[Senate Hearing 109-19]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-19
MISCELLANEOUS LAND BILLS; SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS ACT; DOI VOLUNTEER
RECRUITMENT ACT; AND AMEND THE NATIONAL GEOLOGIC MAPPING ACT
=======================================================================
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
on
S. 179 S. 213
S. 267 S. 305
S. 476 S. 485
__________
MARCH 8, 2005
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2005
20-886 PDF
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
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 M. 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
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator From Idaho.................... 1
Douglas, Bob, President, National Forest Counties and Schools
Coalition...................................................... 31
Franics, Michael A., Director, National Forests Program, The
Wilderness Society............................................. 26
Hatch, Hon. Orrin, U.S. Senator From Utah........................ 1
Kearney, Chris, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Management
and International Affairs, Department of the Interior.......... 9
Rey, Mark, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and the
Environment, Department of Agriculture......................... 7
Smith, Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator From Oregon..................... 22
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon........................ 4
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Question................................. 41
MISCELLANEOUS LAND BILLS; SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS ACT; DOI VOLUNTEER
RECRUITMENT ACT; AND AMEND THE NATIONAL GEOLOGIC MAPPING ACT
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 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 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. Well, good morning, everyone, and welcome to
the Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee of the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee.
Before I make opening statements--and the ranking member,
Senator Bingaman, is here, of the full committee--I'm going to
allow Senator Hatch to make an opening statement in relation to
a bill before the committee at this time on a land exchange in
the state of Utah, so that he can return to the Judiciary
Committee.
So, Orrin, welcome before the committee. We're ready to
take testimony on S. 476.
STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN HATCH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM UTAH
Senator Hatch. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and
Senator Bingaman. I appreciate your courtesy in letting me go
first, because I do have a Federal judge up in front of the
Judiciary Committee.
I want to thank you again for holding this hearing today
and for allowing me to testify in support of S. 476, the Boy
Scouts of America Land Transfer Act of 2005.
This legislation will allow for the transfer of 120 acres
between the Utah National Parks Council of the Boy Scouts of
America and Brian Head Ski Resort. Boy Scouts throughout Utah
will greatly benefit from this legislation, and I am grateful
for the opportunity to further explain the need for this bill
today.
In a 1983 land patent, the Bureau of Land Management
granted roughly 1,300 acres to the Boy Scouts of America, to be
used as a Boy Scout camp. The Scout camp, known as Camp Thunder
Ridge, is situated in the mountains adjacent to Brian Head Ski
Resort and near Cedar Breaks National Monument. At the time the
patent was granted, a local rancher owned parcels of land
adjacent to, and in the middle of, the camp. And, several years
ago the rancher gave those lands to Brian Head.
Now, it is in the interest of both parties to exchange
these lands. The Scouts need to improve their camp, and Brian
Head needs access to their land. However, under the patent,
land cannot be sold or exchanged without an act of Congress;
thus, the need for S. 476. And in drafting this legislation, I
worked closely with the Boy Scouts, Brian Head, and the BLM to
come up with this legislation, for which all parties have
agreed.
Mr. Chairman, let me explain why this land is so important
to the Boy Scouts and why they have fought for more than 20
years to secure it. The camp is located in a mountainous area.
Much of it is situated in steep terrain covered with pine and
aspen trees. There is a small portion of the camp, however,
that is level and clear, and this area is used by the Scouts
for their campsites, camping facilities, and shooting and
archery ranges.
Currently, Brian Head Ski Resort owns acreage right in the
middle of this part of the camp. Obtaining additional acreage
in this area will allow the Boy Scouts to expand their archery
and rifle ranges. It will allow them to make these ranges safer
for the boys. It also will help the Scouts expand and improve
their camping facilities, and will allow them to install much
needed septic tanks. This small land exchange will allow Camp
Thunder Ridge to help young Scouts more fully enjoy their
scouting experience.
Hundreds of young Scouts visit Camp Thunder Ridge each
year. The camp caters to both new and experienced Scouts, and
offers a wide variety of programs and activities. The camp
provides merit badge classes in Scout-craft handicrafts,
ecology, shooting, sports, and aquatics. It offers a unique
opportunity for young men to learn vital skills and further
their scouting goals. And, as any Scout knows, camps like these
are essential to moving forward in the scouting program.
So I fondly look back on my own experiences as a Boy Scout.
I learned important lessons that certainly continue to serve me
well. And for that reason, I urge all of the Members to support
S. 476 and to promptly take action on this important
legislation.
And, again, Mr. Chairman and other Members of the
committee, I thank you for your courtesy to me, and appreciate
your work on this bill.
Senator Craig. Senator Hatch, thank you very much. We
appreciate your work on the Judiciary Committee. Thank you.
Senator Hatch. Thank you.
Senator Craig. I have now been joined by Senator Ron Wyden,
the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and
Forests. And he will certainly make an opening statement in a
few moments.
Ron, I have not yet made my opening statement. Let me do
that, as we move along.
I think what is most important today, in dealing with the
legislation before us--we certainly heard of one--we have S.
179, Sierra National Forest Land Exchange Act of 2003, before
us today, along with S. 213, the Rio Arriba County Land
Conveyance Act. I think most of us, though, are most intent on
S. 267, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Reauthorization Act of 2005, a bill to
reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act of 2000. And, also, we have S. 305,
Department of the Interior Volunteer Recruitment Act of 2005, a
bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to recruit
volunteers to assist with, or facilitate the activities of,
various agencies and offices of the Department of the Interior.
Before I go on with my statement, though, I do want to
recognize one of the growing benefits of the program of the
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. We
have students with us today from Chelan County, Washington.
They are part of a 4-H Forestry Education Program funded by
title II and title III dollars of this very act. Both Senator
Wyden and I much prefer to call it the Craig-Wyden Act; or, if
we're in Oregon, it's the Wyden-Craig Act. So the program is
also in receipt of the ``Caring for the Land'' award from the
U.S. Forest Service for Outstanding Environmental Education.
Would you young folks stand up, please, and allow us to
recognize you. Congratulations on your work. Thank you.
[Applause.]
Senator Craig. I think one of the most exciting things for
both Senator Wyden and me is to see the work that goes on
within this bill, this law, and the benefits that are now
accruing. And I thought it appropriate today to introduce those
young people. They are simply one of hundreds of examples now
of quality work going on within the program and the funding
that comes from it.
I'd like to welcome Under Secretary Mark Rey and Deputy
Assistant Secretary Chris Kearney, who are here to testify on
behalf of the Administration on all of the bills I've
mentioned.
I also noted that we will be hearing from a couple of old
friends of the subcommittee today, Bob Douglas, of the National
Forest County Schools Coalition, and Mike Francis, from the
Wilderness Society.
Bob, I want to thank you and the coalition for working so
hard to make the implementation of the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self-Determination Act a success. There are lots of
counties and people that owe you a tremendous debt of
gratitude. It is through your effort that we are able to work
toward reauthorization of this important legislation.
Mike, it is good to see you again. I am told you are
generally in favor of the reauthorization of S. 267, but have
one concern about the shift to who decides when and where to
use the Log Sort Yard Pilot Program. I look forward to working
with you to help you understand why further empowerment of the
local Resource Advisory Committees is good policy. And I do
look forward to hearing your thoughts on all of the issues in
relation to the legislation.
I know many people are put off by the amount of money that
California, Washington, and Oregon get, relative to other
states, in the formula we want to reauthorize in S. 267, but we
have to remember, the formula is based on historic receipts,
and we have to face facts. Those are the states where the
timber sales program generated the most receipts.
Second, I know that some others complain about the $5
million that New Mexico gets in community forest restoration
funding, on top of the $2.2 million they get in title I and
title III payments. Senator Bingaman is here to speak to that
this morning and to hear testimony on this bill. And I want you
to know that both title V and title VI of Public Law 106-393
were part and parcel of the original authorization. They are in
this reauthorization, and I will stand shoulder to shoulder
with you and our other Senate colleagues who want to see these
funding formulas reauthorized as we were back in 2000.
But I fear that if we start to tinker with the formulas, we
risk having to tinker with all the provisions of the law. And I
think what we'll hear this morning is, the law is working well
and very successfully; in many instances, I think, beyond the
expectation of both Senator Wyden and myself. Certainly we are
now hearing tremendously glowing reviews, time and time again,
as the programs go forward, whether it's county road funds or
county school funds or these different titles, or, most
importantly, the tremendous collaborative effort going about
with the RACs.
I am told, to date, that over 1,200 different programs have
been approved by the RACs, and not one of them challenged in
court. Now, that's some kind of record when we're dealing with
public policy, especially on our public lands today. Why is it
happening? Because all parties are at the table, working
collaborative and cooperatively together, and, when final
decisions are made, they're made in a way that produces the
product that ultimately stands on its own, by its own merits.
So I'm extremely pleased about that.
Let me turn to my colleague, Senator Wyden, for any opening
comments he would like to make.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And you've made an
excellent statement, and I certainly agree with all of the key
points that you've made, and have only a couple of additions.
And, like you said, this has really produced a revolution in
forest-dependent communities. If anybody had said, 5, 6 years
ago, that the administration, the Forest County Schools
Coalition, and the Wilderness Society would all be here talking
about this reauthorization, I think we would have said, ``That
is one band of brothers you would not have suspected coming
into being.'' I think it's really a tribute to all--your
patience, Mr. Chairman, and others who have worked to make this
coalition possible.
I'm going to be in and out a bit this morning, but I would
just like to make one point, in terms of the timetable, and--
with you here, Mr. Chairman, and, of course, our ranking
minority member who's been so helpful.
