direct community involvement in recommending on-the-
ground projects on the National Forests on a system-wide basis.
To date we have established 56 RAC's under the Act. RAC's operate
at the community level and are found in 13 of the eligible states.
RAC's have recommended, and the Forest Service has approved, over 1800
resource projects on, or near, Federal lands, an investment of over
$100 million.
RAC's have recommended a variety of projects including those in
Lane County, Oregon where Title II funds, along with Title III funds,
are supporting the Lane County Forest Work Camp for at-risk youth. The
camp teaches important life skills while providing a skilled workforce
for forest restoration projects in the area. In Montana, the Ravalli
County RAC, Bitterroot NF, landowners in the Sweeney Creek Cooperative
Weed Management Area, Ravalli County, and the State of Montana are
working together to eradicate dalmation toadflax and other invasive
weeds on state, private and public lands near Sweeney Creek. The
project will treat 5 miles of stream corridor to protect the long-term
ecosystem health of the Bitterroot valley. In southwest Idaho the local
community and the Forest Service are working together to improve forest
health by reducing hazardous fuels around a church camp near Warm Lake,
Idaho. The Rainey Creek Community Restoration project, also in Idaho,
is exploring ways to reconnect Rainey Creek to the main stem of the
South Fork Snake River. This project on private land will greatly
enhance fish habitat and improve watershed condition and is a good
example of the leveraging effect of Title II funds. The Title II
investment in this project is $10,000 with $360,000 provided by other
sources.
BLM RAC's in Oregon are also putting Title II funds to good use. In
2004 the Eugene District RAC recommended 12 projects in Douglas, Linn,
and Lane counties that treated invasive weeds, provided forest jobs for
at-risk youth, improved fish habitat, and restored watersheds.
Interviews with RAC members, county officials, and Forest Service
officials conducted under a study by Boise State University, suggest
that cooperative relationships between the National Forests and their
surrounding communities are improving. All groups interviewed noted
increased cooperation among the various groups that use, care for, and
manage Federal lands. A Forest Supervisor noted the importance of
relationship building with RAC's. He stated, ``RAC's were a formal
opportunity to get together. The whole process is about building
relationships. Before, we would only meet with the county when there
was a problem. Now, the meetings are about positive things.''
Some evidence suggests that relationship building may be stronger
in small or medium sized RAC's as compared to large sized RAC's because
greater effort must go in to securing additional funds to finance
desirable projects. Comments indicate that RAC's are effective, in
part, because they are focused on evaluating and funding projects for
the good of the community as a whole.
TITLE III--COUNTY PROJECTS
Title III authorizes counties to use funds allocated under Title I
for Title III projects for certain specific purposes: search, rescue,
and emergency services on federal lands; community service work camps;
conservation and recreation easements; forestry related after-school
activities, and fire prevention and planning. Unlike Title II funds
which are used to carry out projects proposed by RAC's, counties decide
how to use Title III funds. Many counties have used these funds to
establish Fire Safe councils and for other community fire planning
activities. Other counties are investing in community programs. The
Boise State study asked county officials who had elected only Title III
funding, why their particular county decided to allocate funds for
Title III instead of Title II. Those interviewed said in some way or
another that the needs of their community were better met through the
avenues presented by Title III funding. Counties have used Title III
funds primarily for fire suppression and prevention, emergency
services, or a combination of the two (though funding amounts for
emergency services were usually higher). Some counties with limited
funds allocated for Title II discussed the amount of time and work
involved in forming a RAC.
When we examine what is working the best with P.L. 106-393, I would
have to go back to comments made by RAC members who said that the law
encourages relationship building, discourse on public policy issues,
and a dialogue between groups through the interaction found in RAC's.
Additionally, approximately $88 million in Title II projects and $94
million in Title III projects have been used on National Forest System
lands during the Act's first three years. These projects have had a
significant impact on improving natural resource conditions on National
Forests and Grasslands. County officials that have placed funds into
Title II must feel that the funds are being spent effectively because
they continue to allocate additional funding increments into RAC's,
thus increasing the investment to Federal lands.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have for me at this time.
Senator Craig. Mark, thank you very much.
Now, Ed, if you would proceed please.
STATEMENT OF ED SHEPARD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
RENEWABLE RESOURCES AND PLANNING, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Shepard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee for the opportunity to participate in today's
hearing on the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act of 2000. I am the Assistant Director for
Renewable Resources and Planning at the Bureau of Land
Management, and for much of my professional career, I have
worked extensively on O&C issues and the management of forest
resources. Prior to my current position, I was BLM's Oregon
Deputy State Director for Resources and previously had been
District Manager in BLM's Coos Bay District. I am also the BLM
Director's representative on the Forest Counties Payment
Committee, a congressional advisory committee.
Although BLM lands are comprised mostly of rangeland, the
agency manages over 55 million acres of forests and woodlands,
some 2.5 million acres of which are located in the 18 western
Oregon counties covered by the O&C Act of 1937. Of the public
lands managed by the BLM, the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self-Determination Act applies exclusively to the 18
O&C counties in western Oregon.
Congress set the stage for the long and close association
between the BLM and the O&C counties when, in the O&C Act, it
directed the Department of the Interior to manage the O&C lands
for the purpose of providing a permanent source of timber
supply, protecting watersheds, regulating stream flow, and
contributing to the economic stability of local communities and
industries, and providing recreational facilities. The O&C
counties receive approximately 50 percent of the receipts from
timber harvested from public lands in those 18 counties.
Until the late 1980's, intensive harvest of timber from the
public lands in the O&C counties annually yielded over 1
billion board feet on a sustained yield basis and brought in
receipts of over $200 million. As provided in the O&C Act, 50
percent of that amount was returned to the counties to fund
local government services such as roads, schools, law
enforcement, and public safety. For example, in fiscal year
1989, total payments to the O&C counties, based upon the volume
of timber harvested off the public lands in the counties,
amounted to nearly $111 million.
Litigation in the late 1980's and early 1990's regarding
the northern spotted owl and other issues resulted in steep
reductions in timber harvest in the Pacific Northwest and
correspondingly steep reductions in income to counties that
depended on revenues from timber harvest on public lands to
fund essential local government services. In the years between
1989 and 1993, income to O&C counties from timber harvest
dropped by nearly 37 percent, to approximately $79 million.
To stabilize the income flow to the timber-dependent
counties, Congress enacted the safety net payments through the
Omnibus Reconciliation Act in 1993.
In 2000, Congress repealed the safety net payments and
enacted the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act to set a stable level of payments to the
counties. The Act provide the O&C counties with the option of
receiving a full payment amount equal to the average of the
three highest timbers years, 1986 through 1999. In the interest
of time, I will not go through all of the process, title I
through title III. Mark has covered that. But I will add that
all 18 counties in western Oregon participate in this, and to
date they have received under title I and title III over $412
million, and BLM has retained over $33 million to be used in
conjunction with other funds and for the resource advisory
committees for title II restoration projects. As you know, this
Act expires on September 30, 2006.
This Act sets in place a structure for cooperative working
relationships among the people who use and care about public
lands and the Federal agencies responsible for managing these
lands. Through the RAC's, community members from varying
interests and various backgrounds work together to approve
projects for the restoration of public lands or for projects on
private lands that enhance the restoration of public lands.
In December 2001, the Secretary of the Interior authorized
the establishment of committees for the five BLM administrative
districts in western Oregon. The term for these committee
members has expired, and we are currently in the process of
renewing or refilling these positions.
The BLM's western Oregon committees have recommended
approval of projects such as one in Clackamas County in BLM's
Salem District involving an aggressive approach to prevent and
clean up illegal dumping through a partnership among two timber
companies, the Oregon Department of Forestry, and Clackamas
County. In addition to the funds authorized by title II of the
Act, each of these parties has contributed either matching
funds, direct donations, or in-kind labor. The initial goal was
to reduce the incidence of illegal dumping through public
education of environmental impacts, proper disposal, and the
consequences that can result from such illegal, indiscriminate
acts. These partners also worked collaboratively to clean up
and properly dispose of illegally dumped waste materials and to
enforce violation of local and State illegal dumping laws.
In Douglas County, within the Roseburg District, the
Northwest Youth Corps has completed a variety of projects,
including forest stand improvement, noxious weed eradication,
habitat improvement, trail maintenance, recreation-site
maintenance, and fence construction. The Northwest Youth Corps
established an educational curriculum called Something
Educational Every Day, or SEED, which introduces Northwest
Youth Corps members to a wide variety of topics related to
resource management and wildlife conservation. Recent
educational sessions have centered on fire ecology, forest and
stream ecology, native species protection, and timber
harvesting methods.
Fish passage is another significant issue in western
Oregon. Again, another project from the Roseburg District,
working with the RAC's, they have identified this as one of
their major problems in the area and have provided title II
funding every year since 2002. To date, they have completed 16
projects and opened up 50 miles of stream for salmon habitat.
In this process, they also have kept open access roads,
assuring access for recreation, timber harvest, fire
suppression, and other activities.
As of last fall, the committees have reviewed over 700
title II projects, approved 465, at a funding level of $33
million.
The success of the resource advisory committee process in
developing community-based solutions is encouraging the O&C
counties to consider using funds available under this act to
help local communities develop protection plans in the event of
catastrophic wildfire. The Healthy Forests Restoration Act
encourages communities to work with Federal agencies to develop
community wildfire protection plans. It is our understanding
that several O&C counties have used title III funds to begin
the fuels assessment and data collection for the community
wildfire protection plans and have recommended title II funding
for on-the-ground projects to implement these plans. This is an
innovative way of tying the authorities of the HFRA and the
Secure Rural Schools Act together.
The authorities of this Act have benefited BLM through the
on-the-ground accomplishments, including wildfire hazard
reduction, but it has also served as a catalyst to bring the
folks together from really diverse backgrounds and opinions
with a shared vision for the management of public lands, and in
that way, it has been an outstanding success.
Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss this Act,
and I will be glad to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shepard follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ed Shepard, Assistant Director, Renewable
Resources and Planning, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the
Interior
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in today's hearing on
the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Act) of
2000 (P.L.106-393). My name is Ed Shepard and I am the Assistant
Director for Renewable Resources and Planning at the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). For much of my professional career, I have worked
extensively on O&C issues and the management of forest resources. Prior
to my current position, I was BLM's Oregon Deputy State Director for
Resources and previously had been District Manager in the BLM's Coos
Bay (Oregon) District. I am the BLM Director's representative on the
Forest Counties Payment Committee, a Congressional Advisory Committee.
Although rangelands comprise much of the land administered by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the agency also manages 55 million
acres of forests and woodlands on the public lands, some 2.5 million of
which are located in the 18 western Oregon counties covered by the
``O&C Act'' (Revested Oregon and California Railroad and Reconveyed
Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act of 1937.)
Of the public lands managed by the BLM, the Secure Rural Schools
Act applies exclusively to the 18 O&C counties in western Oregon.
BACKGROUND
Congress set the stage for the long and close association between
the BLM and the O&C counties when, in the O&C Act, it directed the
Department of the Interior to manage the O&C lands for ``the purpose of
providing a permanent source of timber supply, protecting watersheds,
regulating stream flow, and contributing to the economic stability of
local communities and industries, and providing recreational
facilities.'' The O&C counties receive approximately 50 percent of the
receipts from timber harvested from public lands in the counties.
By the late 1980's, intensive harvest of timber from the public
lands in the O&C counties annually yielded over one billion board feet
and brought in receipts of over $200 million. As provided in the O&C
Act, approximately 50 percent of that amount was returned to the
counties to fund local government services such as roads, schools, law
enforcement, and public safety. For example, in Fiscal Year 1989, at
the height of timber production from O&C lands, total payments to the
O&C counties, based on the volume of timber harvested off the public
lands in the counties, amounted to $110,891,232.
Litigation in the 1980's and early 1990's regarding the northern
spotted owl resulted in steep reductions in timber harvests in the
Pacific Northwest, and correspondingly steep reductions in income to
counties that depended on revenues from timber harvests on public lands
to fund essential local government services. In the years between 1989
and 1993, income to O&C counties from timber harvests dropped by nearly
30 percent, to approximately $79 million.
Congress enacted ``safety net payments'' to stabilize income flow
to timber-dependent counties during this tumultuous period, through the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L.103-66).
In 2000, Congress repealed the ``safety net payments'' and enacted
the Secure Rural Schools Act to set a stable level of payments to
counties. The Act provided the O&C counties with the option of
receiving a full payment amount equal to the average of their three
highest timber receipt years from 1986 through 1999. In addition, under
the Act the counties elect the percentage of the payment (80-85
percent) to be distributed directly to the counties (Title I), and the
remaining percentage (15-20 percent) to be allocated between Title II
projects (administered by the BLM), Title III projects (administered by
the counties), or returned to the Treasury.
Under Title II of the Act, funds are used to support cooperative
projects, under the guidance of Resource Advisory Committees
(Committees), to restore healthy conditions on public lands or on
private lands for the benefit of public land resources. Such projects
include wildfire hazard reduction, stream and watershed restoration,
forest road maintenance, and road decommissioning or obliteration,
control of noxious weeds, and improvement of fish and wildlife habitat.
Under Title III of the Act, counties may funds for emergency services,
community service work camps, purchase of easements for recreation or
conservation, forest related after-school programs, and fire prevention
activities. The total paid to date directly to the 18 O&C counties
under the Act (Titles I and III) is $412,069,610. In addition, to date
the BLM has retained $33,391,672 million to be used in conjunction with
Resource Advisory Committees for Title II restoration projects on
public lands or for projects on private lands that enhance public
lands. The Act expires on September 30, 2006.
RESOURCE ADVISORY COMMITTEES AND COOPERATIVE EFFORTS
The Act set in place a structure for cooperative working
relationships among the people who use and care about public lands and
the federal agencies responsible for managing these lands. Through
Resource Advisory Committees (Committee), community members including
counties, State and local governments, watershed councils, individuals,
private and non-profit entities, and landowners work closely with
federal agencies to develop and approve projects for the restoration of
public lands, or for projects on private lands that enhance the
restoration of public lands.