My concern is that the budget is going to be marked up in
the committee starting tomorrow and Thursday. Now, if the
Secure Rural Schools legislation is in the budget, then all is
hunky dory and we can certainly say we're off to the races in a
promising way. If Secure Rural Schools is not in the budget,
however, then I'm going to have to try, at least in an effort
to get it started, to come up with a way to get it in and to
start coming up with the offsets.
I would hope, this morning, that we could get a commitment,
particularly from Mr. Rey, who has just been so helpful and so
constructive in all of this, that we work through this the rest
of the day and into the evening to nail down how we ought to
proceed. I would very much like to have Senator Domenici's
staff there, Senator Bingaman's staff there, Senator Craig's
staff, and my staff there, so we can examine essentially where
we are, given the budget situation.
If it's in the budget, as I say, we're off to the races. If
it's not, I think it would be extremely important for the four
of us--our chair, our ranking minority member, Senator Craig,
and myself, and there may be other interested Senators; and
Frank, if you and Sarah can put the word out as well, there are
other interested Senators. I just think it is important, as we
go into the afternoon and evening, that we know where we are,
in terms of the budgetary process.
And if Mr. Rey would, in his testimony, describe where we
are; and if we're not in the budget, I would very much like the
Administration to say, this morning, ``We're on deck to work
with the bipartisan group in this committee to try to figure
out how to proceed tomorrow and Thursday,'' because this is the
first step in the long march, and an extremely important step.
Because if we don't get some sort of consensus on how to do it
through the budget process, you just have more challenges down
the road.
Other than that, Mr. Chairman, I think you have reflected
my views very well. And I want to thank, particularly, Senator
Bingaman and Senator Domenici for all their patience, lo these
many years, and also Mr. Rey, as well, because he probably
knows more about this than anyone on the planet, save Sarah and
Frank. We very much need to keep this bipartisan effort going
as we go forward over the next couple of days.
And I thank you.
Senator Craig. Ron, thank you. And you're absolutely
correct, this is a critical time that we do need to focus on
during the balance of the week, actually, but in the next few
days, as the budget goes to markup.
With that, let me turn to the ranking member of the full
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Senator Bingaman.
Senator.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, to you
and Senator Wyden, both.
Let me first talk, just a moment, about S. 213, which is
the Rio Arriba County Land Conveyance Act. I don't believe
there's opposition to it, and we'll get testimony about whether
there are technical changes that are needed.
I do have a letter, Mr. Chairman, that is from the county
manager for Rio Arriba County, Lorenzo Valdez, and I would ask
that the letter be included in the record.
Senator Craig. Without objection.
[The letter referred to follows:]
Rio Arriba County,
Board of County Commissioners,
Espanola, NM, March 1, 2005.
Hon. Larry Craig,
Chairman, Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee, Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Reference: S. 213--Land Conveyance Act
Honorable Senator Craig: The Board of County Commissioners of Rio
Arriba County want to thank the Energy and Natural Resource Committee
for this opportunity to enter written testimony into the Hearing Record
in support of S. 213, a bill seeking the transfer of one-hundred-fifty-
seven acres of Bureau of Land Management administered land in the
vicinity of Alcalde, New Mexico. We want to thank the Honorable
Senators from New Mexico, Senator Jeff Bingaman and Senator Pete
Domenici for sponsoring this legislation and also the other members of
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for their devoted service to
their country and their time devoted to this matter.
The land being requested for transfer is a small portion of the
Sebastian Martin Land Grant on the lower western slopes of the Sangre
de Cristo Mountains in the North Central Rio Grande Valley. This
property is currently subject to the Bank-Head Jones Act, interesting
legislation that intended these lands to provide economic
sustainability to the neighboring village communities that were
dependent on the Land Grants. Instead it has become very difficult to
acquire the right to use them for important projects in the area. These
public lands were historically part of the community land base and open
to the development of that community. Currently, only 30% of the lands
in Rio Arriba County are in private ownership, 70% are in the public
domain, this, in a county larger than some states.
The lands in public jurisdiction are administered by several
agencies including, the U. S. Forest Service, U. S. Bureau of Land
Management, U. S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (Trust Lands) and the New
Mexico State Land Office. This land transfer is necessary for the
health, safety and welfare of the communities of Rio Arriba County. The
lands being requested are not pristine wild lands. They are adjacent to
private developed properties and have been industrialized or disturbed
utilizing lease applications. These leases are problematic and
negatively affect proper planning and management.
The Alcalde Mutual Domestic Water Association has their domestic
water supply infrastructure on part of the land requested. This
activity includes water storage tanks, wells and right of way easements
for water transmission lines. Rio Arriba County has a solid waste
collection station on the premises and needs room to expand for
services that will protect the surrounding public land from illegal
dumping. The county also has to relocate the road department yard
because it is now in a very sensitive area near a historical building
in a densely populated neighborhood. A small scale rural industrial
park for light manufacturing, storage facilities and other business
activities are in the plans. The local school system has an elementary
school across the highway and the buildings are old and failing, they
may need a place to relocate that facility.
The County respectfully suggests to The Congress that a
streamlined, affordable process of transferring land to local
governments for critical needs be implemented. A flexible
administrative process that serves local needs with sensible protective
regulation should be developed. The history of the people of New
Mexico, Native, Colonial and Recent immigrants have made for a complex
relationship and the growth demands are increasing, preserving land for
out of state recreationists and commercial interests are valid
concerns, but the critical needs of the surrounding constituency should
have priority.
Thank your for your attention to these important matters.
Sincerely,
Lorenzo J. Valdez,
Rio Arriba County Manager.
Senator Bingaman. I'm also glad that we're considering S.
485, which is the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization
Act. I've co-sponsored that. I know that you have, as well, Mr.
Chairman. I also have a question or two about that.
Finally, on S. 267, obviously I've supported that bill. I
continue to support it. I am concerned that, as currently
constructed, it does result in the vast majority of the
receipts going to a very few States. I think it's appropriate,
before we lock into another 7 years of this legislation--and
this is a reauthorization that would extend through 2013--that
we look at that formula and see if we can't find a way that
would allow more States to benefit, in a real way, from the
legislation.
I'm also concerned about the implementation of and proposal
to eliminate the requirements of the Merchantable Material
Contracting Pilot Program. I'll have some questions of the
witnesses on that issue, as well.
Thank you.
Senator Craig. Senator, thank you very much. I agree with
you, I'm not hearing of any pushback on S. 213. That ought to
be able to move fairly quickly.
Now let me invite to our witness table the Honorable Mark
Rey, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and the Environment,
Department of Agriculture, and Chris Kearney, Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Policy Management and Budget, Department of the
Interior.
Gentlemen, welcome to the subcommittee. And, Mark, we will
start with you. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF MARK REY, UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND
THE ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rey. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for giving me the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of Agriculture on S. 267 and S. 179, the Sierra
National Forest Land Exchange.
S. 267, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Reauthorization Act of 2005, extends the 2000
legislation, which, itself, embraced three objectives: one, to
establish a stable payment for schools and roads that
supplements other available funds; two, to make additional
investments in public and adjacent private lands; and, three,
to improve the cooperative relationships among the people who
use and care for Federal lands and the agencies who manage
them. The Act authorizes payments from fiscal year 2001 through
2006; hence, the need for a reauthorization before the end of
fiscal year 2006.
In my testimony before the subcommittee a month ago today,
I indicated that our experience is that the statute is working
to achieve each of the three objectives that I just delineated.
Our experience in implementing the Secure Rural Schools Act
has shown that a stable payment to States has been achieved;
the establishment of Resource Advisory Committees has created a
better working relationship with local communities in the
Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management in
implementing projects under title II of the Act; and these
projects have had a positive impact on improving natural
resources conditions on Federal lands.
Receipts have not been sufficient to cover the payments
required to be paid under the Secure Rural Schools Act;
however, the Act requires any shortfall to be paid out of funds
in the Treasury.
The administration could support S. 267, the
reauthorization of the 2000 Act, if amended with agreed-upon
savings that fully offset the cost of the bill in fiscal years
2007 and beyond, and if the bill is amended to incorporate
other technical or relatively minor changes specified in our
testimony. The administration would be happy to work with the
committee and the Budget Committees of the House and the Senate
to identify necessary offsets.
With respect to S. 179, the Sierra National Forest Land
Exchange Act of 2005, the Department supports enactment of S.
179.
With that, I'll submit my full testimony for the record and
be happy to respond to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Rey, Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
the Environment, Department of Agriculture on S. 267 and S. 179
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 on S. 267, a bill to reauthorize P.L. 106-393, the Secure
Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 and S. 179,
the Sierra National Forest Land Exchange.
s. 267--the secure rural schools and community self-determination
reauthorization act of 2005
The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination
Reauthorization Act of 2005, P.L. 106-393 (``Secure Rural Schools
Act'') embraces 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. The Act authorizes
payments for FY 2001-2006.
S. 267 would reauthorize P.L. 106-393 for an additional seven years
and would amend other provisions of the Act. The bill would clarify
that states must notify the Secretary of Treasury of their counties
elections to receive their share of either the 25 percent payment or
the full payment amount. The bill would provide an opportunity for
counties to return to the 25 percent payment if they wish to do so
(currently, if a county elects to receive its share of the states full
payment amount, the county may not changes its election). Additionally,
S. 267 would clarify the source of payments to be reserved by the
Secretary of the Treasury to make payments to the states and would
revise the conditions for appointments of Resource Advisory Committee
members to provide greater flexibility. S. 267 also would revise the
merchantable material pilot program to authorize projects under this
program if they are recommended by RACs. Finally the bill would add
notification and reporting requirements for the Secretary regarding
county projects under Title III of P.L. 106-393.
Our experience in implementing the Secure Rural Schools Act has
shown that a stable payment to States has been achieved, the
establishment of Resource Advisory Committees (RACs) has created a
cooperative working relationship with local communities and the Forest
Service in implementing projects under Title II of the Act, and these
projects have had a positive impact on improving natural resource
conditions on National Forests and Grasslands.
Receipts have not been sufficient to cover the payments required to
be paid under the Secure Rural Schools Act. However, the Act requires
any shortfall to be paid out of funds in the Treasury. The
Administration could support S. 267, if amended with agreed upon
savings that fully offset the cost of the bill in FY 2007 and beyond,
and if the bill is amended to incorporate other changes. The
Administration will be happy to work with the committee and the budget
committees of the House and Senate to identify offsets.
Amendments to S. 267
The Administration would like to continue to work with the
subcommittee on recommended changes to the proposed legislation that
would improve the legislation. For example, we recommend that section
2(c) of the bill be removed and we oppose the inclusion of the
notification and reporting requirements regarding county projects under
Title III of the Secure Rural Schools Act as described in Section 2(f)
of the bill. We have concerns about this provision as it requires the
Secretary to monitor and report on the use of these funds. We would
also like to work with the Committee on other technical and substantive
amendments which the Administration will be providing.
s. 179--the sierra national forest land exchange act of 2005
The Department supports S. 179. Evaluation of the properties was
previously conducted. Based on this valuation and resource analysis,
the Administration believes the public is receiving above market value
for the Federal property. S. 179 authorizes the exchange of 160 acres
of Federal land on the Sierra National Forest in California for 80
acres of non-Federal land within one year of the date of enactment. The
bill would provide for the exchange of a private in-holding for two
isolated parcels of federal land, thus improving management efficiency
for the Sierra National Forest.
An existing federal hydropower project is located on a portion of
the federal parcel. The federal parcel is adjacent to and also
partially inundated by Shaver Lake. The lake is part of the Big Creek
System that produces up to 1,056 megawatts of electricity. The Boy
Scouts of America operate a scout camp on land adjacent to the federal
parcel and conduct some of their activities on the Sierra National
Forest for which they have a special use permit.
S. 179 specifies that the value of Federal land is $250,000 and the
value of the non-Federal land is $200,000. The bill gives the Secretary
the authority to accept a cash equalization payment equal to 20 percent
of the value of the Federal land or 25 percent of the value of the non-
Federal land. The conveyance would be subject to a condition that the
recipient of the Federal land would agree to convey the land, within
four months to the Sequoia Council of the Boy Scouts of America. Under
section 3(a)(1) of the bill, the conveyance would also be made subject
to valid existing rights. These valid existing rights would include the
terms of the easement required under section 4(b).
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.
And now, Chris, if you would proceed, please?
STATEMENT OF CHRIS KEARNEY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
POLICY MANAGEMENT AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Mr. Kearney. Thank you, Senator.
I'm pleased to be here to discuss the administration's
views on five bills being heard by the committee: S. 267, S.
476, S. 213, S. 485, and S. 305. And, in the interest of time,
I will very briefly mention each of them.
First, on S. 267, Secure Rural Schools bill, Mr. Rey has
outlined the key elements of the legislation. We, at the
Department of the Interior, have all, as well, enjoyed a
successful effort with the legislation. It has provided us with
a number of benefits, particularly the BLM. Our Resource
Advisory Committee process has served as a catalyst to bring
together diverse groups and individuals with a shared goal of
improving our public lands. And, to date, the BLM's five RACs
have recommended for approval over $33 million in title II
projects, which have allowed the agency to undertake a greater
amount of on-the-ground restoration activities than would have
otherwise been possible. Reauthorization of the Act under S.
267 will strengthen those efforts.
The administration, as Mr. Rey said, can support S. 267, if
amended, with agreed-upon savings that fully offsets the cost
of the bill in 2007 and beyond, and if the bill is amended to
incorporate our other changes, the specific concerns with
respect to provisions described in my written statement. We
would be pleased to work with the subcommittee and the Budget
Committees to address this and other amendments to improve the
bill.
S. 476, the Boy Scouts of America Land Transfer Act of
2005, provides for the exchange of lands between two private
parties, the Utah National Parks Council and the Boy Scouts of
America and Brian Head Resort. The Department of the Interior
has a limited role in this legislation in the exchange it
facilitates, but does not oppose the legislation.
S. 213, the Rio Arriba County Land Conveyance, which would
convey approximately 150.86 acres of land managed by the BLM in
Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, to the county for the purpose of
providing local government facilities, a new public school, and
a cemetery.
The Department supports the conveyance. We recommend some
technical clarifications to the bill, and would like the
opportunity to work with the sponsor and the subcommittee to
develop language to address those clarifications.
S. 485, a bill that would reauthorize the National
Geological Mapping of 1992. Throughout the USGS's history,
geological mapping has been one of our core capabilities, and
mapping has been an integral part of the history of State
geological surveys, as well. Such mapping has yielded dividends
far beyond its original intended results. Today, the National
Cooperative Geological Mapping Program has been extremely
effective, looking back over the past 13 years, in providing a
benefit to the Nation, and the administration supports this
reauthorization bill.
Finally, I'd like to conclude by briefly discussing S. 305,
the Interior Department's Volunteer Recruitment Act, which
would allow the Secretary to recruit volunteers to assess the
activities of various agencies and offices of the Department.
We strongly support this bill and encourage its enactment. This
bill will fill many statutory gaps, providing authority for the
Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of the Secretary to
work with volunteers to support the renewal of the Take Pride
in America program, and perfecting the existing volunteer
authority of the USGS and the Bureau of Reclamation.
That concludes my opening statement, and I'd be happy to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kearney follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chris Kearney, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Policy and International Affairs, Department of the Interior
on s. 305
S. 305, the Department of the Interior Volunteer Recruitment Act of
2005, would allow the Secretary of the Interior to recruit volunteers
to assist with the activities of various agencies and offices of the
Department of the Interior. The Department of the Interior strongly
supports this bill and urges that it be enacted. It is consistent with
the Administration's program. Through our Take Pride in America
program, the Department of the Interior recruits, supports, and
recognizes volunteers who work to improve our public lands and cultural
and historic sites. Volunteers across America help public land managers
fix fences and trails, stabilize soils, replant stream banks devastated
by forest fires, restore historic buildings, teach kids to fish,
collect data and monitor bird populations. They direct their energy to
serving the American public and building a culture of responsibility.
Currently, just five of the Interior Department's eight bureaus
have authority to accept volunteers, and two of these have only limited
authority to use volunteers. Statutory provisions regarding the proper
limitations on using volunteers are inconsistent or nonexistent. S. 305
would provide clear authority to pay for incidental services or costs
associated with volunteers, such as providing supplies or
transportation to a work site, and for training and supervision of
volunteers. This bill would fill many statutory gaps, providing
authority for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of the
Secretary to work with volunteers to support the renewal of the Take
Pride in America program, and perfecting the existing volunteer
authority of the United States Geological Survey and the Bureau of
Reclamation. The Department of the Interior is therefore pleased to
support the passage of this legislation.
The bill is entirely consistent with existing authorities. It does
not disturb the current statutory volunteer authority of the three
bureaus that presently have sufficient authority and avoids disruption
of existing programs to the maximum extent possible. This bill would
not displace employees.
The Department of the Interior is a leader in the federal
government in providing opportunities for volunteer service. Because of
our unique mission in support of the Nation's natural and cultural
heritage, we believe that expanding volunteer authority makes eminent
good sense and that this bill is suitably drafted for that purpose. If
this bill is enacted, Americans will have opportunities, for example,
to volunteer as tutors in BIA schools. Nineteenth century French writer
Alexis de Tocqueville observed that the United States was a nation of
voluntary associations. S. 305 will help to make sure our 21st century
laws keep this spirit of volunteerism alive.
on s. 485
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here today to express the
Administration's views on S. 485, a bill that would reauthorize the
National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992. The Administration supports the
reauthorization, but is concerned that the funding level proposed for
reauthorization exceeds current appropriations by $38.8 million. Any
additional funding for the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping
program will have to compete with other priorities
Throughout USGS history, geologic mapping has been one of our core
capabilities. For state geological surveys, some founded even earlier
than the USGS, geologic mapping has been an integral part of their
history as well. A map is the best and most understandable way of
portraying a great variety of geologic information. The diversity of
information produced by a geological map includes: the distribution of
mineral, energy and ground water resources; presently active faults
whose movements may cause devastating earthquakes; and the distribution
of surficial deposits that form the substrate for wetlands and other
ecologically diverse settings. Geologic maps and investigations assist
in understanding the processes responsible for creating the natural
hazards and can extend the knowledge of past events beyond the brief
time for which human observations are available. This work is critical
in assessing the extent, severity, and likelihood of future events.
Wildfires can create conditions that intensify the potential for damage
from landslides and excessive erosion in burned-over areas. Hurricanes,
floods, and tsunamis leave traces of their destruction in the geologic
record (through both erosion and sediment deposition), thereby allowing
assessment of long-term risk. These insights can facilitate risk
reduction through opportunities to limit damage and loss of life
through the designs and placements of future structures. State
Geological Surveys and the U.S. Geological Survey play vital advisory
roles in such loss-reduction activities. They also aid others in
identifying the vulnerability associated with existing structures,
which is necessary to facilitate cost-effective mitigation efforts.