Under the authority of the Act, on December 4, 2001, the Secretary
of the Interior authorized the establishment of Committees for the five
BLM administrative districts in western Oregon (Coos Bay, Eugene,
Medford, Roseburg, and Salem) which cover the 18 O&C counties. Each of
the five Committees has 15 members and six alternates representing the
many counties and varied stakeholder groups in the O&C counties. Terms
for Committee members appointed in December 2001 have just expired, and
we are currently in the process of renewing or refilling those
positions.
The BLM's western Oregon Committees have recommended approval of
projects for road and trail maintenance, soil productivity improvement,
fuels reduction, watershed restoration, fish habitat improvements, and
noxious weed eradication. Through these Title II projects, the O&C
counties are making an investment in activities to improve the health
of the O&C lands. In some cases, for example, noxious weed eradication
in Douglas County, intensive early intervention to avert further spread
of the noxious weed would not have been possible without the Title II
funding.
Examples of collaborative projects approved by the western Oregon
Committees include the following.
A project in Clackamas County (BLM's Salem District)
involves an aggressive approach to prevent and clean up illegal
dumping through a partnership among the Longview Fibre Timber
Company, the Oregon Department of Forestry, Clackamas County,
and Port Blakely Timber Company. In addition to the funds
authorized by Title II of the Act, each party either
contributed matching funds, direct donations, or in-kind labor.
The initial goal of the project was to reduce the incidence of
illegal dumping by 50 percent through public education of
environmental impacts, proper disposal, and the consequences
that can result from such illegal indiscriminate acts. These
partners also worked collaboratively to clean up and properly
dispose of illegally dumped waste materials, and to enforce
violations of local state and federal illegal dumping laws.
In Douglas County, a project involving the Northwest Youth
Corps (coordinated with Roseburg BLM District personnel) has
completed a variety of projects, including forest stand
improvement, noxious weed eradication, habitat improvement,
trail maintenance, recreation site maintenance, and fence
construction. The Northwest Youth Corps established an
education curriculum called ``Something Educational Every Day''
(SEED), which introduces Northwest Youth Corps members to a
wide variety of topics related to natural resource management
and wildlife conservation. Recent educational sessions have
centered on fire ecology, forest and stream ecology, native
species protection, nature observations, and timber harvesting
methods.
Working across land ownership boundaries, a project to
eradicate the ``Portuguese Bloom'' noxious weed in Douglas
County (BLM's Roseburg District) was approved three years in a
row for Title II funding. This noxious weed was discovered in
Douglas County in 1999, and the BLM's partners in the project--
various private landowners, the Oregon Department of
Agriculture, the Douglas Soil and Water Conservation District--
intend to eradicate it while it is still fairly localized (at
7,000 acres). Control efforts became much more comprehensive
with the availability of Title II funds. Intensive early
activities to inventory the area and develop a comprehensive
treatment plan would not have been possible without the Title
II funding.
Fish passage is a significant issue on public lands and
surrounding private lands in the BLM's Roseburg District
(Douglas County). The Committee has identified this problem as
one of its priorities, and approved Title II funding for fish
passage restoration each year since FY 2002. Sixteen culvert
replacement projects already have been completed, improving not
only fish habitat (these projects will open access to over 50
miles of streams for both juvenile and adult fish) but also
road quality, assuring that roads needed for recreation, timber
harvest, fire suppression, and other activities will be
reliable.
As of November 15, 2004, the BLM's western Oregon Resource Advisory
Committees have reviewed approximately 707 proposed Title II projects.
Of these, the Committees recommended approval of 465 Title II projects
at an estimated funding level of $33 million; to date, 61 projects have
been completed.
In addition, the success of the Committee process in developing
community-based solutions is encouraging the O&C counties to consider
using funds available under the Act to help local communities develop
protection plans in the event of catastrophic wildfire. For example,
the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (P.L.108-148) encourages
communities to work with federal agencies to develop Community Wildfire
Prevention Plans (CWPP). It is our understanding that several O&C
counties have used Title III funds to begin the fuels assessments and/
or data collection (GIS) for the Community Wildfire Protection Plans,
and have recommended Title II funding for on-the-ground projects to
implement the CWPPs.
The authorities of the Secure Rural Schools Act have enabled the
BLM to accomplish on-the-ground improvements in land and resource
conditions, including wildfire hazard reduction. The Resource Advisory
Committee process has served as a catalyst to bring together diverse
groups and individuals with the shared goal of improving the condition
of our public lands. In projects selected through collaborative
decision-making, the BLM has worked in partnership with corporations,
state and local governments, and stakeholders to improve the condition
of the O&C lands and support the development of community-based
strategies to protect these communities from catastrophic wildfire.
Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss the BLM's
implementation of the Secure Rural Schools Act. I will be glad to
answer any question you may have.
Senator Craig. Well, Ed, thank you very much for that very
comprehensive analysis of where this law has taken us.
Mark, you were here at the beginning. I guess that is one
way of saying it. While you served with this committee here in
the Senate, you were one of the primary authors to the
legislation. You and Sarah Bittleman worked with myself and Ron
to make this legislation work and ultimately to become law.
So my first and obvious question is, now that the shoe is
on the other foot, so to speak, can you give us your assessment
of how the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act is being implemented? Is it working from the
standpoint of your initial analysis when we crafted it?
Mr. Rey. As I indicated in my statement, I believe the Act
is meeting the three purposes set forth in the purpose section
and is doing an effective job of achieving each of the three.
And that is fortunate because, as you indicated, I am hardly in
a position to complain about the drafting.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. And that you should not.
Give us some of your insight as to resource advisory
committees and their working. Are these committees working up
to your expectation, or are there steps that we should take to
improve their performance?
Mr. Rey. I think they are working generally quite well
where they are in existence. I think the challenge, as we
continue to move in implementation, is to try to look at those
counties which have significant payment opportunities that have
not yet developed resource advisory committees or called for
the development of resource advisory committees. Clearly where
the amount of money is relatively small, there would be some
question as to whether it is worth the arduous effort to
charter a committee, but by our count, there are still about 31
counties which have a significant amount of payment that could
be devoted to work overseen by resource advisory committees,
and those are our targets of opportunity to expand the use of
the resource advisory committees and the helpful dialog that
occurs over the management of the Federal lands when those
committees are chartered and begin to operate.
I noted with interest a copy of a letter that I received
last week that was actually addressed to Senator Wyden, and I
was just cc'd on it. It was co-signed by Anna Morrison, a
county commissioner from Lane County, and Andy Stahl----
Senator Wyden. Ideological bedfellows.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rey. I think it is a fair bet that prior to their
appointment and activity on this resource advisory committee,
it would have been difficult to get them to co-sign a
communique that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
Andy would have wondered what was behind that, and Anna would
have refused to sign it if Andy had. So that is one indication
of progress I think.
Senator Craig. Mark, I have been told that not one of the
projects recommended and funded by the resource advisory
committees has been appealed or litigated. Is that true?
Mr. Rey. To our knowledge, that is correct.
Senator Craig. If these resource advisory committees have
established such an enviable track record, I am wondering if we
should not expand the number and reach of these advisory
committees by earmarking a certain percentage of each forest
budget to be utilized by the committees to enhance the good
work they seem to be doing. Any thoughts on a concept like
that?
Mr. Rey. That is a concept not dissimilar to some of the
early drafts of this legislation that we were discussing in
1999, but I think I would like to defer our recommendations for
changes to the legislation until we come to testify on the
bills that you introduced last week.
Senator Craig. Fair enough.
Ed, again, thank you for being here this morning and
testifying. I understand you were BLM's representative to the
County School Long-term Committee which held numerous public
hearings on this legislation. So you were there also at that
phase in 2000 of drafting and working on it and looking at it.
Understanding that the Federal agencies had little to do
with the implementation of title I and II, can you spend some
time helping us understand whether or not title II is working
for the BLM?
Mr. Shepard. Well, title II is working very well for the
BLM in three ways. First, we are planning and are
accomplishing, through the work with the RAC's, over $33
million worth of restoration projects on the ground. I say over
$33 million. $33 million came from title II, but we have been
able to leverage from other sources from watershed councils,
from timber companies, from the counties themselves other
dollars to accomplish a lot of this work. So in that way, it
has obviously been very successful.
Second, the recommendations of the projects that come
through the RAC's have really lead to buy-in by the community.
This is, in my opinion, the reason that we have not seen the
protests and litigation that we see in a lot of the other
projects that we try to push forward.
And third, I think the relationships that have been built
as a result of these RAC's have really been invaluable, not
only to accomplish title II projects, but also the
relationships help as we try to move forward other things that
the BLM is trying to do.
Senator Craig. Given the public meetings that the County
Schools Long-term Committee held, are there other insights that
you might add or that you hold as it relates to this law?
Mr. Shepard. I think one of the things that impressed me
most, Senator, as I was going around the country with the
committee and listening to the folks that were affected by the
downturn in timber harvesting off of the Forest Service and BLM
lands was how timely the passage of this Act was. Many of these
communities were right on the edge of losing critical
infrastructure, and I think the act coming along with title I
helped them move through that difficult time and keep that
infrastructure going.
Again, a complaint that we heard in a lot of the hearings
is that the agencies had lost contact with the communities out
there and with the counties. I think a lot of that was because
of the loss of the money and the controversies over the
downturn of the timber. This bill, and particularly where the
RAC's are present, I think has moved people back together with
the agencies. Forest Service and BLM relationships have really
improved. And I can speak from personal experience with my time
in Oregon where the relationships during the late 1980's and
much of the 1990's were very stressed, and now I think the
counties and the agencies are working very well together again.
Senator Craig. Well, Ed, thank you. I have got one last
question before I turn to Ron.
We have also just been joined by Senator Gordon Smith.
Gordon, welcome. We are glad you are here. We know this law
plays an important role in your State and Ron's State.
Ed, I asked the question of Mark. Should we expand the
number and reach of these advisory committees by earmarking a
certain percentage of each forest budget to be utilized by
these committees to enhance the good work they seem to be
doing?
Mr. Rey. I would prefer if you ask Ed about the BLM budget,
if you do not mind.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. Well, I understand that.
Mr. Shepard. There has been no doubt that the RAC's have
been very successful and BLM has a lot of experience with RAC's
for a number of years. But I would prefer to bring that back
and discuss it with the Department and Director Clarke and
respond to that at the reauthorization hearing.
Senator Craig. A very skillful dodge. Thank you much, Ed.
Let me turn to my colleague, Ron Wyden. Ron.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our witnesses have
been very helpful.
Again, because we are not going to go into the budget, I am
just going to make my own statement with respect to where we
are. If we do not get full funding for the county payments law,
our region faces what literally could be a triple whammy.
Yesterday, the budget called for a massive rate hike on
Bonneville customers, a $2.5 billion rate hike, a rate hike
that would be economic poison for our region, one that is
opposed by myself, Chairman Craig. Senator Smith deserves great
credit for essentially announcing on the front pages of our
paper. He opposed it with everything he has got, and I thank
him for his excellent statement.
But the combination of the massive rate hike for
Bonneville, not getting full funding for forest health--you
know, we were pledged in the bipartisan forest health bill $760
million. We are talking about several hundred million less, at
least $200 million less. And then the question of the county
payments. If we do not get this money, our region is staring
right at a triple whammy that would be devastating to our
economy.
By agreement with Chairman Craig, this is going to be an
oversight hearing and not a budget hearing, but I just want to
use this opportunity to make it clear how important it is that
we have the administration's support on this particular
initiative because of the importance to the region and what we
are faced with in terms of our economy.
What I would like to do for a couple of minutes--in fact,
let me start with one point that you made, Mr. Rey, on the
question of the 31 counties that have not been moving quickly.
Why do you think that is? I think that given the fact those are
big counties and counties where you would say, look, this
sounds like a pretty attractive thing, what are you picking up
in terms of why they might be reluctant? Because I think that
is something that we would like to factor into this bipartisan
reauthorization.
Mr. Rey. I think that it involves a couple of things.
First, in some of those counties, the county commissioners
looked at the prospect of sharing the decisionmaking authority
for the use of money under title II and compared it to the
unilateral authority to spend the money they want on title III
projects, and decided they preferred the latter.
Second, I think a lot of the counties decided to wait and
see how well the resource advisory committees were working
before they invested the time and energy into going through the
process of getting a resource advisory committee chartered.
And third, I suspect that, as I looked through the list of
those counties affected, there were in some cases counties that
I knew had fairly pressing needs for funding some of the
activities that are allowed through title III funding.
So I think those would be the three primary reasons that we
saw some counties, who arguably should have been attracted to
title II, slow to form resource advisory committees. What I
hope we can persuade them of in the future is that if you look
at the experience of the counties who formed resource advisory
committees, the opportunity to engage in a more civil and
constructive discourse on how the Federal land should be
managed generally inures benefits that go beyond just the money
that is invested.
Senator Wyden. I think you are right. I particularly sense
that there are a lot of people in the wait-and-see department.
Let us try to get the word out now that this is in fact
working. I think that we will get some of those 31 counties on
board.
Give me a sense, in terms of 1,800 projects authorized,
about some of the numbers. What is your sense about how many
now or will produce merchantable timber?
Mr. Rey. I can get you more specific numbers for the
record. We do maintain a data base on the projects. I would say
a relative handful are producing merchantable timber. By law 50
percent of the projects have to deal with road or trail
improvement or watershed improvement. Our figures indicate that
roughly 56 percent of the projects do that. In those projects,
you are obviously going to have at most an incidental or
occasional amount of commercial timber. I will get you the
exact numbers, but my sense, having reviewed the data base
once, is that that is a relatively small number of projects.
Senator Wyden. And how many do you think are serving to
improve forest health and fire preparedness?
Mr. Rey. I think a fairly significant number. Probably 25
to 30 percent of them probably have forest health or fire
hazard reduction goals attached to them.
Senator Wyden. The only other question I had for you, I
think what the chairman and I are interested in--the
cooperation that we have seen as a result has now made this
essentially the only significant area of foreign policy--of
forest policy that has not turned----
Senator Craig. That was not a bad slip.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. There was some foreign policy involved here.
Senator Wyden. You got it.
This seems to be the only significant area of forest policy
that is not a litigation derby. I think that what we are
interested in is not as part of this legislation--when you said
you were not calling for any amendments to this bill, we
appreciate that because it will be a challenge to get this
reauthorized. What we have been interested in is whether we
could use this RAC model in other areas of forest policy simply
because it does stand out as essentially the only area in
natural resources that has been significant, with a significant
amount of dollars, that is not a lawyer's full employment
program. So why do you not give me your thoughts on that,
whether we can take this RAC model and use it in other areas,
not just this one as it relates to forest policy to try to help
find the common ground.
Mr. Rey. I think generally whenever we can find ways to
involve people at the community level, we are getting better
results. That is clearly the case with these resource advisory
committees. It also appears to be the case with the community-
based fire plans that are being developed now under the
auspices of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. But as we move
forward to discuss the bills that were introduced last week, we
will also give some thought to where we can productively expand
the role of resource advisory committees beyond the four
corners of this legislation.
Senator Wyden. I am going to be interested in talking with
both of you. Ed, I will not jump you on this at this point. But
I am interested particularly in asking you two about areas
where we could use the RAC model and the model as it relates to
bringing people together as it relates to water issues. Ed, you
all get a fair ways into this issue, but I think all over the
West, the water issues are going to be very, very contentious
in the days ahead, the whole issue of competing uses and the
fact that we westerners want the water for all of them, be it
the economic needs, the environmental needs, the agricultural
needs. We have got to find some model to get people again work
together. So we are going to continue to explore with both of
you this question of how we can use the RAC model in other
areas.
We will keep the record open I think, Mr. Chairman, so that
Mr. Rey can give us the numbers in terms of projects. In fact,
why do we not see if we get a count on merchantable timber
projects under the law, environmental projects under the law,
and forest health and fire preparedness projects under the law,
and we will hold the record open for that.
Senator Craig. Thank you much.
Now let me turn to our other Senator, our colleague from
Oregon, Senator Gordon Smith.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
double thanks to you and Senator Wyden for crafting this
extension. I cannot even find the words to tell you how
critical I think it is to our region of this country. It is a
fact that over the past 15 years, there has been a dramatic
decline in the sale of Federal timber, resulting in significant
corresponding decline in payments to counties. There is a myth
out there that somehow President Bush has turned on the chain
saw as soon as he came into office, but the truth is that
between 1984 and 2004, harvest on the Umpqua National Forest
has fallen 99 percent. The total harvest across Oregon's
national forests is at a 93 percent decline. I understand that
the numbers for the BLM lands in western Oregon are slightly
better.
But the simple fact is this, that without this safety net
being extended, Oregon will be an economic dust bowl, and we
cannot take that. When the forest resource went away, everyone
pinned their hopes on the silicon forest, but we have seen that
forest can go from boom to bubble to bust in fairly short
order. Until we figure out what the policy is on the Federal
forests as a resource for funding schools, this is a very vital
link to the economics of the Pacific Northwest.
So, Mark, I think one of the questions I have for you is,
is there room to more closely marry title II projects with the
Healthy Forests initiative?
Mr. Rey. I think there is, and I think as people get more
experience both with the use of stewardship contracting and
with the procedures in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, you
are going to see more title II money devoted to those kinds of
projects. There are some stewardship contract projects that are
being funded at present under title II, and I think the rate of
that is going to increase this year and next.
Senator Smith. Mr. Shepard, do you have any comment about
that?
Mr. Shepard. I would agree with Under Secretary Rey that
you will see, I think, an increase in the use of title II and
title III funds with the HFRA authorities. You are seeing that
now in many areas in development of the community wildfire
protection plans. I think you will see a lot more of that, and
I think a lot of opportunities, particularly in southwest
Oregon, where we do have the higher fire risk.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to note the
presence of an Oregonian, Tim Lillebo, of the Oregon Natural
Resources Council. I want to welcome him here. He is on our
second panel.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much. Both Mark and Ed, thank
you for joining us today. We will look forward to working with
you.
Mr. Rey. Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman asked a question
and if I might, I am prepared to respond for the record so that
the hearing record has that.
Senator Craig. Surely, please proceed.
Mr. Rey. The question of whether project monitoring is
being done appropriately under the statute depends on what kind
of projects you are talking about. There is no requirement for
monitoring of title III projects, so roughly half of the
projects that are being undertaken do not, to our knowledge,
have monitoring programs attached to them.
Under title II, all of the resource advisory committees
have the same charter, which outlines how they will operate and
maintain consistency and specifies that each project that is
approved has to have a monitoring plan attached to it.
Our discussions with the individual national forests that
have projects indicate that implementation monitoring is being
done on each project; that is, the project is being monitored
to assess that it is accomplishing what it is designed to
accomplish. We are also doing some similar monitoring on
adjacent private lands projects as well.
Ecological effectiveness monitoring typically takes place
on a larger scale at a watershed scale, and it will involve all
of the projects and does involve all of the projects within a
specified area. So the monitoring that is done at that level
for title II projects is going to be combined with information
from any project of a comparable nature that is occurring in
that watershed. Title II projects vary greatly in size,
complexity, and purpose, so that kind of monitoring will vary
accordingly, and some projects, such as conservation education,
producing publications, noxious weed inventories, all of which
are eligible for funding under title II, likely would not have
an active monitoring component to them because that would be
considered and rejected as unnecessary by the resource advisory
committee.
So that I hope is responsive to the question he asked about
monitoring.
Senator Craig. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman, Senator Cantwell is a strong
supporter of reauthorizing the law. She has a statement for the
record.
Senator Craig. Without objection, her testimony will become
part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cantwell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator From Washington
Thank you, Chairman Craig.
Thank you for holding this hearing, and thank you for continuing to
support and champion the Secure Rural Schools and Self-Determination
Act. I appreciate this oversight hearing and look forward to working
with you and Senators Wyden and Feinstein to reauthorize this law.
As you know, this vital program continues a nearly one hundred year
old policy of providing fair and equitable compensation to the citizens
of forest counties for their coexistence with federal lands. Simply
put, without the support provided by laws like the Secure Rural Schools
and Self-Determination Act, many rural communities in Washington would
struggle to meet their basic needs such as adequate roads and good
schools.
Skamania County in Southwest Washington is a good example. Almost
eighty percent of Skamania is in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest,
making it non-taxable by the county. Other large portions of land are
owned by the state or timber companies, leaving only two percent of the
county eligible to be taxed at full valuation. However, by leveraging
funds from the County Payments program, places like Skamania are able
to still provide critical public services like education, emergency
response, and road maintenance.
And funds provided by this program not only meet the basic needs of
rural communities, they also support a diverse array of important
programs. Like athletic and music classes which help students in rural
school districts compete with students in urban schools for college
acceptance.
In addition, title two of this law has increased local community
involvement and empowered local citizens through the Resource Advisory
Committees. These committees have helped cultivate a sense of
ownership, promoting involvement in important projects such as
improving wildlife habitat and water quality and reducing the threat of
forest fires through fuels reduction efforts.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this oversight hearing because I believe
it gives us an opportunity to consider whether we can improve this
program even further. I would like to consider ways we can allow
counties more flexibility in how they use these funds, whether these
payments should be independent of state education funding allocations,
and how this program interacts with other compensation programs like
the federal program that makes payment in lieu of taxes (PILT) for
lands in federal ownership.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you
as we review the merits of this legislation and look forward to a swift
reauthorization. While the bill does not expire until 2006, without
this vital safety-net rural counties in Washington will lose more than
$40 million dollars in irreplaceable funding for a variety of critical
programs. The time is now for a comprehensive review of the law and its
implementation, so we can move forward promptly.
Thank you.
Senator Craig. Again, gentlemen, thank you very much for
being with us this morning. We will look forward to working
with you as we move through reauthorization of this
legislation.
Now let us turn to our second panel. These folks are out
there where this law is implemented and on the ground. Of
course, their testimony will be extremely valuable. We will
welcome to the panel Jim French, superintendent, Trinity
County, Weaverville, California. Tim Lillebo has already been
introduced by our colleagues, Conservation Policy Advocate,
Oregon Natural Resource Council in Bend. I had mentioned
Sherry. How are you, Sherry? Sherry Krulitz, District 2
commissioner, Shoshone County in Wallace, Idaho. Dr. Tim Creal,
superintendent, Custer School District, Custer, South Dakota.
And Reta Griffith, commissioner, Pocahontas County, Marlinton,
West Virginia.
Well, we do appreciate all of you being with us this
morning, and as I said in my recognition of this panel, you are
all out where this law gets implemented on the ground and can
see the effects of it. Some of you participate on the RAC. So
we value your testimony.
We will turn to you first, Jim, and let you proceed. Jim
French.
Before we do that, let me recognize our colleague from
Colorado. Senator Salazar, do you have any opening comment you
would like to make on this oversight hearing?
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR
FROM COLORADO
Senator Salazar. Mr. Chairman, I am not a member of the
subcommittee, but a member of the full committee, and thank you
for the opportunity to participate.
I have been long concerned about the inequality sometimes
that occurs between rural schools and other schools that have a
lot more property tax wealth. And in Colorado, we have huge
issues and legal cases that I have been involved in for the
last 20 years. So your leadership and that of Senator Wyden, in
terms of moving this agenda forward, is something that I
applaud and I look forward to working with you on the
reauthorization.
Senator Craig. Thank you much. We appreciate that.
Jim, we will turn to you.
STATEMENT OF JAMES B. FRENCH, TRINITY COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF
SCHOOLS, WEAVERVILLE, CA
Mr. French. Thank you for the opportunity to address the
committee on Public Law 106-393 and the uses of title I and
title II funding resources. My name is Jim French and I am
Trinity County superintendent of schools and chairman of the
Trinity County Resource Advisory Council. I also serve on the
board of the National Forest Counties and Schools Coalition
which contributed significantly to the current law.
Trinity County is a large, rural, mountainous county in
northern California, of which 76 percent is national forest. We
are the second largest recipient of forest reserve dollars in
California, once being a large timber producer on national
forest land. Trinity County receives a total of $7,730,027, of
which $6,570,000 is title I, annually split between roads and
schools. $927,603 is in our title II this year and last, and
$231,900 in title III funding.
Regarding title I funding for schools, forest reserve
funding has been an integral part of Trinity County school
funding for over 40 years, and it is essential to our continued
success. These funds provide for instructional aides in our
multi-graded classrooms, implementing the Federal No Child Left
Behind requirements. In my county schools office, the funds are
used to provide school nurses, counselors, arts and music
programs. Forest reserve funds additionally fund under-funded
special education programs. A wide array of student programs
without dedicated program funding are funded under forest
reserve: our annual spelling bee, the academic decathlon, the
young author's faire, our gifted education programs, our young
artist's workshop, to name a few.
In an era of declining student population, 24.4 percent
since 1996, and declining school revenue, without forest
reserve funding, our schools would have to eliminate the
majority of our instructional aides and programs that I spoke
of above. Additionally, the four largest school districts in my
county schools office would file qualified or negative budgets
with the State, citing the inability to meet our financial
obligations. Our declining student population is due in great
part to the changing forest practices and associated local
economy loss which, in turn, necessitates greater need for
forest reserve funding. I believe that our situation is a
common one in rural resource-dependent America.
Regarding resource advisory committees, authorized under
the law, as I said, I am chairman of our Trinity County RAC.
Our county is the second largest contributor to both title II
and title III programs in California, and we dedicate the
largest amount to title II by percentage in actual dollars in
California. To date, we have expended $3,356,086 on 63 title II
projects within our county. 94.4 percent of it has been spent
on a fuel reductions program and watershed restoration.
Below are features of, what I considered, our successful
RAC, which may serve new or future RAC's.
No. 1, our RAC established clear, agreed-upon strategies.
Early on we decided to focus on fuel reduction projects that
help to protect rural communities at risk and watershed
projects that restored rivers or reduced sediments in our
streams and rivers. 10 percent of our title II funds are
distributed to other allowable projects such as trail
maintenance and work with our Native American community.
Early on, we identified ground rules for participation that
defined the parameters of disagreement within our RAC. In our
RAC the rule is: conduct yourself so that you could be invited
to dinner by any member after the meeting.
[Laughter.]
Mr. French. So oftentimes I would have to say, you are not
going to get invited to dinner. Well, not that often.
But really, the RAC process is really about building
relationships and then finding common ground, literally, for
projects.
Our RAC identified many partners to collaborate on a
program of work as well as funding. We dovetail all our fuels
projects with identified communities at risk, as identified by
our county fire safe council plan. The majority of our
watershed projects have State Fish and Game or Five County
Salmonid matching dollars as part of our project.
We complete as much of our work as possible by grants and
agreements as opposed to force account by the Forest Service
which provides for additional local work opportunity and
economic growth.
We ask our county commissioners to identify our title II
funding allocation early so our RAC has ample time to plan and
implement projects.
We also schedule enough time in our RAC calendar to allow
the process to work. It is really all about process. Early on,
we met once a month but now do most of our work in subcommittee
format, and the full RAC meets up to four times a year to vote
on projects.
The ongoing productive relationships between county
commissioners, the Forest Service, and schools are critical to
RAC success. RAC's should update county commissioners on
projects at least quarterly with the Forest Service in
attendance. Originally our RAC had two county commissioners on
it, which I think certainly helped with our early success.
Attached for your review are just a few of the many photos
taken on our RAC monitoring field trips.* They are
representative of our many projects. I would say we have
probably had the opportunity to monitor by walking the ground
25 percent of our projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The photos have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first roads photo is from our China Gulch sediment
reduction project. I think you can see by the picture
graphically what a serious problem we had with China Gulch, and
down below you can see that it was corrected.
Also included as photo 2 is an article on our Big Red Truck
RAC project which is credited with saving homes during the
4,000-acre Simms fire. And I proud to say that starting last
year, we have been able to generate some saleable timber with
our fuels reduction projects, reducing the overall cost of
projects as shown in photos 3, 4, and 5. I view the generation
of RAC-approved forest products as an essential feature of
future RAC fuels projects.
The sixth photo shows our youth crew marking saw logs from
our 33-mile Mad River Ridge fuel break, our largest RAC
project. It has been important to us and many RAC's across
America to have our future stewards of the land involved in
projects.