Maps depicting site response to ground shaking provide essential
background information for establishing building codes and defining
mitigation strategies. The stakes are high because these hazards
collectively cause tens of billions of dollars of annualized damage in
the United States. Fortunately, much can be done to reduce the risks
and lower the future damages. In the case of assessing the
vulnerability of buildings, as in many others, mapping has yielded
dividends far beyond its original intended goals.
When the 102nd Congress passed the National Geologic Mapping Act,
it recognized that the USGS and the State geological surveys needed a
coordinated program to prioritize the geologic mapping requirements of
the Nation, and to increase the production of geologic maps. Geologic
mapping has always been, and continues to be, a labor intensive
exercise that involves field work to collect information; laboratory
work to better understand the composition, properties and age of the
materials collected; and the use of remote sensing to better
extrapolate what has been learned in one location to a larger area. All
of these aspects of geologic mapping cost money and require skilled
practitioners. It becomes critically important for the USGS and the
fifty State geological surveys to husband and leverage their resources.
I can confidently tell you today that the National Cooperative Geologic
Mapping Program has been extremely effective over the past 13 years
doing exactly that. I would like to share some milestones of progress
with you.
During the 13 years since passage of the Act, USGS and the State
geological surveys have produced well over 7,500 new geologic maps. In
2004 alone, over 400 geologic maps and reports were published. Data in
these maps cover a combined area of nearly 100,000 square miles. The
high priority areas selected to map were determined by stakeholder
groups, land management agencies, and state mapping advisory
committees.
During the last 13 years geologic maps have been completed in
National Parks, National Forests, and lands managed by BLM and other
land-management agencies. To give one timely example, geologic maps of
all four major National Forests in southern California were completed
in the past year. These maps were put to good use by the Burned Area
Emergency Response teams (BAER) that responded to the fires that
devastated large areas between Los Angeles and San Diego. They are
continuing to be used during the winter rainy season to predict where
major debris flows, and or mud slides, might endanger the local
communities.
In 1993, the first year after initial passage of the Act, 34 state
geological surveys and the USGS participated in this program to produce
new geologic maps. In 2004 the number of State geological surveys
participating has grown to 47. In that first year, $1.2 million was
distributed to the state surveys. Since 2001 over $6 million in federal
funds has been matched annually by state survey dollars. Cumulatively,
over the 13 years of the program, over $55 million has been distributed
to 48 states, and these federal dollars were matched by state dollars.
In 1995 the education component of the program, EDMAP, was
implemented to train the next generation of geologic mappers. This
training component fills a gap generally not addressed through National
Science Foundation grants and other mechanisms. In the first year of
the program, fewer than 40 students received funds to do field work and
learn how to construct a geologic map. Currently, over 550 university
students from 120 universities across the Nation have received
training. Initially, EDMAP only supported graduate students. In 2000,
the decision was made to expand support to undergraduate students in
the hope that this would positively influence their decision to
continue in the Earth Sciences. We are presently in the process of
surveying all former EDMAP recipients. I can report, from the
information received to date, that this training program has been
successful. Of those surveyed candidates that have responded, 100% of
the Masters and Ph.D. candidates and 82% of the B.S. candidates have
all continued in geoscience. These figures are above the national
averages and attest to the strength of EDMAP.
In 1999 two economists from the Illinois State Geological Survey
teamed up with the Kentucky Geological Survey to undertake a rigorous
analysis of the economic benefits of detailed geologic mapping to
Kentucky. Two conclusions from this study are particularly worth
mentioning. First, the total value of the geologic mapping program, at
the minimum, is at least 25 times the cost of the program. Second, even
though the bedrock geologic maps produced in Kentucky were originally
created primarily for the coal industry, during the past 20 years these
maps have been used by a wide array of users for everything from
exploring for groundwater resources to planning cities to finding
minerals.
Currently, USGS is in close coordination and agreement with the
Association of American State Geologists (AASG) on this reauthorization
bill and on associated geologic mapping issues. During the past year we
have met to discuss the Act (P.L. 106-148) frequently, and while we
recommend a few changes which I will discuss in a moment, we feel that
the National Geologic Mapping Act continues to serve the Nation very
well and needs little revision. The Act was also reviewed by the
Federal Advisory Committee to the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping
Program last month, and my comments today incorporate their conclusions
as well.
The principal changes in this reauthorization bill are: First, an
increase from 48% to 50% of new funds, if appropriated, that will be
made available for matching-funds grants to State geological surveys,
second, an increase from 2% to 4% of new funds for matching-funds
grants to Universities to train the next generation of geologic
mappers, and third, keeping future authorization levels equal to the
2005 level in the present Act.
With the development of digital mapping technology and the
Internet, geologic maps have become the most effective means of
providing decision-makers and their geo-technical consultants with
information that they need. All geologic maps being produced today
under the auspices of the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program
are digital, and each year more and more of these maps are being
provided on the Internet. However, due to the labor intensive nature of
producing geologic maps, a large percentage of the Nation has yet to be
mapped. We are encouraged by this legislation to continue in this
critical effort. With the development of digital mapping technology,
geologic mapping is experiencing a renaissance in its use and
applicability. During the past 13 years the USGS and the state
geological surveys have worked together to implement the National
Geologic Map Database, as called for in the Act. While this database
provides a variety of tools and services, I would like to highlight
just one--a catalog that provides information on almost every geologic
map ever produced in the United States, and how anyone can obtain
copies of the maps. This invaluable information spans 60,000 products.
In 2004, the American Geological Institute (AGI) published a new
booklet entitled Meeting Challenges with Geologic Maps. The USGS, the
Association of American State Geologists, the National Park Service,
and the Geological Society of America worked with AGI to produce this
educational publication. It provides many excellent examples of how
geologic maps are a public good and provide benefit to the Nation. This
would not be happening without the National Geologic Mapping Act.
Mr. Chairman, in concluding my remarks, I would like to state that
the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992, and its subsequent
reauthorizations, have been instrumental in helping focus attention on
the Nation's need for a new generation of high-quality geologic maps.
The Administration supports the reauthorization, but is concerned that
the funding level proposed for reauthorization significantly exceeds
current appropriations. Any additional funding for the National
Cooperative Geologic mapping program will have to compete with other
priorities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to express the views
of the Administration on the National Geologic Mapping Act. I would be
happy to respond to any questions you may have.
on s. 213
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on S. 213, the
Rio Arriba County Land Conveyance Act. S. 213 would convey
approximately 150.86 acres of land managed by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) in Rio Arriba County (County), New Mexico, to the
County for the purposes of providing County facilities, a new public
school, and a cemetery for a local parish on the lands. The Department
supports the conveyance. We recommend some technical clarifications to
the bill, and would like the opportunity to work with the sponsors and
the Subcommittee to develop language to address these clarifications.
The lands proposed for conveyance in S. 213 are located to the
north of Santa Fe, in the vicinity of Alcalde in north-central New
Mexico. The growing population in Rio Arriba County has led to an
increasing demand for municipal services. However, Rio Arriba County
has a limited land base, and has been working with the BLM in an effort
to acquire Federal land for use in the County's efforts to provide
expanded services.
Under the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act, the BLM can
administratively transfer Federal lands to local governments at a
reduced price, for various public purposes, including schools and
municipal facilities. If the lands to be conveyed under S. 213 were
part of the public domain, the BLM would have been able to transfer the
lands under R&PP Act without the need for authorizing legislation.
However, these lands are located on the Sebastian Martin Land Grant and
were acquired by the Federal government under the Bankhead-Jones Act.
The R&PP Act does not apply to acquired lands. Section 3(c) of S. 213
resolves this issue by directing that the land conveyed under the
legislation be treated as public land for purposes of the R&PP Act.
Under the R&PP Act, local governments may purchase Federal lands at
reduced prices. The R&PP Act authorizes a schedule of reduced prices
established by the Secretary, based upon the fair market value of the
property, with a reduction based on the proposed use. For most public
purposes, a local government may purchase Federal lands under the R&PP
Act for $10 per acre. The special pricing applies to land which will be
under the control of the local government, used for government
purposes, and serve the general public. Examples include land on which
facilities will be constructed for education and public health, fire
and law enforcement, administrative services, social services, storage
and maintenance, and public works. We would like the opportunity to
work with the Subcommittee to clarify exactly which lands among the
150.86 acres are proposed for which specific uses and to develop a more
precise map. Once we have that information, the Secretary would be able
to apply the provisions of the R&PP Act to determine the appropriate
price to be paid by the County.
We believe some clarifications to the legislation would be helpful.
The bill should clarify that valid existing rights are protected. In
addition, the bill should resolve the inconsistency between Section
3(a), which directs the Secretary to convey ``all right, title, and
interest'' in the lands, and the R&PP Act, under which the mineral
estate is reserved to the United States. In addition, conveyances under
the R&PP Act require analysis under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). Also, because the lands to be conveyed under S. 213 were
identified for retention under the BLM's Taos Resource Management Plan
(RMP), the RMP will need to be amended. Completion of the requisite
NEPA analysis and RMP amendment may not be possible within the one-year
time frame prescribed for the land transfer under bill.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. We look forward to
working with the Subcommittee to help achieve a positive result. I will
be happy to answer any questions.
on s. 267
Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today's hearing on S.
267, the ``Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination
Reauthorization Act of 2005.'' The underlying Act, the Secure Rural
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-393)
will expire on September 30, 2006. S. 267 extends the authorization of
P.L. 106-393 from 2006 until 2013. The Department could support S. 267
if amended with agreed-upon savings that fully offset the costs of the
bill in fiscal year 2007 and beyond, and if the bill is amended to
incorporate other changes. The Administration would be pleased to work
with the Subcommittee and the appropriations committees to address this
and other amendments to improve the bill.