The RAC process has shown great promise for quality
collaboration in our county and I hope across the Nation. I
think the RAC's members views of how to manage our forests have
grown. Preventing catastrophic wildfire and restoring
watersheds are essential to the future of our forests and RAC's
stand poised to do that work. I suggest that we also stand
poised to implement HFRA and we are looking forward to doing
that.
In my county, it is critical that Public Law 106-393 be
reauthorized to provide continuing benefit to our children, our
forests, and our communities, maintaining the compact that the
Federal Government made with rural counties many years ago.
Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. I am
happy to answer any questions.
Senator Craig. Jim, thank you very much.
Now we will work our way right up the table.
Dr. Creal.
STATEMENT OF DR. TIMOTHY CREAL, SUPERINTENDENT,
CUSTER SCHOOL DISTRICT, CUSTER, SD, ON BEHALF OF THE FOREST
COUNTIES PAYMENTS COMMITTEE
Dr. Creal. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of
the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today and discuss the critical issues of payments to
States and counties associated with national forests and Oregon
and California grant lands.
My name is Tim Creal and I am here today representing the
Forest Counties Payments Committee. I am also superintendent of
Schools in the Custer School District in Custer, South Dakota,
located in the Black Hills.
The Payments Committee was created by Congress to provide
recommendations for a long-term solution for making payments to
States and counties. The committee is also charged with
evaluating payments made under the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 and to make other
evaluations related to impacts to communities. A report
containing these findings and recommendations of our committee
was submitted to the six congressional committees of
jurisdiction in February 2003.
During the 18 months of preparing a report to Congress, the
Payments Committee conducted 10 listening sessions around the
country and we heard from school officials, Federal agency
employees, local elected officials, and citizens. We also met
with the Members of Congress and their staff, as well as
officials from the administration. The Forest Counties Payments
Committee undertook a research project that provides the most
current information on topics such as tax value of Federal
lands, the costs and benefits of public lands to communities,
and how States allocate the Federal payments between schools
and roads.
The Secure Rural Schools Act, also known as the Craig-Wyden
bill, is an effort to have the Federal Government live up to
the commitments made to communities many years ago and to hold
counties and local governments harmless for changes that the
Government makes in its program levels. The current law, which
expires in 2006 is being implemented by State and local
governments, the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and
private citizens through their participation in resource
advisory committees under title II.
Mr. Chairman, in 2004, approximately $507 million were made
available through this legislation. The majority of this money,
$426 million, will be used for education and roads through
title I. The remaining $80 million was set aside by counties
for certain county projects and projects on public lands.
Without the payments guaranteed under the Secure Rural Schools
Act, that amount would have been approximately $82 million.
After 4 years of experience with this legislation, it is
clear these payments have allowed schools to continue to be
viable in many communities. Without guaranteed payments, many
rural schools would have lost their ability to provide the same
quality education available in many urban schools. School
officials told us they would have dropped athletic programs,
music programs, honors programs, the very curricula that allow
rural students to compete with their urban counterparts for
acceptance into college. Counties and local governments have
also been able to provide better maintenance on local roads and
bridges to meet critical health and safety needs, protect water
quality and provide access to public lands. Our findings and
recommendations regarding funding for education and roads can
be found in the report.
One of the great experiments of the Craig-Wyden bill is
found in title II. The belief that local citizens can come
together and assist in the management of the national forests
and O&C lands was not shared by everyone when this law was
passed. Land management disagreements of the past 15 years
caused people to draw lines in the sand and work out their
differences through appeals and lawsuits. It is remarkable how
quickly some people have put aside that baggage and jointly
agreed on projects to improve water quality, fuels reduction,
and wildlife habitat.
There are currently 59 active resource advisory committees
and an additional 29 that have been chartered. In 2004,
approximately $41.8 million were set aside by counties to
accomplish projects on the national forests and O&C lands.
We find a strong correlation between the amount of money a
county receives and whether or not they decide to allocate any
to title II and form a resource advisory committee. Given this,
we recommend creating other financial incentives where payments
are not significant enough to create advisory committees. We
also believe the role of the resource advisory committees could
be expanded beyond their current authorities. And we are also
finding that many resource advisory committees accomplish
public land projects by partnering with other financial
resources and volunteers.
In 2004, approximately $38.6 million were set aside by
counties to accomplish projects under the six categories in
title III authorized by the current law. Our committee made
several recommendations about title III. We commissioned a
study that sampled 100 counties around the country to identify
costs and benefits of Federal lands to communities. Title III
allows counties and local governments to offset some of the
costs associated with search and rescue operations and fire and
prevention created by the presence of public lands. We also see
the need to have some type of accountability and reporting
procedures in place to ensure moneys are spent as Congress
intended.
In closing, we are aware of the cost of reauthorizing these
payments. Part of the cost should be borne by receipts
collected from the public lands. But they are not enough, nor
are they stable. We evaluated the current tax value of public
lands and compared that to payments from the Secure Rural
Schools Act and Payments in Lieu of Taxes law. When considered
in the aggregate, the tax value of those lands is greater than
the combined payments from the two payment programs. While
Congress did not intend for these payment programs to
necessarily compensate for loss tax revenue, it is a legitimate
measure against the amount that is being paid by the Federal
Government.
The Forest Counties Payments Committee will continue to be
available to this subcommittee and provide any assistance as
new payment legislation is developed.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my comments. However, I would
be happy to answer any questions you or other committee members
may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Creal follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Timothy Creal,
Forest Counties Payments Committee
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today and discuss the critical issue
of payments to states and counties associated with National Forests and
Oregon and California Grant Lands. I am Timothy Creal and I am here
today representing the Forest Counties Payments Committee. I am also
the Superintendent of Schools for the Custer School District in South
Dakota. The Payments Committee was created by Congress to provide
recommendations for a long-term solution for making payments to states
and counties. The Committee is also charged with evaluating payments
made under the current Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
determination Act, and to make other evaluations related to impacts to
communities. A Report containing the findings and recommendations of
our Committee was submitted to the six congressional committees of
jurisdiction in February of 2003. I would ask that Report be made a
part of my statement today. During the 18 months of preparing the
Report to Congress, the Payments Committee conducted 10 listening
sessions in different locations around the country where we heard from
school officials, federal agency employees, local elected officials,
and citizens. We also met with members of Congress and their staff, as
well as officials from the Administration. The Forest Counties Payments
Committee undertook a research project that provides the most current
information on topics such as the tax value of federal lands, the costs
and benefits of public lands to communities, and how states allocate
the federal payments between schools and roads. Readers will also see a
discussion of the history of National Forests and Oregon and California
Grant Lands, appropriate in this hundredth year anniversary of the
Forest Service, and an evaluation of resource advisory committees
authorized under Title II of the current law. The Payments Committee
would also like to thank the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for
supporting the recent Bill to extend our term. Our members felt it was
important to remain together as Congress begins the task of developing
new payment legislation that is of such importance to more than 730
counties and other local governments across this country.
Almost 100 years ago, Congress recognized that the presence of
public lands could create certain impacts on communities. The inability
to collect property taxes and the scarcity of private lands for future
development were among several concerns identified. Establishment of
the 1908 Payment Act for National Forests, and the 1937 O&C Act for
Oregon and California Grant Lands were efforts to mitigate these
impacts. These payment programs, along with healthy economies generated
by active management of these federal lands, helped ensure adequate
funds for schools and roads. However, this changed as timber harvests
on public lands rapidly declined. The Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self-determination Act of 2000, also known as the Craig/Wyden
Bill, is an effort to have the federal government live up to
commitments made to communities many years ago, and to hold counties
and local governments harmless for changes the government makes in its
program levels. The current law, which expires in 2006, is being
implemented by state and local governments, the Forest Service, Bureau
of Land Management, and private citizens through their participation in
resource advisory committees under Title II.
TITLE I
Mr. Chairman, in 2004, approximately $507 million were made
available through this legislation. The majority of this money, $426
million, will be used for education and roads. The remaining $80
million was set aside by counties for certain county projects, and
projects on public lands. Without the payments guaranteed under the
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-determination Act, that amount
would have been approximately $82 million. That includes payments from
National Forests as well as the O&C Lands. After four years of
experience with this Legislation, it is clear these payments have
allowed schools to continue to be viable in many communities.
Information provided by the National Education Association, the
National Forest Counties and Schools Coalition, and the American
Association of School Administrators indicates that without the
guaranteed payments many rural schools would have lost their ability to
provide the same quality education available in many urban schools.
School officials told us they would have dropped athletic programs,
music programs, and honors programs; the very curricula that allow
rural students to compete with their urban counterparts for acceptance
into college. Others expressed concerns about the way some states
allocate Title I funds to local school districts. This generally occurs
where states have put in place equalization formulas for education
funding.
Counties and local governments have also been able to provide
better maintenance on local roads and bridges to meet critical health
and safety needs, protect water quality, and provide access to public
lands. Our findings and recommendations regarding funding for education
and roads can be found in the Report. The Payments Committee is
currently gathering additional information about education and road
expenditures in cooperation with several organizations, and will
continue to provide that to the committees of jurisdiction as it
becomes available.
TITLE II
One of the great experiments of the Craig/Wyden Bill is found in
Title II. The belief that local citizens can come together and assist
in the management of the National Forests and O&C Lands was not shared
by everyone when this law passed. Land management disagreements of the
past 15 years caused people to draw lines in the sand and work out
their differences through appeals and lawsuits. It is remarkable how
quickly some people have put aside that ``baggage'' and jointly agreed
on projects to improve water quality, fuels reduction, and wildlife
habitat. There are currently 59 active resource advisory committees,
and an additional 29 that have been chartered. In 2004, approximately
$41.8 million were set aside by counties to accomplish projects on the
National Forests and O&C Lands. Most are in the West, but some do exist
in the Southeast. We find a strong correlation between the amount of
money a county receives, and whether or not they decide to allocate any
to Title II and form a resource advisory committee. Given this, we
recommend creating other financial incentives where payments are not
significant enough to create advisory committees. We also believe the
role of resource advisory committees could be expanded beyond their
current authorities.
We find that many resource advisory committees accomplish public
land projects by partnering with other financial resources and
volunteers. This serves to increase the effectiveness of the Title II
monies identified by counties. It is also important to find ways to
better determine economic benefits in terms of jobs created.
The success of resource advisory committees will be determined over
time. A study recently completed by Boise State University, and an on-
going study by Forest Community Research, will provide valuable
information about the effectiveness of these advisory committees, and
any changes that need to be made to improve their operation. The
Payments Committee intends to document the results of some of these
projects in a video presentation in the near future, and will make that
available to this subcommittee.
TITLE III
In 2004, approximately $38.6 million were set aside by counties to
accomplish projects under the six categories authorized by the current
law. There was not a great deal of information available about Title
III when the Committee filed its Report in 2003, and several efforts
are underway to gather more detailed information about how counties are
using these funds. Our Committee made several recommendations about
Title III. First, we believe it is important to continue this Title in
future legislation. We commissioned a study that sampled 100 counties
around the country to identify costs and benefits of federal lands to
communities. Title III allows counties and local governments to offset
some of the costs associated with search and rescue operations and fire
prevention created by the presence of the public lands. The Payments
Committee and federal agencies received many calls from counties asking
for assistance to interpret whether certain projects qualified under
Title III. Because of these uncertainties, we see a need to have some
type of accountability and reporting procedures in place to ensure
monies are spent as Congress intended.
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
In closing, we are aware of the cost of reauthorizing these
payments. Part of the cost should be born by receipts collected from
the public lands. But they are not enough, nor are they stable. As a
comparison, we evaluated the current tax value of public lands and
compared that to the payments from the Secure Rural Schools Act and the
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Law. When considered in the aggregate, the
tax value of those lands, if they were in private ownership, is greater
than the combined payments from the two payment programs. While
Congress did not intend for these payment programs to necessarily
compensate for loss tax revenue, it is a legitimate measure against the
amount that is being paid by the federal government.
The Forest Counties Payments Committee will continue to be
available to this subcommittee and provide any assistance as new
payment legislation is developed.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my comments. However, I would be happy
to answer any questions you, or other members of the subcommittee may
have.
Senator Craig. Tim, thank you very much.
Now, let us go to Tim Lillebo, Oregon Natural Resources
Council.
STATEMENT OF TIM LILLEBO, CONSERVATION POLICY ADVOCATE, OREGON
NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL, BEND, OR
Mr. Lillebo. Good morning, Senators. Hello, Gordon, Ron,
Mr. Craig.
I noticed outside there were piles of snow kind of along
some of the side streets and around the trees. We are kind of
in the middle of a serious drought in Oregon right now. In
fact, I live in Bend, Oregon. It is known as a ski town, and
right now there is more snow in Washington, D.C. than there is
in Bend. So we need your help as Senators to send some of that
D.C. snow our way. We are kind of desperate right now.
I would like to thank you again for the opportunity to
speak. I am going to call this the county payments legislation
in my testimony. Tim Lillebo, Conservation Policy Advocate. I
have worked for 29 years in Oregon trying to protect forests,
deserts, rivers, clean drinking water.
We have 6,000 members in the Oregon Natural Resources
Council, and they all care about protecting wildlands,
wildlife, wild rivers of our State and also protecting things
for our children. Many of our members have children in Oregon's
public schools, and like most of the people of our State, they
want our schools to have the resources they need to thrive, but
what we do not want, what Oregonians and ONRC do not want, is
to be forced to make a choice between protecting forests,
mountains, rivers of our State to fund our children's
education.
And that is why the Oregon Natural Resources Council
supports reauthorization of the county payments legislation,
including the original pilot project section. We support that.
We would like to see it fully funded because it really is a
lifeline to a lot of the counties in Oregon.
I would like to take the opportunity to thank all of you
for passing the original legislation. It has just made a huge
difference in the Oregon education and how the counties have
been able to rely on stable funding, for once, to provide for
schools and roads and other necessities in the county.
I am a member of two RAC's in Oregon. One is in the very
populous central Oregon area, Bend area. Another one is in the
Blue Mountains region which is not very populous but pretty
darned nice country.
Overall, the RAC's I have been involved in and participated
in have worked very well and have produced some very good
restoration projects. To my knowledge, as you said earlier,
none of those projects have been appealed. So it has been very
successful.
We did have some contentious times in the early meetings.
Some of the county folks wanted the title II funds to all go to
road grading and road maintenance and things like that, and the
conservation groups said, well, wait a minute, we would like to
have those funds to restore rivers and streams and salmon and
steelhead and forested watersheds for clean drinking water.
Anyway, the RAC structure and the legislation guidance allowed
us to forge a compromise where all of the interests were
listened to and everybody came to understand the values of the
other groups.
Often the title II funds are the only source of dollars for
many worthwhile ecosystem projects. Our RAC's have approved
numerous projects. I am going to give you a long list here, but
I think it is critical to note that there is a diversity of
projects and a diversity of restoration projects and issues and
a diversity of benefits from those projects.
We have approved numerous projects including watershed
restoration enhancement, fish passage for our very important
salmon resources in the Northwest, aspen restoration, road
decommissioning, prescribed burning, small tree fuels reduction
in the wildland/urban interface next to communities. We have
had youth work programs. We have had noncommercial and
commercial thinning projects approved. We have also had some
road maintenance, of course, for some of the counties.
These forest and watershed projects can help provide homes
for bald eagles and other wildlife. They also provide great
options for recreation opportunities, and it provides a real
important aspect for a lot of these rural areas because it
provides jobs in the woods to help these local communities.
The county payment remains critical--and I think the others
here will speak to that--for counties to having fully funded
schools, conservation programs, and road budgets.
While my personal experience with resource advisory
committees has been very positive, not everyone in the
conservation community has had that. I have spoken to several
different groups and several other people on RAC's and there is
a strong concern in some of those RAC's that they have a
balanced representation on these committees. They felt that
actually the committee was not really of a conservation
orientation. So I think there needs to be some oversight to
ensure the balanced representation on the RAC's, who the actual
members on the RAC's are. So there have been some problems
there.
Under the interest area group structure, each group has the
autonomy and the power to influence projects. In fact, a group
has kind of a veto power. They can say if we really do not like
a project, you can stop it. But that also means that all the
groups have to listen to each other. They cannot ignore the
other ones. You have to communicate and come to some kinds of
agreements over contentious issues. It is a give and take, and
we usually have made pretty reasonable compromises. So I think
the way it works--and others have said this--it does foster
cooperation because we all know that nobody will get rolled,
but we also know that so far nobody has needed to filibuster
either.
I would like to offer a quick personal story about
cooperation. In years past, an Oregon timber industry person
and myself had a fairly choppy relationship over conservation
issues. We butted heads many times on logging projects and
efforts to restore the land. We would often up arguing in a
public forum. And on one kind of sad occasion, we just darned
near came to fisticuffs. I mean, it was pretty serious. But now
we are both on the same RAC and we actually have a fairly
cordial relationship. We get along. We have agreed on projects.
So I think the process is pretty important that way. I am
pretty sure that there are other stories like this from Oregon.
So because of the RAC, we no longer want to fight, this timber
industry executive and I, and I think the world is a safer
place for it as well.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lillebo. Anyway, there is one issue that is kind of
contentious. We noticed that in the proposal of the
legislation, that there would be some changes. It was
originally our understanding that there would not be any
significant, substantive changes to this when it was
reauthorized. But it appears that an important pilot project
requirement in a section has been deleted and potentially
replaced with a discretionary clause. This is a very
substantial change in our view, and we are opposed to the
deletion of that pilot project section. We would like to see
the bill reauthorized with the original language.
The pilot project section, for those who do not know,
required that 50 percent of the merchantable material projects,
namely timber sales, should have separate contracts for the
logging and then to sell the logs. So in effect, it would
separate the logs from the logger. This is an important model
that conservationists and other groups have wanted to see
implemented for years and years. So we think it would be a good
thing to do for public land forest management.
The Government Accounting Office--and I think, Ron, you
already referred to this--said in 2003 that out of 1,300 title
II projects, there were only 13 that actually ended up creating
merchantable materials like timber sales and so forth. So only
six of those, 50 percent, would have been implemented under
this pilot project program to separate the logs from the
logger. But none of those six projects has been implemented to
date that I know of. Maybe there are some others that have
happened since that time.
So to me, there is no need to delete the pilot project
section as it has not even been implemented yet. So nothing is
broken, nothing really needs to be fixed in our view. The pilot
project is important and deserves to be tested under the same
rules as the original legislation.
I will close out here by a couple of things that I guess we
feel are not substantive changes. One issue is that in the
RAC's the alternates cannot vote, but I think it would be very
important. Sometimes for family reasons or other important
reasons members cannot attend, and I think it would be valuable
to the functioning of the RAC's if we could allow those
alternates to actually vote during committees.
We would also like to recommend that RAC members be able to
serve more than two terms on any individual RAC. Right now I
think FACA says you cannot. So we think it would help out. The
ones I am on, there has been some natural turnover, but the
majority of the members have stayed, and that makes for more
continuity and more trust and more consistency in the
decisionmaking.
Again, I would like to thank you for allowing me the
opportunity to speak about this important legislation. Again,
ONRC and myself, we endorse the reauthorization of the county
payments. We would like to see the pilot project stay in
because it does provide many benefits to wildlife, to
recreation, watershed, and ecosystem restoration, benefits to
the public and as well as the critical support to public
schools and roads. So thanks again. Appreciate your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lillebo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tim Lillebo, Conservation Policy Advocate, Oregon
Natural Resources Council, Bend, OR
Good morning Senators,
I thank you for this opportunity to speak before you. My name is
Tim Lillebo and I'm the Conservation Policy Advocate for the Oregon
Natural Resources Council (ONRC) in Bend Oregon. I have worked for
conservation of Oregon's forests, deserts, rivers, and clean drinking
water for 29 years.
Over 6,000 Oregonians are members of ONRC because they care about
protecting the wild lands, wild life, and wild rivers of our state as
an enduring legacy for our children and grandchildren. Many of our
members also have children in Oregon's public schools, and like most
people in our state, they want our schools to have the resources they
need to thrive.
But what Oregonians don't want is to be forced to make a choice
between protecting the forests, mountains, and rivers of our state and
funding our children's education. That is why the Oregon Natural
Resources Council supports the reauthorization with full funding of the
County Payments Legislation that does not rely on natural resource
extraction to support schools and roads.
ONRC would like to take this opportunity to thank Senator Wyden,
Smith, Craig and other members of the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee for passing the original County Payments Legislation in 2000.
I am a member of two County Payments Legislation Resource Advisory
Committees (RAC's). One in the very populous Bend and Central Oregon
area for the Deschutes-Ochoco RAC and the much larger and more rural
eastern Oregon area of the Blue Mountains RAC. Each area the RAC's
represent is unique, and each RAC is unique, but the goals and workings
of the two are very similar.
Overall, the RAC's I have been involved in have worked very well,
and have produced some good restoration projects. In addition to the
vital funding that the County Payments Legislation provides for
schools, it is important to note that it also sustains important forest
and stream restoration projects.
In the early RAC meetings that I participated in there were
sometimes conflicts between conservationists and local County
Governments. The Counties wanted to use the vast majority of Title II
restoration funds for programs like road grading and maintenance.
Conservationists wanted road maintenance to be mainly Title I funds,
and to use the Title II funds to restore rivers and streams for salmon
and steelhead, or to restore forested watersheds for clean drinking
water.
The RAC structure and legislation guidance allowed us to forge a
compromise where all the interests were listened too and we all came to
understand the values and needs of each group.
Title II funds are often the only source of dollars for many
worthwhile ecosystem restoration projects that would otherwise go
unfunded. Our RAC's have approved numerous projects such as watershed
restoration and enhancement, aspen restoration, road decommissioning,
prescribed burning, small tree fuels reduction, non-commercial and
commercial thinning, ``at risk youth'' work programs, and of course
some road maintenance. These forest and watershed restoration projects
can help provide homes for Bald Eagles and other wildlife as well as
recreation opportunities for ONRC members and the public. The projects
also provide important ``jobs in the woods'' to help local community
economies.
The County Payments Legislation remains critical to many rural
Counties across the country. Due to the small population tax base of
most rural cities and towns, the County Payments Legislation funds play
an enormous role in having fully-funded schools, conservation programs,
and road budgets.
For example, Grant County in Eastern Oregon has only 7000 residents
in an area the size of the state of Connecticut. Agriculture land
property tax deferrals and forestland tax deferrals mean that public
funds for things like schools are very limited. Because of this the
County Payments Legislation has been a lifeline to Grant County, which
now relies the County Payments Legislation for a significant portion of
its annual budget for schools and roads. Without these funds some of
our rural kids could lose important educational opportunities.
While my personal experience with Resource Advisory Committees has
been very positive, not everyone in the conservation community has had
the same experience. In preparing my testimony for you I spoke with
several other RAC members from around Oregon. Most agree that the RAC's
are working, but conservationists have sometimes struggled to ensure
the membership of these committees represent all the interests of a
community.
The ``interest area'' group structure of the RAC's was intended to
avoid this sort of conflict, and it is vital that it be maintained.
This not only ensures that all voices within a community can be heard,
it also allows local interests to have a much stronger voice the
decision making process.
Under the ``interest area'' group structure, each group has the
autonomy and power to influence projects. Indeed, if a majority of a
group feels strongly against a specific project, that project can be
blocked. Also, this means that the other groups cannot ignore one
group's interests. It forces the different interests of each group to
communicate and come to terms over contentious issues. There must be
``give and take'' and a reasonable compromise must be made. The way it
works fosters cooperation, because we all know that nobody will get
``rolled'' and nobody has needed to ``filibuster''.
I would like to offer a personal story about cooperation. In years
past, an Oregon timber industry executive and I had a fairly ``choppy''
relationship over conservation issues. We butted heads many times on
logging projects or efforts to restore the land. We'd often end up
arguing in public forums, and on one sad occasion almost came to
fisticuffs over our disagreements. But now we serve on a RAC together,
and through our work on the committee we have developed a fairly
cordial and productive relationship. We've been able to cooperate on
the RAC to actually get the work done. I am sure there are stories like
this from committees throughout Oregon.
Another issue that arose in the RAC's is the need for the RAC
member Alternates to be given the right to vote on projects. Many RAC
members are very busy and sometimes over committed. Most are people who
care deeply about natural resource issues and contribute greatly to the
RAC, but sometimes family or other concerns do not allow attendance at
every meeting. It would be beneficial for RAC function to allow the
Alternates to vote at meetings. Alternate voting privileges should also
encourage these folks to be more involved in the process, rather than
just sitting with no real say in decisions.
We would also like to recommend that RAC members be able to serve
more than two terms on any individual RAC. Current U.S. Forest Service
FACA regulations appear to limit members to two terms only. Members
should be able to serve longer because of the value of continuity and
consistency of the groups. The experience of current members and the
trust and working relationships are important to maintain to help
facilitate group functions. So far, the RAC's I serve on have had some
natural turnover, but the majority of members have stayed and that
makes for more continuity and consistency in the decision making
process.
As a final note, the two RAC's I work with usually meet 2-3 times a
year and this seems to be adequate face-to-face time. We also
communicate via e-mail and phone to do our ``homework'' concerning
individual project proposals and then the in person meetings go more
smoothly
Again, I'd like to thank you Senators for allowing me the
opportunity to speak to you about this important legislation. I
personally and the ONRC, endorse reauthorization of the County Payments
Legislation and the many benefits it can provide to wildlife habitat,
watershed and ecosystem restoration and the public, as well as support
to public schools and roads.
______
Supplemental Testimony of Tim Lillebo before the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee on February 8, 2005
We previously understood that the County Payments Legislation was
to be reauthorized with no real substantive changes. It appears that
the important Pilot Project Requirement of section 204e has been
deleted and replaced with a discretionary clause. This is a very
substantial change and we are opposed to deletion of the Pilot Project
Section. We would like to see the Bill reauthorized with the original
language.
The pilot Project Section required that 50% of merchantable
material projects, namely timber sales, should have separate contracts
for the logging and for the selling of the logs. This would separate
the logs from the loggers, so to speak. This is an important model for
public land forest management that should be implemer1tted and tested.
The Government Accounting Office reported in 2003 that of the 1300
hundred Title II Projects approved only 13 of those create merchantable
material, and only 6 of those were expected under the Pilot Project and
none of those 6 had been implemented at that time.
There is no need to delete the Pilot Project section, as it has not
even been implemented yet. Nothing is broken and nothing nods to be
fixed. The Pilot Project is important and deserves to be tested under
the same rules as the original legislation.
Senator Craig. Tim, thank you very much. When we get to
that phase of holding a hearing on reauthorization, we will
want to make sure that we get your testimony on those specific
areas in place for consideration.
Mr. Lillebo. All right. Thank you.
Senator Craig. The two-term consideration has already been
taken care of in the draft.
Mr. Lillebo. Okay, thank you. Appreciate that.
Senator Craig. Reta, let us turn to you. Reta Griffith,
Pocahontas County, West Virginia, County Commissioner. I think,
Reta, you are sitting here thinking this is a Western piece of
legislation. It is not, as you know.
Ms. Griffith. I am the token easterner today?
Senator Craig. No. You are more than that. But it is
important because it is national in scope where there are
forests and forest-dependent communities. Thanks for being
here.
STATEMENT OF RETA GRIFFITH, COMMISSIONER, POCAHONTAS COUNTY, WV
Ms. Griffith. Well, good morning and thank you for allowing
me to be here. My name is Reta Griffith and I am a member of
the Pocahontas County Commission in West Virginia, not too far
away. We have a little bit of your snow. It is one of the
largest counties in West Virginia with over 940 square miles,
yet it has a very small population. We have just over 9,000
residents in the last census. Over 53 percent of my county is
in the Monongahela National Forest, so I do have things in
common with Western States and Western counties.
I am testifying today as the vice chair of the Federal Land
Payments Subcommittee of the National Association of Counties.
It is also my privilege to represent the County Commissioners'
Association of West Virginia where members are elected county
commissioners from all 55 of our counties in West Virginia.
I would like to thank the subcommittee for scheduling this
hearing on the implementation of the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.
Today I would just like to give you a snapshot of the way
that title I and title III are being used to serve youth and
more in my rural county in the Eastern United States.