Background
As we testified at the Subcommittee's February 8, 2005, oversight
hearing on implementation of the Act, in addition to the rangeland
managed 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.
Congress set the stage for the long and close association between
the BLM and the O&C counties when, in the O&C Act, it directed the
Department of the Interior to manage the O&C lands for ``the purpose of
providing a permanent source of timber supply, protecting watersheds,
regulating stream flow, and contributing to the economic stability of
local communities and industries, and providing recreational
facilities.'' The O&C counties receive approximately 50 percent of the
receipts from timber harvested from public lands in the counties.
By the late 1980s and early 1990s, litigation regarding the
northern spotted owl resulted in steep reductions in timber harvests in
the Pacific Northwest, and correspondingly steep reductions in income
to counties that depended on revenues from timber harvests on public
lands to fund essential local government services. In the years between
1989 and 1993, income to O&C counties from timber harvests dropped by
nearly 30 percent, to approximately $79 million. In response to this,
Congress enacted ``safety net payments'' to stabilize income flow to
timber-dependent counties during this tumultuous period, through the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-66).
In 2000, Congress repealed the ``safety net payments'' and enacted
the Secure Rural Schools Act to set a stable level of payments to
counties. The Act provided the O&C counties with the option of
receiving a full payment amount equal to the average of their three
highest timber receipt years from 1986 through 1999. In addition, under
the Act the counties elect the percentage of the payment (80-85
percent) to be distributed directly to the counties (Title I), and the
remaining percentage (15-20 percent) to be allocated between Title II
projects (administered by the BLM), Title III projects (administered by
the counties), or returned to the Treasury.
Under Title II, funds are used to support cooperative projects,
under the guidance of Resource Advisory Committees (Committees), to
restore healthy conditions on public lands or on private lands for the
benefit of public land resources. Such projects include wildfire hazard
reduction, stream and watershed restoration, forest road maintenance,
and road decommissioning or obliteration, control of noxious weeds, and
improvement of fish and wildlife habitat. Under Title III of the Act,
counties may use funds for emergency services, community service work
camps, purchase of easements for recreation or conservation, forest
related after-school programs, and fire prevention activities.
The Resource Advisory Committee process authorized by the Act has
served as a catalyst to bring together diverse groups and individuals
with the shared goal of improving the condition of our public lands. In
projects selected through collaborative decision-making, the BLM has
worked in partnership with state and local governments and stakeholders
to improve the condition of the O&C lands and support the development
of community-based strategies to protect these communities from
catastrophic wildfire.
To date, the BLM's five Resource Advisory Committees have
recommended for approval over $33 million in Title II restoration
projects on public lands or for projects on private lands that enhance
public lands. The Act has allowed the BLM to undertake a greater amount
of on-the-ground restoration activities than would otherwise have been
possible. Reauthorization of the Act, under S. 267, will strengthen
these efforts.
S. 267
Section 2(a) of the bill extends the payments authorized under all
three titles of the Act from 2006 to 2013. As amended, the payment
authorities would sunset on September 30, 2013, and any funds not
obligated by September 30, 2014, would be returned to the Treasury.
Section 2(b) of the bill amends, among other things, Section
103(b)(1) of the Act to extend the counties' election to receive 50
percent payments through fiscal year 2013, and adds language to that
Act that authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to give counties the
opportunity to elect in writing during the last quarter of fiscal year
2006 to begin receiving the 50 percent payment effective with the
payment for fiscal year 2007.
Section 2(c)(2) of the bill amends the Act to state that if the
Secretary of the Treasury determines that a shortfall in revenues is
likely, all revenues, fee, penalties and miscellaneous receipts ,
subject to certain limited exceptions, shall be reserved to make
payments to the counties for that fiscal year. We believe this section
is unnecessary and concur with the Forest Service in recommending that
it be removed from the bill.
Section 2(e) of S. 267 amends the ``Merchantable Material
Contracting Pilot Program'' authorized by Section 204(e)(3) of the Act
to authorize the Secretary to establish a pilot program at the request
of a Resource Advisory Committee to implement one or more the projects
recommended by the Resource Advisory Committees. While we have no
objection to the amendment, we urge the Subcommittee to consider
whether the goals of the Pilot Program can be more effectively reached
using Stewardship Contracting authority to implement Title II projects
with merchantable materials.
Section 2(f) of the bill amends the Act to add notification
requirements by counties receiving funds under the Act. Specifically,
it requires participating counties to submit to the Secretary written
notification specifying each project for which the county obligated
funds during the fiscal year. The Secretary is then required to review
the notifications to assess the success of participating counties in
achieving the purposes of the bill. Additionally, Section 2(f) amends
the Act to require the Secretary to prepare an annual report containing
the results of the most recent reviews conducted by the Secretary. We
have concerns about this provision as it requires the Secretary to
monitor and report on the use of these funds.
To address these and other concerns, the Administration would like
to work with the Committee on other technical and substantive
amendments which we will be providing. As stated earlier, the
Department could support S. 267, if amended with agreed-upon savings
that fully offset the costs of the bill in fiscal year 2007 and beyond.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
on s. 476
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 476, the Boy Scouts
of America Land Transfer Act of 2005, introduced by Senator Hatch. The
Department of the Interior has a limited role in this legislation and
the exchange it facilitates, but does not oppose the legislation.
Background
During the 1970s, the BLM patented nearly 1400 acres of public land
through four separate Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act patents
to the Utah National Parks Council of the Boy Scouts of America for the
purpose of establishing a campground and recreational area for scouting
programs. The campground is now known as Camp Thunder Ridge. Among the
restrictions placed on the lands under the provisions of the R&PP Act
patents is a prohibition on the sale, transfer or exchange of the
lands. Absent this legislation, the Utah National Parks Council of the
Boy Scouts would not be able to complete the proposed exchange.
S. 476
S. 476 provides for the exchange of lands between two private
parties, the Utah National Parks Council of the Boy Scouts of America
and Brian Head Resort. The legislation mandates that the terms and
conditions that apply to the original Federal patent for the parcel of
land to be exchanged by the Boy Scouts shall be transferred to the
parcel of land to be acquired by the Boy Scouts. The bill further
stipulates that the lands are of approximately equal value.
Because the land which the Boy Scouts propose to exchange with
Brian Head Resort was patented by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
under the R&PP Act, the Federal government retains a reversionary
interest in the land if the terms and conditions of the original patent
are violated. As noted, the legislation would transfer the terms and
conditions contained in the original patent to the new parcel of land,
creating a reversionary interest in those lands.
The lands proposed for exchange under this bill are in southwestern
Utah, near Cedar City in Iron County. It is our understanding that the
intent of both parties is to consolidate their respective lands in
order to allow for their more efficient use.
Given that the Federal government's interest in this legislation is
limited to its reversionary interest, we support the language applying
the terms and conditions of the original parcel to the parcel to be
acquired. While the BLM does not have independent knowledge of the
value of the parcels proposed for exchange, the legislation stipulates
that these parcels are of equal value. Ensuring that the parcels to be
exchanged are of equal value is critical to protecting the Federal
government's interest. Finally, we support the provision in section
3(b)(2) of the bill that provide for Secretarial discretion in the
exercise of the Federal government's reversionary interest. Given the
potential risks or liabilities that may exist with improvements or
hazards on the property, we strongly support this provision.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, I will be happy to answer
any questions.
Senator Craig. Gentlemen, thank you very much.
Ron and I were looking out the window at that moisture.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. Very envious of it for Idaho and Oregon.
We're in deep trouble out in our Western States this spring--
winter and spring--at least to date, with the absence of
moisture.
Anyway, again, thank you. Mark, let me start with you, and
thank you for your testimony.
Since I want to spend most of our time on S. 267, let me
say thank you for your support of S. 179. I'm sure that the Boy
Scouts and Senator Feinstein will appreciate that.
I see, in your testimony, the administration is taking the
fiscally responsible position of supporting S. 267, providing
offsets can be found in the fiscal year 2007 and beyond
budgets.
In fiscal year 2003, the Forest Service contributed to the
county payment. The contribution was $385.1 million. That was
based on the formula in Public Law 106-393. That is the average
of the high 3 years 25-percent payment between 1986 and 1999. I
also note that the actual 2003 25-percent payment would have
been approximately $70.3 million in the absence of Public Law
106-393.
Mark, I have serious concern about the decline of Forest
Service receipts. But this is not the time or place to discuss
that. I want you to know that we are going to be having some
hearings to try to analyze the problem at hand. I've been
looking at a graph, and looking at the historic relationships,
and they don't fit. And now the Forest Service has become
increasingly dependent upon the general fund of our government,
and that may be the way the country wants it; but, if so, we
need to see what we can do to deal with it responsibly.
As for finding offsets, please get your list of offsets
from the Forest Service budget to us. I think that what Ron has
suggested is critically important, that we work collectively
together. That is also true of you, Chris, because our time is
short as we try to resolve where we're going to be in relation
to the funding of this, what I believe now, and I think most
agree, critical law.
Mark, I see your recommendations for section 2(c) of the
bill will be dropped, because you indicated that it is not
needed. My staff tells me that, after the passage of the
original bill in 2000, several forests in at least two regions
reduced their contribution to the 25-percent payment fund below
the levels called for in the bill. They did this because they
believed the Treasury would pick up the slack.