Unlike many of my other colleagues with NACo here today,
county officials in West Virginia do not have the
responsibility to maintain roads and bridges. So I do not have
to bear that cross. Our State Department of Transportation does
that job and they do that job very well.
As a county commission, we did, however, recognize the
value of choosing to participate in the Secure Rural Schools
and Community Self-Determination Act for the benefit that would
accrue to young people in my county. According to our local
school superintendent, the $485,000 that my local school system
receives under title I is equivalent to about 5 percent of
their annual operating budget, and that is clearly a
significant contribution to their overall.
It is even more important when you consider the topography.
My county is mountainous and like many of the other counties
covered by this legislation, that adds to the cost of educating
our students. For example, another county in West Virginia,
Pleasants County, is a school system that has about the same
number of students, but they have a much smaller geographical
area to cover. Well, in Pleasants County, they only need 15
school bus drivers, while in my county we have to have 24.
Those nine additional drivers cost our school district nearly
$350,000, not to mention the cost of purchasing and maintaining
those additional buses. So this money helps to pay for those
additional transportation costs so that we do not have to cut
into our educational budget.
Our superintendent also noted for me that despite the small
population and the limited financial resources that we have,
Pocahontas County schools have maintained an excellent record
in student achievement, and in fact, in the 2002-03 school
year, we were one of only 11 in counties in West Virginia that
met all of the No Child Left Behind guidelines. So like many
other counties in rural America, we know how to make our
dollars count.
The Pocahontas County Commission that I serve on voted
unanimously to invest the remaining 15 percent of the
stabilization funds in title III specifically to a project
called Pocahontas Woods. Pocahontas Woods is a nonprofit
corporation that was chartered to promote the creative and
ecologically sound use and enjoyment and understanding of our
forest resources in Pocahontas County and other surrounding
areas. Pocahontas Woods is currently running an educational
program that provides training for students and adults who are
seeking to enhance their skills in the woodworking field as a
means of helping to create a high-end woodworking industry in
Pocahontas County or in our surrounding communities. We are
hoping that this will provide an economic benefit then to the
county as well with the value-added products.
Pocahontas Woods is conducting woodworking classes with
both students and adults and they do this on an ongoing basis.
They have a temporary facility at our Pocahontas County High
School. The classes are conducted immediately at the close of
the school day, as well as in the evening, to ensure that
everyone interested has an opportunity to attend. To date, we
have had over 120 students who have attended one or more of
these classes.
We have also developed a formal apprenticeship program for
prospective woodworkers. This is done during the summer school
recess. This program places students with master woodworkers
and gives them an in-depth orientation of the requirements of
owning and operating a successful business. They conducted a
pilot program of this apprenticeship program this past summer,
and they are going to implement the full program this coming
year in 2005.
Pocahontas Woods is working on plans for a permanent
educational facility that could be used more frequently and
possibly as a business incubator for local woodworkers. It is
also working to expand the scope of its activities to include
other forest-related, out-of-school education programs, which
may include lumber grading for the layman and short courses in
forestry and wildlife biology.
We have received valuable assistance from Oregon counties,
also our local Forest Service. This has been to make sure that
we are spending funds in compliance with the Federal law. The
board of Pocahontas Woods, this private corporation, has
members from the local school board, a county commissioner, the
timber industry, and other residents in the community. It also
includes a non-voting representative from the Forest Service.
This group is working with Rockingham College in North Carolina
to set up a program which would allow students coming out of
our program to go into their 4-year degree and to continue
their work in forestry related fields. We have provided for
public comment on each year's allocation of funds and we have
been collecting reports from our grantee on how those funds
have been spent or are budgeted to be spent. We have very
wonderful, open communication with the Pocahontas Woods group,
and they consult with the county commission regularly to make
sure that we are aware of what their program is working on and
how the funds are being used.
We are grateful for the resources which have been made
available to us under title I and title III. We hope that you
find that we have been very good stewards of the money and that
we are achieving the purposes that you set out for us in the
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act.
Thank you.
Senator Craig. Reta, thank you. It is exciting to hear
about those new ideas. We here in Washington think we are all
wise and all smart, and when we find out that it gets to the
ground out there and every community or every locale is
creative, looks at it from their perspective, what fits them,
it makes a lot of sense. That is valuable testimony for us and
we appreciate that.
Now let me introduce Sherry Krulitz. Sherry and I share an
interesting commonness. She is the county commissioner in
Shoshone County in Idaho and both she and I have presided over
or observed the absolute demise of a county over the last 2
decades, her county, a county that was once a major employer
both in the mining industry and the timber industry, extremely
high paying jobs. The mining industry collapsed, the timber
industry followed. And it is a county that has struggled to get
back on its feet. It is doing so and doing so in an admirable
way. But I must tell the committee--Sherry certainly knows--
that the last 2 decades in Shoshone County have been tough ones
for the citizens of that county and certainly for the
commissioners and the governance of that county.
So, Sherry, we appreciate you being with us today and
sharing with us your experiences and testimony. So please
proceed. Thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF SHERRY KRULITZ, COMMISSIONER, SHOSHONE COUNTY, ID,
ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES AND THE IDAHO
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
Ms. Krulitz. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Wyden, and Senator Salazar. I am Sherry Krulitz, a Shoshone
County commissioner from Shoshone County, Idaho. I am also
testifying as the chair of Public Lands of the National
Association of Counties. NACo is the only national association
representing some 3,066 counties. It is also my privilege to
represent the Idaho Association of Counties. We are made up of
44 counties, and we represent all of those different counties.
Each year IAC works with NACo to promote policies that help
better serve our citizens.
I thank the subcommittee for scheduling this hearing on the
implementation of Public Law 106-393. We have for years called
it in Idaho, the Craig-Wyden, and I imagine in Oregon it is the
Wyden-Craig.
As active management of the national forests declined in
the late 1980's and through the 1990's, counties found that
their 25 percent share of the forest receipts was an ever-
smaller piece of an ever-shrinking pie. In desperation, forest
counties and school officials asked Congress to give us a
safety net. We thank you, Mr. Chairman, and you, Senator Wyden,
for crafting the solution in response to our request. In the
years since the passage of Public Law 106-393, actual receipts
have continued to fall, and as the recent Iron Honey sale
decision by the Ninth Circuit illustrates, process gridlock and
management by litigation continue to block active forest
management. Without the Craig-Wyden safety net, we would be in
big trouble.
Today I will focus my remarks on how title I has worked for
us and give some examples of how title II and III projects are
being implemented.
Shoshone County is located in Idaho's northern panhandle.
We have 1.6 million acres, 75 percent of which are federally
managed. Only 22 percent of the land in my county is in private
hands. As commissioners, we have to pay for services to our
13,000 residents and those who come to visit our beautiful part
of the county. We do this with a severely restricted tax base,
as Senator Craig mentioned earlier. For example, Shoshone
County maintains about 400 miles of county roads. Many of these
miles provide access to the national forests. Road maintenance
costs are, for the most part, predictable but the revenue
stream to pay for them has not been. In the years prior to the
enactment of Public Law 106-393, the only thing predictable
about our 25 percent payment was that it would be less than the
year before.
Title I of the legislation was designed to correct that, to
stabilize payments to counties, to provide funding for schools
and roads, and to supplement other available funds. And that is
just what it has done. Shoshone County, like 85 percent of the
eligible counties nationwide, has opted for the stable,
guaranteed payment. With that payment, we have been able to
begin to address our road maintenance backlog and to purchase
much-needed equipment.
Counties that chose to take the full payment under title I
must dedicate 15 to 20 percent of the total to projects to be
carried out under title II and title III. While it has taken
some time, more and more counties every year are investing in
title II projects or in a combination of title II and title
III.
In Shoshone County, we invested in title II from the outset
and are very happy with the work that our local resource
advisory committee is doing. In fact, from my perspective, the
RAC has done more to bring all different players to the table
than anything I have seen in my 17 years as a county
commissioner. We have the Forest Service, labor, timber, county
officials, school officials, recreation, and tribal
representatives all working together to make things happen.
I have brought with me a graph that shows the percentages
of where the RAC dollars in the Idaho panhandle have been spent
for the years 2002 through 2005. I would ask that this graph
also be included in my testimony.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The graph has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Craig. It will be. Thank you.
Ms. Krulitz. In our county, as Senator Craig knows, we also
have an organization called the Pulaski Project. It is named in
honor of the hero of the Big Blowup of 1910, Forest Ranger Ed
Pulaski. It aims to educate the public about wildfires, fire
fighting and fire protection; educate the public about forest
management theories and practices; recognize wildland fire
fighters; and develop an educational experience and a
recreational opportunity.
To date, the project has been able to use money from title
III, other U.S. Forest Service funds made available by
congressional appropriation, and a small grant from the Idaho
Community Foundation to develop the Pulaski mine and trail head
for educational, historical, and recreational purposes. The
project also reaches out to public school students in the
communities of Shoshone County and the surrounding area.
Mr. Chairman, the National Association of Counties and the
Idaho Association of Counties believe that Public Law 106-393,
the Craig-Wyden, is being implemented across the country and
across Idaho in accordance with your original intent. County
road and school budgets are undoubtedly more secure and,
perhaps more importantly, Americans in rural forest communities
are reconnecting to the national forest lands and have a new
growing sense of hope and self-determination.
Thank you.
Senator Craig. Sherry, thank you very much for that
testimony.
Again, let me thank you all for joining us. Jim, we
appreciate your testimony. I think Trinity County under your
leadership--and I say that because you were instrumental in
bringing one of the first resource advisory committees on
stream with you insistence and urging. I want to thank you for
that effort.
I am wondering if you can give me a few examples of the
title II projects that you are most proud of and a few examples
of the ones that were most difficult to get approved by the
RAC, and finally, a few that the RAC did not approve and why.
In your estimation, why did they not reach consensus.
Mr. French. Thank you, Senator.
Well, I would say our fuels projects because they are based
on a strategy that is tied to our Trinity County Fire Safe
Council. I am extremely proud of that because it identifies a
strategy.
I would also say those two where I show you the timber I am
probably proud of because I did want to demonstrate that a
group of people with disparate views could get together and
agree upon appropriate harvest. So I guess I am pretty proud of
those.
The one down at the bottom of the page of the list I gave
you called Natural Bridge I am particularly proud of. Natural
Bridge is a beautiful geologic bridge structure, but it was
also the 1850 site of slaughter of American Indians, women and
children. It has been a place where folks have partied. It has
been a place where rock climbers have driven pitons into the
rock, and it has really just been kind of set aside. It has
become an area that we are working on. We are trying to turn it
into a more sacred site. We have got the climbing community to
agree to stop driving pitons in the rock. We will be putting up
appropriate signage so young people, if they want to go off and
raise cane in the woods, can do it somewhere else. The Norelma
consider the place their church. So working with our Indian
community has been pretty gratifying through the RAC process.
The most contentious by far is when you have a group that
has industry as well as environmental groups to agree to
decommission a road. I would say those were probably the most
contentious. But we finally came to agreement because they were
in areas where it was critical. The south fork of the Trinity
River has lots of decomposed granite, and we were able to
inventory some roads that were not of any value to anyone. But
I would say just the notion of decommissioning was tough for
some of our RAC members.
One that was not funded, Pikes Garden, which was another
sacred Indian site that happened to be on private ground that
was adjacent to Federal ground. I was very hopeful that we were
able to, for another tribe in our county, a federally
unrecognized tribe--I was very hopeful to have that restoration
project funded, and because of the private ownership actually
by a large timber producer, we were not able to get that
through the RAC. So I suppose that would be the example of the
one that got away that I was certainly hoping personally that
we would be able to fund.
Thank you, sir.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Dr. Creal, I know that you were recruited to serve on the
County Schools Long-term Committee and you may have been the
only nongovernmental member that was not involved in getting
the bill passed in 2000. That probably gives you a perspective
that others might not have as it relates to how you see this
piece of legislation functioning.
Having read your testimony and checked the date, I noted
that none of the six counties in the Black Hills National
Forest have opted to accept title II funding. Can you give us
insight as to why and any suggestions you might have to help
those counties opt for some of the title II funding?
Dr. Creal. Well, my own county, Custer County--I just
received a call 7, 8, maybe 10 days ago that they are now
pursuing the RAC. They are developing a resource advisory
committee. I have been in conversation with them over the past
year and a half about that, just requesting that they make an
informed decision about whether to develop a RAC or not. So
they will be looking into that.
I have attended some of the RAC meetings in Crook County
which is on the Wyoming side. I have attended some of those
resource advisory committee meetings just to get a feel for how
they work.
Our committee recommended that additional incentives,
possible funding we felt would help encourage some to develop
those resource advisory committees. We know that money is a
powerful reason to make some decisions. That was one of our
recommendations.
Senator Craig. For sake of time, I will come back to both
you, Tim and Reta, but let me get to Sherry. Again, thank you
so much for being with us this morning.
Understanding I think the importance of the payments to the
counties received in this legislation, do you have any thoughts
as to how this legislation might be utilized to encourage the
development of additional economic activities to help support
the uniqueness of these rural counties?
Ms. Krulitz. Mr. Chairman and Senators, in my county, I
mentioned earlier, we have 400 miles of county road. Prior to
this legislation, we did well to be able to plow snow and fill
the potholes. With this legislation, we have now put a 2-inch
overlay over about 25 miles, and we have chip-coated probably
50 miles with this legislation. Our roads, our infrastructure
were in place.
We have a rails to trails that is a 72-mile trail from
Mullan to Harrison, the Trail of the Hiawatha, which, Senator,
you helped so much with the funding of that. We have got
recreation in place. We have two beautiful ski hills. So we are
turning more to recreation, but the recreation jobs do not pay
what mining and timber paid. They do not put your kids through
school. They will give your kids jobs to help put themselves
through school, if they are fortunate enough. But we are
maintaining.
It is more difficult for us to find the new industry. I-90
goes through our county, so that is a big plus for us. I think
just having everything in place, we have got everything, the
power that was left when Bunker Hill closed. You mentioned what
happened in the early 1980's. We are ready for new industry. It
is just finding people. If it is timber-related--I mentioned
the Iron Honey. We are having a problem. We thought it was a
great stewardship contract, but the Ninth Circuit disagreed in
their opinion, again final last week.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much. Let me turn to my
colleague, Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. All of you have been excellent. We thank you
for your support. Of course, as you heard me say earlier, we
are going to need it now more than ever because of the budget
picture that is so much different now than it was back in the
days when we got this authorized the first time and there was a
surplus.
The only question that I had is we have primarily been
talking, particularly with the resource advisory councils,
about the better cooperation we are seeing with the
environmental community and the industry and the whole cross
section of stakeholders.
What we have not really covered is whether the resource
advisory committees and the communications going on have
changed some of the attitudes toward the natural resources
agencies, particularly the Forest Service and the BLM in the
area. What we are hoping, of course, is that some of the
cooperation through the RAC's will start rippling over to the
agencies as well. I am curious whether any of you would want to
take a crack at whether the RAC's have also had some beneficial
aspects in terms of generating more cooperation with the
agencies.
Mr. French. Sir, I would have to say yes. It is one thing
being on an advisory council. It is another thing being on an
advisory council with a checkbook. I think we have meaningful
participation, and I think that the Forest Service needs us to
help them with their work. It is one of the vehicles for
getting work done. On one of our ranger districts, RAC projects
are the only fuels reductions projects in that district. So it
is a critical relationship, marriage, a date, whatever you want
to call it.
Senator Wyden. Does anybody else want to take a crack at
that?
Ms. Krulitz. Senator, I would like to mention also. We
budget $1 million a year. Of that, my county only has 13,000
people, but $600,000 of that $1 million comes from my county.
Maybe we are small in numbers, but when you bring $600,000 to
the table and you are spending it in region 1, you do get
attention.
It is also putting kids to work. Every one of our five
northern counties has a RAC crew made up of college kids who
are out there doing trail restoration.
It is bringing light to people that did not realize what is
out there and available through I guess an agency or a RAC,
whatever we want to call it, a contingent group, that you would
not have had the players at the table. They are focusing on
good things, and I think a lot of them are leaving their
baggage at the door when they come into those meetings to focus
on some good things. And they are doing that in the Idaho
panhandle.
Senator Wyden. Dr. Creal, do you want to take a crack at
that? I did not want to cut you off there.
Dr. Creal. Yes, Senator. I just want to mention that the
committee held a listening session in Portland, Oregon, and
both the Federal representatives and the county people and any
other citizens there all expressed that they felt that things
were going well with the RAC process, and collaboration and a
better understanding between all the groups was evident.
Senator Wyden. Tim, anything else?
Mr. Lillebo. I was just thinking on a couple of our RAC's,
the Forest Service does listen very carefully and it seems like
they may have left some of their baggage too behind, as well as
the people that are on the committee itself coming and leaving
some of their baggage behind. And we have been able to come up
with some projects and even modify some proposed projects. So I
think they are listening.
I was very interested in the idea of maybe taking a portion
of certain national forest budgets. That might even have them
listen more and the public even get more involved if you have a
little bit more to work with.
Senator Craig. You did catch the essence of that question.
Mr. Lillebo. I think I got most of it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Wyden. The only other thing I want to do is just
say thank you for hanging in there with us. Especially Chairman
Craig has heard this. It was not a lot of fun at the beginning
when I had all those picketers and ads and Ron Wyden, you know,
is decimating the public forests because he was working with
Chairman Craig and the like. You all hung in with us. You
bucked us up and made it clear that we were going to try to
take a balanced approach and, heaven forbid, try something that
had not been done and that was give people some incentives for
working together. Literally, as I said to the last panel--maybe
some of you were here--this seems to be just about the only
area of forest policy that has not become a litigation derby.
And to think that you can tell us several years into the
implementation of the act that there has not been an appeal
anywhere in the United States is really a tribute to the kind
of good work that you are doing.
I am going to have to duck out. I just want to say, Mr.
Chairman, how pleased I am that Senator Salazar is here. I
think he is going to be a real voice for the kind of natural
resources policies that we are talking about, which is to try
to bring people together rather than figure out ways to drive
them into opposite camps. So I look forward to working very
closely with him and glad he is here.
Mr. Lillebo. Senators, may I say one more thing? I just
really did want to again thank all of you. It has made a huge
difference in Oregon as far as how the natural resources, the
fish, the wildlife have been treated. It also made a huge
difference to school kids. So I really wanted to thank you for
that. And in the bipartisan spirit, please send us some snow.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. Ron, thank you.
Let me turn to Senator Salazar. Ken.
Senator Salazar. Senator Craig and Senator Wyden and
members of our witness table, this is, I think, a great program
because it is good for our kids and education, it is good for
our natural resources and our environment, and also very good
for our economy. So I applaud all of you who have worked on
this law and applaud the leadership of the chairman and the
leadership of Senator Wyden as well.
I have just a general question. It is grounded in my
background. I come from a county that is the poorest county in
the United States of America today in the very southern part of
Colorado. Much of our land in Conejos County is actually in
either Forest Service or BLM hands. Part of what we have
struggled with over many years in Colorado is the disparity
that exists between those school districts that are in counties
where you have high property tax rolls and in those counties
that do not. You see that, I am sure, across the entire United
States of America. We have schools in my State of Colorado that
have great swimming pools and great gymnasiums and pay their
teachers a lot more than the counties that come from places
where we have a very low property tax base. So it has been a
matter of litigation over the last several decades and a matter
of some settlements as well that have occurred over the last
several years to try to deal with that disparity.
I guess my question to you, Mr. French and Dr. Creal, would
be this. Do you have ideas in terms of how we might be able to
address that disparity between the high wealth school districts
and counties and the low wealth school districts? And also,
specifically, how do we do a better job in terms of paying our
teachers in some of these rural counties like my native county
in Colorado?
Mr. French. Well, I would say the forest reserve does that
in part, but being in an area where there is declining
enrollment, if you have had 24 kids in a classroom and you lose
4, you still have to provide a quality program for the 20. So
when people tell me, oh, fewer kids, well, then you should get
fewer dollars, well, it does not work that way. I do not get to
lay off 10 or 15 percent of a teacher.
I hope the Federal Government, with their heavy involvement
in education in the last 10 years--I might sound critical, but
when I went to school, I was taught that the States had the
responsibility for education, and the Federal Government
certainly has weighed in heavily. So I just think they are
going to have to fund more. They continue to give us mandates
with minimal funding. If they are going to step up to the table
as they have, I just think they have to fund more. I could go
on and talk about title I, what is happening in my county. I am
losing title I dollars at a time when the requirements are
ratcheted up 100 or 200 percent.
But I am very concerned about being able to provide quality
salaries to teachers where there is declining enrollment
because that teacher that had 24, there is more expected of her
today than 2 days ago, but we only have the dollars from 16 or
17 kids to be able to provide the salary.
Senator Salazar. Just a comment on that. I know many school
teachers in Conejos County, but I know that we cannot afford to
pay them a very high wage there. When you look at what is taken
out of their paychecks at the end of every month for health
care, many of them do not have enough money, frankly, to have a
living wage, even in circumstances where you have both members
of the same family who are teachers. So, we have some huge
educational challenges all across America, but I think
specifically in our rural communities, and a lot of it has to
do with teachers.
Dr. Creal. I would certainly echo most of what Mr. French
had to say. I would like to add a couple things. One is that I
know around the country there are a lot of adequacy lawsuits in
the States about the lack of adequate funding for education
provided by the State. Many of those have been successful. Some
are still in litigation. Some States are just starting that
process.
But as a school district who just lost 50 kids from last
year to this year out of a 1,000-student population, that is
significant, about a $200,000 to $240,000 drop in funding. The
proposal coming from South Dakota's Governor will not come
anywhere close to covering that. We are faced with many of the
same issues, and our teacher salaries, though on average on the
very face of it look adequate, are not. We are constantly faced
with young people unable to move into our community because of
the price of housing. They cannot make an affordable wage
working for the school system to live in the community. So more
are driving in from outside areas.
Senator Salazar. Dr. Creal, your district lost 50 students.
What is happening as you have this exodus of young people from
your school district? What is luring them away or what is not
there to keep them there?
Dr. Creal. The two biggest factors we found are the parents
moving out of the community, either out of State or the other
side of the State. It had nothing to do with our education. Or
children going from one parent to another parent in a divorce
situation where they were already divorced or separated or
whatever. Those are the two biggest issues. We are not losing
students because of our educational system. Everyone says we
have a quality education system in Custer.
Senator Salazar. Thank you.
Senator Craig. Ken, thank you very much for those
questions.
Tim, let me come back to you. I must tell you that I am
amazed and very pleased at your testimony. You described I
think the exact dynamic that Senator Wyden and I had hoped for,
in part, in crafting this legislation, communities coming
together to work with Federal land managers, to undertake
projects that could gain public support, and to begin to heal
wounds that had been, for decades, constantly made raw in
especially our public land resource counties.
I am pleased that you serve not on one but two RAC's. That
is a brave undertaking.
Mr. Lillebo. It is a challenge.
Senator Craig. And you could survive to come back here and
testify.
Understanding your concern that all parts of the community
be included in the RAC process, I am wondering if you might
have a suggestion for dealing with some of the RAC positions
that do not fit local situations, like a wild horse or a burro
person in Michigan or Mississippi. Is there some streamlining
or broadening of the RAC member description that would aid in
the implementation of the law more effectively?
Mr. Lillebo. It is interesting you bring up the wild horse
and burro representative. That is on the conservation or
environmental group that is one of the three. In Coos Bay, for
example, they had a county commissioner that went on the
environmental of conservation committee that was for the wild
horse and burro position, which is interesting because there
really are not any wild horses or burros. There are some
domestic burros, but not any wild ones within 200-150 miles of
Coos Bay. So you are right there.
I guess what I would like to suggest is that if you have--
at least for the interests that I have been working with, the
conservation orientation, you would have a various number of
groups that can at least look at the makeup of a RAC and make
sure that they felt comfortable that their representatives were
there. It would be the same for a timber industry or mining or
school districts or county elected officials, that they would
have some kind of a little process to review that so maybe you
would not end up with three paid environmentalists on the
industry or business committee. So I do not think that has
happened yet. But anyway, I am just saying that is how you
could avoid it because we have felt that it has happened that
maybe we did not get the conservation community represented on
that conservation committee. So maybe a process there.
I really think it is important to maintain the committees
as they are and the structure, as I said, since if three of the
five members do not want something to go through, you can
actually block it. But what it means is all the committees
have, so you do not get rolled, and we have not had to have
people stop and filibuster or try to stop the whole thing. So I
think it is important to keep that structure, but then maybe a
review system of some kind.
Do you have any ideas on that?
Senator Craig. What you are suggesting is what we are
looking at. We do not want to, in any way, destroy the balance
that has worked and is working well, but we also are trying to
say, under certain circumstances, how does it fit the
communities of interest better in those locales so that, in
fact, you get the representation you think you need without
disturbing the balance.
Mr. Lillebo. Right, because the balance I say in the Coos
Bay example--some of the conservation folks were saying, well,
wait a minute. Now we have two county commissioners on our
conservation committee, plus they have the whole other group of
elected officials. So somehow to review that.
Senator Craig. Okay.
Reta, as I had mentioned with your testimony, I think your
county utilized title III funds in a way that I do not think
any of us could have envisioned when we worked to pass this
legislation in 2000. I have to congratulate your county for its
innovative approaches. I think that is the kind of creativity
you hope can be spawned by this kind of resource and this kind
of local decisionmaking or participation as it relates to
improving.
In implementing the Secure Rural Schools and Community
Self-Determination Act, was there information or a process that
could be improved upon from your observation?
Ms. Griffith. It was actually very interesting. We had a
wonderful relationship with our Forest Service representative
to begin with. In fact, that is how this entire program was
brought to the county's attention. We had a forest ranger for
the forest there in Marlinton. She was extremely active in our
community and actually had participated in our local economic
development authority as a non-voting member, more as an
advisor. But she found this opportunity. She saw that we had
this project kind of shelved for the last 20 years, going this
is a really great idea, how can we do a value-added timber
product that encourages local crafts or crafting, making their
own furniture. We have excellent hardwood resources, but we are
sending it all out overseas or out of State, wholesale
products. We are not really adding any value to it. We are just
letting it go. She saw this opportunity.
Our county receives less than $100,000, which is why we do
not participate in a RAC because we did not really see the need
to put that committee together. I wanted to get that in there.
Senator Craig. I was going to say----
Ms. Griffith. Right. That is why.
Senator Craig. Now, my next question is going to be, what
does it take for your county to get into a RAC. More money?
Ms. Griffith. Well, it would take significantly more money
because we have less than $100,000 in our 15 percent. It is
about $97,000. We put all of that into that one project, and we
saw the opportunity to help start the after-school forestry
section of title III which enabled us to teach those classes
and then to use this program of teaching those classes and the
education component, working with our school system and working
with the local timber industry to find out what are some skills
we can teach that help you but also that help encourage--we
have had decreased numbers of sales too, not near as bad as the
West has had, but they are continually going down in the amount
of sales that we can do both on public land and on private
land. So we needed to figure out a way to add some value and to
retain some of those jobs, encourage entrepreneurs to kind of
branch out on their own.
We are hoping 1 day that Pocahontas Woods can help provide
a cooperative to help those local crafters be in business for
themselves, market their products. Again, like Ms. Krulitz'
county, as we have shifted from the timber industry, we have
gone into recreation, and that has been very wonderful. We see
that as a potential market for a value-added product.
Senator Craig. Well, I thank you all very much for your
time here, but more importantly, I thank you for making this
law successful. That is what allows us to come back with your
testimony and the strength of your testimony as we move for
reauthorization of this legislation. I would encourage all of
you and your groups or your organizations and associations to
stay actively involved. As Senator Wyden mentioned in his
comments, this is going to be a fairly high hurdle to get
across. In a time of substantial deficit and in a time when all
of us sense the need to belt-tighten, there are choices to be
made. Those choices, in part, will be made on the success of
the stories told to all of us and to the administration. And I
think we have a good one here that addresses a variety of
issues from county resources and infrastructure, as so many of
you have successfully pointed out, to the collaborative process
that we are growing into and, I hope, growing up in again as it
relates to our public land resources and their management that
bring us to productive ends instead of, if you will, warring
ends and wasted resource in the process of both human time and
dollars and a lot of other things.