Given that some of your people did that, what alternative
policy have you promulgated, or will you promulgate, to ensure
each unit contributes at least 25 percent of their gross
receipts to help pay for Public Law 106-393? And in absence of
such policy, can you give us a good reason that section 2,
subsection (c) shouldn't be included in the bill?
And I also see that you're interested in some changes in
sections of S. 267 that call for audit reports of the title III
project.
So that's three questions there. If you could deal with
those, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Rey. First, it is our policy to follow the law, as it's
written, in Public Law 106-393, to return all receipts to the
National Forest Fund that are required. We have not been able
to find any instance where a forest or a region has
deliberately not followed the law as required. And, indeed, we
have had three clean audits over the last 3 years, so,
ostensibly, that sort of misappropriation of funds would have
been discovered in those audit procedures.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there was an error
of that nature, it's an error that does not require a change in
the statute. The statue is pretty clear that the money has to
be put into the National Forest Fund; ergo, changing it is not
required. We need to validate or confirm for ourselves that the
information that you have is either correct or not correct. If
it's correct, then we have to make sure that we enforce the
law, as written.
The second question is, why, in the face of some confusion
over that, it's still not a good idea to amend the law, as you
all have proposed in section 2(c). And I think the reason for
that is, the way you've written it implies that the Secretary
of the Treasury has to make a contemporaneous audit during the
year to evaluate whether we, in fact, are complying; and then
adjust accordingly, if we aren't. And the Secretary of the
Treasury indicates to us that that's not something he's capable
of doing within a calendar year.
So I think the key here is, before we go about changing
what, to us, is a pretty a clear requirement of law, let's
ascertain whether, in fact, it hasn't been followed, or that's
the case, and if it hasn't been followed, then let's do what
needs to be done to remediate that, but let's not change what,
to us, is a fairly clear directive, on its face.
In terms of additional suggestions on title III, what the
bill proposes is a separate Forest Service audit of title III
expenditures, which are expenditures that the Forest Service
has no control over, since they're conveyed directly to the
counties.
I think a better approach, if you want greater
accountability for the expenditure of title III funds--and they
are less accountable to the Federal Government now than title
II funds--is to account for them in the same way we account for
title II funds, which is to make the expenditure of title II
funds subject to the approval--to the review and approval of a
Resource Advisory Committee. That provides an independent
entity to review the expenditure and, through the work of the
Resource Advisory Committee and our aggregation of the data
that they provide us, an ability to track how that money is
spent. And I think that's far superior than sending the Forest
Service off trying to audit county books, which I can assure
you will not be well received in many counties in the country.
And, probably, our accountants will be poorly received when
they show up at the county seat for that purpose.
Senator Craig. Thank you, Mark. My time is up. That last
suggestion was probably a pretty good one.
Also, I'm still concerned, and my staff, and you, and I
will work together. I think that, in region one, we had some
problems as it relates to receipts. We seem to have the
evidence that needs to be effectively refuted by the agency, or
I think my position stands.
Thank you very much. Let me turn to my colleague, Ron
Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Well, thank you both, Mr. Kearney and Mr.
Rey, and I appreciate all the constructive help in all of this.
I want to think about that last suggestion you made, Mr. Rey,
but it certainly sounds sensible to me, I mean, in terms of how
we make sure that we get the most value for the dollar. So
we'll definitely work with you on it.
What I do want to talk about, though, is the next 60 hours,
in terms of this program, because I think the next 60 hours--
and I know Senator Smith has a great interest in this, as
well--the next 60 hours for this program are a big deal,
because, between now and probably very late on Thursday night,
that's when the budget is going to play out. And if we don't
get this program in there, everything else is, sort of, uphill.
There are certainly ways to do it, but it becomes much harder.
What can you tell us, in terms of where we are right now,
and particularly--what I'd like to do with my 5 minutes is I'd
like your pledge today to say that you will work with the
interested Members of this committee--and you've already got
four of them here, and Senator Domenici and others--starting
this afternoon, through the end of the budget process, so that
we nail down these offsets. Because this is a program that
works, and it would be, I think, a terrible thing to lose this
because there's a fight about the offsets. The offsets, of
course, are a big deal. I can think of a lot of offsets that
Republicans would hate, and a lot of offsets the Democrats
would hate. I don't want to see that be where this program
goes.
So, tell us where we are. And, particularly, can we have
your pledge to work with the interested members of this
committee, the chairs and the ranking members, both committee
and subcommittee, and Senator Smith and others who are
interested in this, so we can make sure the next 60 hours gets
used well?
Mr. Rey. Well, on the latter question first, of course you
have our pledge. That's what we indicated in our testimony,
that we would work with the committee to find offsets.
In terms of where we are, I'm, I guess, at the same
disadvantage that everyone else is, that I haven't seen the
draft work product that the chair of the Budget Committee will
shortly produce.
Senator Wyden. What does the chair tell you about this
program and any offsets?
Mr. Rey. In our proposal, the program is partially offset
already. The 2006 expenditures are already offset, since they
are included in the budget baseline from previous years. And,
as I understand it, the BLM portion of the program is also
offset. So the ``find,'' if you will, is somewhat smaller than
the entirety of the program. We're talking about finding
offsets for the Forest Service component of the program for
fiscal year 2007 and beyond, which is a little more than half
of what the cost of the program is, if I recall correctly.
I have not had any recent communications with the Budget
committee. That is to say, within the last week or so. I
understand, from communications prior to that time, that there
was considerable support among some of the Members of the
Budget committee for making sure that this program carried
forward.
Senator Wyden. How do you think that we ought to tackle
this? Do you have some ideas for additional offsets?
Mr. Rey. I have a couple, but I'd prefer to wait and see
what the chairman's mark looks like, as it's developed, to see
what kinds of offsets they have in mind.
Senator Wyden. Who do you want us to work with at the
Forest Service so that when I bring the tuna fish and we're
sitting there over the next 60 hours trying to work this out,
we know who we ought to be dealing with?
Mr. Rey. It would be either myself or Dave Tenny, my
assistant.
Senator Wyden. Okay. And you've already basically said it,
you'll give us the time we need, starting this afternoon,
tonight, and through tomorrow and Thursday, so we can get this
done.
Mr. Rey. Correct.
Senator Wyden. All right. I appreciate it. I may have some
additional questions for you all, for the record. And Senator
Bingaman has brought up issues I know he feels strongly about,
and I want to work closely with him. Senator Smith is here. We
have seen the value of this program; and out in Oregon people
are talking who basically wouldn't show up in a room together,
as a result of this law. So let's use our time this week to get
this program off to a good start.
Thank you, again, for all the cooperation you've shown us.
This is a textbook case of how it ought to work, and we look
forward to getting this done.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rey. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Craig. Ron, thank you. I was planning to attend
those meetings, until I found out you were only bringing tuna
fish.
Senator Wyden. Well, we'll have the Craig special.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. All right.
Now let me turn to Senator Bingaman.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I support the effort to move ahead with the
legislation, and appreciate your willingness to look for
offsets.
I do have a question, Mr. Kearney, about the position that
you're taking on another issue, which is not the subject of
this hearing, and that's the Payment in Lieu of Taxes bill that
I raised with you before. In September 2003, you testified then
that ``The position''--this was speaking on behalf of the
Department of the Interior--``Our position in the bill remains
unchanged. The administration strongly supports PILT and RRS
programs, and views them as a high priority. But the
administration is opposed to the bill, because it would force
the Federal Government to either raise taxes or cut into other
programs.''
You take that view on PILT, and you take a very different
view on this county payments bill. I'd just be interested in
your explanation of why the difference.
Mr. Kearney. Senator, in the particular case of this
legislation, there is clearly an issue with its cost in the
current situation, and that's why we would be interested in
working with the committee to address it through offsets.
In the case of--and we have also had a clear and--statement
of a commitment to addressing the PAYGO principles in
conjunction with the budget.
In terms of the PILT legislation, at that time, the issues
then, as now, covered a great number of matters that did not
allow us to easily address, in that context, an offset, and it
was not part of the discussion at the time, in terms of
offsets. And, in this particular case, there is a desire to
attempt to identify offsets, as we indicated, and that's our
position for it.
Senator Bingaman. Well, I guess I don't really understand.
You said that, in the case of the county payments bill, there's
a desire to find offsets; in the case of PILT, there was not.
And that's what I said. I was asking you why.
Mr. Kearney. The PILT legislation is a discretionary
program, and continues as a discretionary program. And so,
therefore, the budget issues at question, in terms of its
impacts, are of, as I stated, in terms of the various issues
you have to address. In the case of the particular rural
schools legislation, it was--established mandatory payment
legislation that had a spending stream--you know, an offset
that was established at the time. And, going forward, if it
were to continue, it would be treated--it would have to be
treated that way.
So there are also different budgetary treatments for each
of the pieces of legislation, in terms of the way they're
treated in the budget.
Senator Bingaman. Well, I certainly agree that there are
different budgetary treatments. I still don't think that
answers the question of why the administration supports one and
opposes the other.
But let me move on to this other aspect of the bill.
Section 204 of the county payments legislation states, quote,
``The Secretary shall ensure''--and that's the phrase it uses--
``shall ensure that not less than a certain percentage of the
projects be implemented under separate contracts, as required
by the Merchantable Materials Contracting Pilot Program.''
Now, the data we've received from the Forest Service makes
it appear that there's been no real effort to meet the
requirements of that. Mr. Rey, maybe you're better equipped to
respond to that. I believe the data shows that you haven't come
close to meeting those requirements.
Mr. Rey. I think the question of whether we're close to
meeting those requirements has, in front of it, a
misapprehension of what this program was going to be about.
That misapprehension was that this program was going to result
in counties' Resource Advisory Committees spending title II
funds to fund commercial timber sales. Indeed, if you'll recall
the rhetoric from 2000, many environmental groups were calling
this bill ``Clearcuts for Kids.''
Indeed, in the 5 years that have ensued, few, if any,
commercial timber sales have been approved by county Resource
Advisory Committees. So the opportunity to use this pilot
project has been severely circumscribed by the fact that that
misapprehension never came to be.
In fact, there are only 100 of the 2,200--I think that's
the number we're using now--projects that involve any
commercial material at all. That's what the Forest Service data
base would tell you. But that data base includes, as commercial
material, anything that was sold for a price. So it includes,
not only logs, but other products, like gravel, if a gravel
deposit was discovered in the course of rehabilitating a road
and there was some value to the gravel that was secondarily
sold as part of the project.
Of those hundred commercial projects, we've had six where
the kind of material that was removed involved logs of a size
that lent themselves to this independent sort yard. The balance
that had any kind of fiber material associated with them at all
were projects that involved the removal of low-value fiber for
the use in biomass energy facilities, or other small-diameter
materials that would have deteriorated very quickly had they
been handled through the second transaction required by a
separate sort yard.
So if you were looking at this the way some groups were
looking at it in 1999 and 2000, and assumed that a significant
number of commercial timber sales would be planned for and paid
for under title II, then this independent sort yard proposal
would have been used a great deal more.
If you look at the situation today, and the kinds of
projects that are involved in the 2200 that have been approved,
what you find is a very different story. And so far we've had
six projects that involved enough volume of larger diameter
material such that a separate sort yard was even feasible,
given the material that had to be sold.
Obviously, if you're working with small diameter material
or material that's suitable only for biomass energy, you're not
going to get many bidders if you pile it up someplace and say,
``Come and buy it.''
Senator Bingaman. My time is up, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Senator Bingaman.
Now let me turn to our colleague from Oregon, Senator
Smith. Gordon, we made opening statements. You can certainly do
that, if you wish, and follow up with questions.
Senator Smith. Mr. Chairman, why don't I just put it in the
record?
Senator Craig. Without objection, it'll become a part of
the record. Please proceed.
[The prepared statement of Senator Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gordon Smith, U.S. Senator From Oregon
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your willingness to hold this hearing
today on reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self
Determination Act. I am a cosponsor of the legislation before us today,
and look forward to working with my colleagues and the Administration
toward reauthorization.
Over the past 15 years, there has been a crippling decline in the
sale of federal timber, resulting in a corresponding decline in
payments to counties. Between 1984 and 2004, for example, harvest on
the Umpqua National Forest fell 99 percent. Total harvest across
Oregon's national forests is only 7 percent of what it was in 1984.
I wholeheartedly support efforts to rebuild the timber economy in
my state. However, stability has yet to return to that sector of our
economy. As we meet here, protesters in Southern Oregon are physically
blocking the harvest of charred and rotting timber killed in the
Biscuit Fire--nearly three years ago. I cannot consign the schools of
Josephine County, or any other county in my state, to the outcomes of
such antics or the now-obligatory legal battles. Unfortunately, forest
fires and safety net payments are all that my counties can count on
these days from public lands. From the drought we're in, we know that
fires are coming this summer. I'd like to be as certain about county
payments.
I commend the Administration for recognizing the importance of this
safety net--not only to states and counties, but also to the health of
our public lands. I believe it is essential to marry County Payments
projects with the National Fire. Plan and the Healthy Forests
Restoration Act. In doing so, we can leverage new sources of funds
toward collaborative projects.
Thank you again Mr. Chairman for your work and leadership.
Senator Smith. Gentlemen, thank you for being here. And I
truly thank you for the very constructive approach you're
taking to this issue and recognizing how important county
payments are to States and counties and, I believe, even your
forest health projects. I wonder if you can tell me what you're
doing to marry county payments projects with National Fire Plan
and the Healthy Forest Initiative efforts?
Mr. Rey. I think the short answer to that is, a lot of
Resource Advisory Committees are approving title II projects
that involve fuel reduction work on both Federal and, to some
extent, adjacent non-Federal lands. Additionally, counties have
been using title III funds more and more frequently to both do
fuel reduction work on non-Federal lands, but also to
underwrite the cost of the development of community-based fire
plans.
So the money that's being spent in title II and title III
has been integrated, increasingly over the last 18 months, with
the Healthy Forest Initiative and the Healthy Forest
Restoration Act and, prior to that, programs under the National
Fire Plan.
Mr. Kearney. And that's also the case with BLM,
particularly in the case of the title II projects.
Senator Smith. Great. That's very encouraging. And I know,
as we look toward finding that right balance between forest
protection and health efforts, with commercial harvests, and
figuring out how to keep our schools open and our counties
funded, you all will continue to pursue these opportunities to
marry these policies, because I really think it's a win-win
opportunity.
I'm also very encouraged to hear both of you this morning,
I believe, indicate that, in terms of the need for offsets in
the budget, that you already have identified lots of offsets
within your Departments. I wonder, as a percentage of the total
budget for county payments, how much would you say you have
offsets for, at this point?
Mr. Rey. I think in the 2006 budget proposal, just under
half of the program is offset.
Senator Smith. Already.
Mr. Rey. Already.
Senator Smith. And you might find some more, but----
Mr. Rey. That's what we committed, to look at--to look for
with the Budget committee.
Senator Smith. But, clearly, we need to go, as well, and
look for more offsets that we can find in the larger budgetary
scheme.
Mr. Rey. That's correct.
Senator Smith. Same with BLM?
Mr. Kearney. The same with BLM, yes.
Senator Smith. Mark, I note, in the Associated Press today,
that ten people were arrested in Oregon for protesting the
lifting of the Ninth Circuit injunction on harvesting on the
Biscuit Fire area. Do you have any update on that? I mean,
clearly if the Ninth Circuit, of all places, would lift an
injunction, it seems to me that that suggests that the Forest
Service is following all the environmental laws appropriate to
this sale.
Mr. Rey. On the face of it, that's what either denying the
grant or, thereafter, lifting an injunction would mean. So
those sales are proceeding.
Senator Smith. Any other update that you have on that?
Mr. Rey. I haven't heard what's happening out there today
yet.
Senator Smith. Okay. Well, hopefully it's peaceful and
people are exercising their rights without threatening harm to
any person on either side of this issue.
Mr. Rey. So far, our understanding is that that's been the
case.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Gordon, thank you very much.
Mark, you were visiting with Senator Bingaman about sort
yards. Is this sort yard policy experiment one that the Forest
Service is still seriously pursuing? It was something the
Forest Service, during the time we were crafting this
legislation was quite adamant in support of. And so, my
question is, If you're still pursuing it--if so, why? And if
not, why not?
Mr. Rey. Well, we're pursuing it to the extent that the
opportunity presents itself through the projects that the
Resource Advisory Committees approve. Where there are projects
that are approved by the Resource Advisory Committees that
allow themselves the opportunity for the use of a sort yard,
we'll meet the requirements of the statute. So far, that's been
a problem, because not very many of the projects provide that
opportunity.
Senator Craig. In prior discussions, and at the time we
were formulating the Act originally, was not the sort yard
concept tied, though, with other commercially valuable timber
sales?
Mr. Rey. As I said in response to Senator Bingaman, I think
that the misapprehension associated with placing the sort yard
provision into the original Act was that the county Resource
Advisory Committees would approve and fund a significant number
of commercial timber sales. And that has not been the case.
Senator Craig. Okay.
Mr. Rey. I think, in anticipation of that, the discussion
around the sort yard proposal revolved around the proposition
that this would be an interesting experiment to try on a pilot
project basis, to see how it worked. And it may be, and it may
still be, an interesting experiment to try. And we are, in
fact, trying it with half a dozen or so projects. But we
haven't had enough projects that fit that general profile to
allow us to try it in a more robust test.
Senator Craig. Okay.
Mark, I have another series of questions I will submit for
the record, because I have several I want to ask of Chris.
This past Friday, the agency announced a plan to pursue
independent third party certification on six national forests.
I'm going to submit to you a series of questions on that. As we
know, large private forest companies and others have been
pursuing this avenue of certification as it relates to
environmental standards and all of that.
So I'm not going to ask you those questions today. I think
it is important for this committee to pursue with the agency to
see what your plans are in that area. So I thank you for that.
Mr. Rey. Okay. Let me add one clarification to that, and
then we can have a dialog subsequently.
Senator Craig. All right.
Mr. Rey. The pilot project we announced on Friday will
likely not result in the certification of six forests. What
will more likely result is a comparison between what we do and
what is required for certification, so that we can look at the
differences as they exist. Now, if there is no difference,
then, theoretically, those forests could be certified. But
that's not our primary objective. Our objective is to actually
look at what we're going to do under our new environmental
management system and see how that squares up with the two
major certification systems that exist internationally today.
Senator Craig. Well, I think it will be a valuable
analysis. We'll look forward to working with you on it, and
understanding it as we proceed. Thank you very much, and
appreciate you being here this morning.
Chris, on section 2(e), you've suggested that we meet the
goals of the pilot program through stewardship contracting.
Could you discuss that a little more and explain how that might
be done, from your perspective or the Department's perspective?
Mr. Kearney. Sure, Senator.
It's another, I think, valuable way to achieve what's
trying to be done here. The pilot program calls for 50 percent
of the contracts that include the material to include a service
contract to do the logging and a separate contract to sell the
timber. In the case of stewardship contracting, we generally
use one contractor to do the logging, remove the material, and
then sell the material in order to offset the costs of that.