So I believe that is story that is being told today and you
are helping us do it. Stay active and stay involved. As we work
through this, we will need your help to succeed in getting this
reauthorized and funded as we move forward. I think it is,
again, a success story that will catch the attention of all of
the interested parties and help us get it reauthorized and get
it funded.
So, again, thank you for your time and your commitment to
it. We appreciate it.
The committee will stand adjourned.
[The following statement was received for the record.]
Statement of Ed Wehrheim, Chairman, Catron County Commission,
Catron County, NM
INTRODUCTION
The Catron County Commission thanks you for the opportunity to
present supplemental testimony on review of P.L. 106-393, Secure Rural
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. We also
appreciate the leadership of the Subcommittee in this critical
transition toward a more effective management of our national forests,
especially given the looming threat of catastrophic wildfires in our
forests.
Catron County, located in western New Mexico, is rural with large
tracts of open lands and a few small communities. Cattle ranching
continues to be the largest private economic sector, and the only base
industry in the county. However, recent population changes have moved
Catron County from a fully rural, commodity production orientation
(ranching and timber harvest) toward a more service-based economy
supporting an influx of retirees to subdivisions, attracted by low
property taxes. According to Census data, Catron County's population
increased by almost 12% from 1990 to 1999; most of the increase
occurring in the last 5 years. The current estimated population for the
county is 3,415 (U.S. Census, 2003).
The large amount of government land (3.3 million acres, or
approximately 75% of the 7000 square mile county) limits the property
tax base and community expansion, affects potential economic
development and affects land use patterns. Closure of the County's only
commercial sawmill in the early 1990's adversely affected community and
county economics. Conflicts surrounding the management of public lands
have increased over the past decade as other interests, largely from
outside the county, have influenced the management of these lands.
Since a high percentage of income for residents of Catron County has
been from the timber industry, the reduction of income derived from
wood products from public forests in the past 15 years has taken a
severe toll on the County's economy.
CATRON COUNTY COMMISSION'S USE OF THE SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS ACT
Catron County has elected to receive funding from the Secure Rural
Schools Act every year since 2000. For the first three years, a
percentage of the payment was set aside for Title II projects only. The
fourth year a percentage was set aside and divided between Title II and
Title III. In 2005, 100% was set aside for Title III, primarily for
planning, as it became clear that for an on-the-ground project to be
successful in an area as large as Catron County, more coordination and
planning than the Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) could provide would
be necessary.
Title I
Approximately $300,000 annually is generated in Catron County from
Secure Rural Schools Act funding. Title I funding has been used to
support our local schools and for maintaining the county road system of
approximately 950 miles of roads. This includes over 350 miles of roads
accepted by Catron County from the USFS in April 2002 that the USFS had
anticipated having to close because they could no longer maintain them.
Title II
Establishing a RAC and getting it running was a slow process with a
number of obstacles. Member selection was difficult and members did not
always see eye to eye on what should be funded. Additionally, the
County and the Gila National Forest Supervisor did not agree on how the
RAC process should be implemented. Nevertheless, eventually the group
established guidelines to rate the various proposals, using the
following factors: Jobs created, impact on local school population, on-
the-ground impact, funding availability from another source, and would
the project produce positive results.
Title II funds were used for a small forest health project; a river
vegetative planting project; a rangeland improvement project; well
development at a county owned sawmill which has been retrofitted to
handle small diameter wood products and development of a forest wood
product yard; removal and reduction of hazardous fuels from rights of
way at a number of subdivisions; and creation of an emergency escape
zone for a subdivision.
Title III
The Catron County Commission elected Title III for the first time
in 2003. Under Category Five, the County government formulated and
implemented the Catron County Commission Forest and Rangeland Health
Program for the purposes of utilizing an integrated planning approach
for both forest and rangeland health, and for stabilizing and fostering
the County's economic base.
The County Commission recognized that wildfire protection is only a
symptom of the health of the forest (watershed and water quality,
wildlife/endangered species, timber stands and grass rangelands and
related economic prosperity). Hence, the County used Title III funds to
develop the County Commission Forest and Rangeland Health Program to
include inter-university technical and planning support from New Mexico
State University Range Improvement Task Force, Northern Arizona
University Forestry School and Western New Mexico University, with WNMU
coordinating the overall program under Title III. The program also
included the funding of a Catron County Wildfire Protection Coordinator
to coordinate wildfire protection planning and implementation for
Catron County, and established Catron County Community Wildfire
Protection Planning per the Healthy Forestry Restoration Act that has
resulted in a collaborative intergovernmental planning approach to
wildfire protection.
The Catron County Commission also developed and was awarded a
Collaborative Forest Restoration Program grant, a collaborative Forest
Service/County restoration initiative that effectively removed small
diameter materials from the Sheep Basin restoration project, supplying
wood products to the Catron County Citizen's Group Reserve Mill,
generating 10-15 jobs for 3 years and bringing in $360,000 to the
County. This project is a model approach to multi-party monitoring that
includes environmental communities as well as the participating
universities, and local communities.
In addition, the Catron County Commission Forest and Rangeland
Health Program assisted the County's Range & Livestock Committee in
developing a Land Stewardship Contract with the Glenwood Ranger
District, with the goals of increasing forage production for grazing
allottees, identifying job potential and incubating fuel wood
enterprises. This project has identified over 3,000 acres for treatment
and is in the process of clearance procedures for treating 300 acres.
The Catron County Commission Forest and Rangeland Health Program
was instrumental in improving rangeland and livestock stability in the
Roberts Park range and grazing proposal as a Cooperating Agency in the
NEPA process. This Forest Service, County, university collaborative
effort has resulted in increasing grazing carrying capacity, while at
the same time increasing wildlife and watershed health.
Also, the County used Title III planning to develop a Forest Health
Demonstration Project for the San Francisco Watershed, involving 14
agencies and non-government collaborative partners with Northern
Arizona University Forestry School facilitating under lead of the San
Francisco Soil & Water Conservation District. At this time the project
is conducting inventory data analysis.
Title III funding also helped develop the Reserve High School
Biomass Plant grant which was awarded to the Reserve High School to
develop a feasibility study for a woody biomass heating system which
could include county buildings in the future.
Finally, Title III helped the Catron County Commission document and
provide testimony to the U.S. House Subcommittee on Forest Health on
recommendations for improving forest and rangeland health through
intergovernmental coordination.
LESSONS LEARNED
Due to the nature of the Act, as well as the changing conditions of
our forests, the Catron County Commission has considered the
implementation of the Act as a process of ``learning by doing''.
Resource Managers have coined the term Adaptive Management to
accomplish the same principle.
Title II Lessons Learned: Issues and Recommendations for Local RAC
Members and Voting:
Local RAC Members: Some of the earliest lessons learned, with
respect to Title II implementation, involved how the RAC itself would
function. As Catron County's RAC is the only one in the state of New
Mexico, we had no other RAC to compare ourselves to. Interpretation of
the implementation and the functioning of the RAC was solely determined
by the Gila National Forest Supervisor, who took firm control over
choosing RAC members, and who chose to run the RAC meetings while
retaining full veto power over RAC decisions. Unfortunately, this
resulted in a number of non-local RAC appointees forced on the County
RAC in spite of available qualified local residents, and over the
objections of the Catron County Commission. This was important for two
reasons: a) the way the voting system was set up, three members in any
RAC subgroup could effectively have veto power over the fifteen member
RAC and over any RAC decision, therefore rendering the notion of
cooperation and collaboration meaningless; and b) local residents have
to live with the social, political and physical consequences of
implementation of projects, thus encouraging a commitment to the on-
the-ground work.
The Catron County Commission recommends that the Congress require
the Forest Service to comply with Congressional intent in ensuring that
local RAC members are considered and appointed, first, and that the
Forest Service is encouraged to work with local governments as full
partners in the RAC member selection process. Also, the County
recommends that the Senate provide oversight and monitor local RAC's
and projects and encourage local constituency access and input to this
oversight for the Senate Committee, thus forestalling outside pressures
to ignore the Act's requirement to appoint locally qualified RAC
members.
RAC Voting: The County recommends revision of the RAC voting
structure that currently prescribes that just three RAC members in any
one subgroup, can halt projects on-the-ground. It also undermines and
discourages the majority, the remaining thirteen RAC members, limiting
or thwarting the majority preferences. The County recommends guidelines
for voting and other RAC functioning. Our American political
accountability is based on majority vote, not the current RAC voting
structure that undermines this democratic process. We strongly
encourage your attention on this contrived RAC voting structure.
County-RAC Supporting Role by the Forest Service: Catron County
Commission also recommends that Congress clarify and instruct the
related federal land agencies (USFS and BLM) that they are to support
the RAC and support the County government/RAC capacity building and
collaboration. In Catron County, it appeared that the Forest Service
did not understand the Congressional intent of the Act: To ensure that
the County government is involved as full partners with the RAC, and to
ensure that the Forest Service understands that it is to support the
RAC and County government in a collaborative planning process--not get
in between collaboration between the RAC and the County government. A
good model for the Forest service is the working relationship between
local conservation districts and the Natural Resource Conservation
Service, which provides decision support for all the conservation
districts in the U.S.
Title III Lessons Learned: Issues and Recommendations: Inter-Title
Coordination, Senate Guidance:
Coordination between Title II and III: Other lessons learned
involved the realization that some mechanism for coordination and
accountability between Title II and Title III projects is necessary.
Our experience raises the following questions: What good is having
planning if the RAC isn't interested in working with that planning?
What good are projects on-the-ground if they do not share objectives
and goals? Catron County looks at Title II as more for doing the work,
directly boosting the economy while achieving forest restoration, while
Title III is for planning, about the future. They can and should work
together. With emphasis on on-the-ground projects we discovered that we
have no place to put the hazardous fuels and other biomass removed from
the woods. In order to deal with the mass of wood products coming from
the forest, we need retooling and reeducating for small diameter
forestry, we need new marketing strategies, we need coordination of
supply to fulfill a demand we have not yet developed.
We discovered this through the Catron County RAC experience, which
led to the County Commission shifting to Title III planning. While a
RAC might well be able to perform the coordination and accountability
required, our experience has been that volunteers--especially as in
Catron County, where RAC members might have to drive for several hours
to get to RAC meetings--cannot be expected to sacrifice the amount of
time for the necessary planning, because that planning and coordination
calls for full time input to work with county government, federal
agencies and private entities, and to not only to coordinate and
oversee today's projects, but to plan for tomorrow's.
Title III Category Five Planning: We understand that some counties
in the West have used Title III funds, as Catron County has, for fuels
assessments and/or data collection (GIS) for Community Wildfire
Protection Plans (CWPPs). This use of Title III funding is the ideal
mechanism for coordinating and overseeing Title II funded on-the-ground
projects, especially with respect to implementation of CWPPs. We
recommend that Title III guidelines support the continued use of Title
III for this purpose. We also encourage that the guidelines encourage
adaptive planning and management natural resource planning, including
the flexibility and latitude for County government.
Congressional Clarification and Guidance for Title III Category
Six: This leads to the final point, which is that while guidance for
implementation of Title II was available, implementation of Title III
was more general. When Catron County began to set aside funding for
Title III projects, there was no way to know if we were doing what the
act intended since the parameters for Title III, Category Six was fully
unknown. Catron County used the ``Red Test'', developed by O&C
counties, as a brain trust for this act. However that test was
developed as an untested prescription and it was developed before we
got involved in learning by doing. In addition, the Red Test was not
developed for the specific circumstances and needs of the southwestern
pine forests. Thus, not only did we have to spend resources on
interpretation of that aspect of the Act, but we also found that there
was no way we could know how effective our use of Title III funding
would be with nothing suitable for us to measure against.
Our recommendation is that Title III guidelines for Category Six be
more fully developed to emphasize flexibility at the local level, and
to include guidelines for local monitoring of the effectiveness of
Title III projects, emphasizing the interrelationship of Title III
planning and Title II projects.
CONCLUSION
Category Five of Title III was written as a general statement of
use for local planning. This has allowed for an unparalleled
flexibility in local planning and we specifically encourage this
continued application and use of funds for planning. Category Five of
Title III in essence sums up the vision and the objectives of the
Secure Rural Schools Act: To not expect that throwing money at problems
will bring about viable solutions, to trust that those who are most
affected by solutions have the knowledge to find the best solutions,
and, in investing in public lands, to improve cooperation between
government land management agencies, local government and the public
through meaningful collaborative efforts that are developed and
implemented locally.
The Catron County Commission has committed to revising its
Comprehensive Land Plan, focusing on more effective resource management
and management planning. Through Title III funding, the County has
initiated this planning process by establishing planning committees for
range/livestock, forest/timber, water/watershed, tourism/recreation and
related business spin-offs. In a month, the County will facilitate a
workshop with these standing committees to develop the scope of work
for revising and developing the Catron County Plan, for healthy forests
and rangelands and for economic stability and growth. The revised
comprehensive County plan will update the county resource-dependent
economics and future direction, incorporate the Community Wildfire
Protection Plan, create watershed and water chapters, and address other
related resource and environmental priorities. The support of the
Secure Rural Schools Act for this process is key.
We need to change the way we deal with public lands issues and
forest health. The Secure Rural Schools Act provides the impetus for
making these changes. Managing public land with an aim to restoring and
maintaining healthy forests and rangelands must be the priority
mission, with full consideration for local needs and an emphasis on
local solutions through ground-up, true collaborative effort. That
collaborative effort must engage all human resources--from local to
Congressional--in order to expedite the restoration and maintenance of
forest, woodlands, grasslands and watershed health.
Here in Catron County we are demonstrating that a solution for
forest and rangeland health is achievable. We have the vision and the
drive to succeed, to forge into new frontiers. We are, on the local
level, implementing the very changes we are recommending to the Senate
Committee. We are asking the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and
Forests to come with us by providing the leadership in continuing to
improve the implementation of the Act.
It is the Catron County Commission's sincere hope that Congress
sees fit to renew the Secure Rural Schools Act. We thank you for this
opportunity to provide you with our experiences with this Program.