And that would be the way we would carry forward here. In fact,
three of the BLM's projects under the act that included
merchantable material have a separate contract for sale of the
material. So the stewardship contracting process is an
effective way to achieve the--carrying out what you're trying
to achieve there.
Senator Craig. I see that both Secretaries have expressed
concern about having to monitor title III projects. Given that
we have provided over 40 million annually in title III
projects, what type of oversight do you suggest the Federal
Government provide to ensure these funds are expended in the
manner the law prescribes? And who, other than anybody but the
Department, do you suggest we task with the duty?
Mr. Kearney. Well, this goes much to what Mr. Rey said
earlier, in terms of----
Senator Craig. Well, I wanted to see if you both were on a
similar sheet.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kearney. My answer is the same as Mr. Rey's in this
particular case. There is certainly the issue with respect to
the concern about the Secretary of Treasury being able to
monitor this, and how they've advised us. And so, we'd
certainly be happy to work with the committee to try to find a
way to clarify the way the language is described and to get at
the underlying issue and concern that you have, Senator.
Senator Craig. Then you are of the same mind, that if the
Federal Government arrives at the steps of the county
courthouse and says, ``We're the Government. We're here to
audit you,'' there might be pushback at the county level?
Mr. Kearney. Without question, we are of that view, sir,
yes.
Senator Craig. I think you're probably right.
All right. I see that you have coordinated your testimony
on funding S. 267 with the Forest Service. And, obviously,
we've been zeroing in on Mr. Rey about that. The annual budget
of each of the BLM districts and the annual revenues produced
on each district, we would need that information, if you can do
that.
Mr. Kearney. We'd be happy to provide that for the record,
sir.
Senator Craig. And a list of offsets from the BLM budget to
pay for the 100 million that the BLM should be contributing to
help pay for this bill.
Mr. Kearney. We're certainly happy to look into that for
you, as well.
Senator Craig. Okay.
Lastly, on S. 213, the Rio Arriba conveyance, if you can't
get the NEPA requirement completed within the 1 year, how long
do you need?
Mr. Kearney. Well, Senator, in the case of the preparation
of NEPA documents, with scoping and EA, that takes the better
part of a year. And so, we would have a sense, at the
conclusion of that process, how long. It would be inappropriate
for us to estimate now how long that might take, but we'd
certainly have a better sense once the EA process is complete.
Senator Craig. Okay.
Well, gentlemen, thank you both. We have work to do in the
next week. And we appreciate your cooperation and willingness
to work with us on a program that I think certainly this
committee and those of us in areas of the Nation where we've
seen this program at work feel that it has positive values and
needs to be continued.
Thank you much.
Mr. Kearney. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Rey. Thank you.
Senator Craig. Now let me invite panel 2 to the table,
Michael Francis, Wilderness Society, Washington, D.C., and
Robert Douglas, superintendent, Tehama County Schools, Red
Bluff, California.
Mike, again, welcome before the committee, and please
proceed.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. FRANCIS, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL FORESTS
PROGRAM, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY
Mr. Francis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. I want to thank you for the opportunity to
testify on S. 267, Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Reauthorization Act of 2005. That is a mouthful.
The Wilderness Society concurs with the conclusion of a
recent study conducted by Boise State University that this
legislation is effectively meeting the stated purposes.
Payments have been stabilized, investment of Federal lands have
increased, and cooperative relationships have improved since
the passage of this Act.
The Wilderness Society supports the reauthorization of the
law, provided it is a clean bill, with no changes except those
housekeeping type of changes that are needed. We view, as an
example of housekeeping changes, section 2(d) of the bill
allows for reappointment and length of service of members of
the committee--Resource Advisory Committees to be extended. And
we think it addresses a need that has been identified by both
the conservationists and the RAC members for their better
operation.
The Wilderness Society, as you have already noted, has one
major concern with S. 267. It is the elimination of the
Merchantable Materials Contracting Pilot Program in title II.
This change is problematic for three main reasons. First, it is
premature to eliminate the pilot program. The program has not
yet had a chance to yield results that make an informed
judgment on the program. Second, the new language eliminates a
requirement of current law that certain percentage of
merchantable tree projects be conducted to separate contract
for logging and selling of the wood. Third, giving RACs an
added responsibility of requesting a pilot program would inject
new and maybe needless controversy into the title II process.
As members of the subcommittee know, the Wilderness Society
was originally skeptical of title II when the law was being
written, believing that it could promote unsustainable
development on national forests. However, based on about 6
months of research, the Wilderness Society thinks the Title's
projects have been successful, so far, in achieving the
resource stewardship objectives established under the law. We
believe the success of title II, along with a lack of
controversy about the projects, is due, in part, to the pilot
program, which creates incentives for the RACs to recommend
projects with the goal of conservation and restoration.
Also, we believe the program facilitates decisionmaking
between the timber industry and the environmentalists,
especially on projects that have originally been difficult to
prove, such as fuels reduction projects.
Mr. Chairman, by all accounts, the Resource Advisory
Committee process has been very successful in bringing together
community members with divergent, strongly held views, helping
them interact and understand and accommodate each other's needs
and approaches, and helping them to work together to achieve
agreement on projects proposals that benefit the community, as
a whole. This is a very considerably--considerable achievement,
and should not be lost.
However, the proposed changes in the law--removing the
pilot program, and the separate contracting percentage
requirements--threatens to sow dissension in the ranks.
Removing the break on the pilot--the break of the pilot program
is likely to be perceived by some as a signal from Congress
that it finds stewardship and restoration components of title
II to be less than compelling.
Given the voting structure of the RACs, wherein the
majority of the members of each of the three recognized
categories of community of interest that's required for project
approval, the proposed changes in the law could polarize RAC
members, undermine the law's most impressive accomplishment,
and significantly hinder the program in the future.
The Wilderness Society strongly recommends that Congress
retain the current direction and definition of the Merchantable
Materials Pilot Program.
Mr. Chairman, the Wilderness Society supports a clean
reauthorization of the bill. We stand ready to work with the
committee.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Francis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael A. Francis, Director, National Forests
Program, The Wilderness Society, on S. 267
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank you
for this opportunity to testify on S. 267--the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self Determination Reauthorization Act of 2005. P.L. 106-393
has proven to be successful in stabilizing payments to rural school
systems and county governments and funding many environmentally
beneficial projects on national forests. We commend the members of this
Committee who helped to craft this law.
The Wilderness Society concurs with the conclusion of a recent
study of P.L. 106-393 conducted by Boise State University that the
legislation is effectively meeting its stated purposes. Payments have
been stabilized, investments in Federal lands have increased, and
cooperative relationships have improved since passage of the Act. More
than 85% of the eligible counties have opted to participate in the
guaranteed payments program established under Title I. Title II of the
legislation has funded hundreds of environmentally beneficial and non-
controversial resource projects on the National Forests. Funding
through Title III has allowed many counties to begin developing
community fire protection plans as well as perform other important
government services. The Boise State study found overwhelming support
for renewal of the legislation among Resource Advisory Committee
members and county officials that oversee use of the Title II and III
funds.
The Wilderness Society supports reauthorization of the county
payments law, provided that it is a clean bill, with no changes except
for housekeeping provisions that are clearly necessary to ensure the
continued success of the program. Section 2(d) of the bill apparently
removes the Secretary's current explicit role in reappointing members
of a Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) and removes the prohibition on
non-Agriculture Department employees serving more than six consecutive
years on an advisory committee. These proposed changes address a need
identified by conservationists and other members of the RACs to enable
them to continue their work.
The Wilderness Society's one major concern with S. 267, as
introduced is the elimination of the merchantable materials contracting
pilot program in Title II. Under Section 204(e)(3) of P.L. 106-393 the
Secretary ``shall'' establish a pilot program for implementing Title II
projects involving the ``sale'' of merchantable trees. The pilot
program required that increasing proportions--up to 50% by 2006--of
such projects, on a national basis, be implemented using separate
contracts for (a) the harvesting, and (b) the sale, of such material,
commonly known as ``separating the log from the logger.''
Under the proposed language in S. 267, the Secretary ``may''
establish a pilot program in response to a request from a RAC to
establish such a program for the purpose of implementing a project
proposed by that RAC.
This change is problematic for three main reasons.
First, it is premature to eliminate the pilot program: the program
has not had a chance to yield enough results to make an informed
judgment about the usefulness of separate contracts. The Forest
Service's written response to Senator Bingaman's question at this
Subcommittee's February 8th hearing that less than seven percent of the
1300 projects under Title II had any merchantable materials associated
with them may indicate that the pilot program is helping to deter
federal land managers from using Title II funds to conduct potentially
controversial and inappropriate logging projects. If so, this is a very
salutary effect.
Second, the new language eliminates the current requirement in Sec.
204(e)(3)(B) that a certain percentage of merchantable tree projects be
conducted with separate contracts for logging and selling the wood. The
federal land management agency would have full discretion to deny any
request from a RAC.
Third, giving RACs the added responsibility of requesting a pilot
program would inject new and needless controversy into the Title II
process. The current RAC decision-making process requires all three
subcommittees--industry, environmental, and government--to approve any
projects. Under the proposed change, a request by the environmental
subcommittee members for use of separate contracts on a particular
project could be vetoed by either the industry or government
subcommittees. That, in turn, could compel the environmental members to
veto a project that they otherwise might have approved under the
current law.
title ii
The Wilderness Society was originally skeptical of Title II when
P.L. 106-393 was being written, believing it could promote
unsustainable development of national forests; however, based on our
research, Title II projects have been successful so far in achieving
the resource stewardship objectives established under the law.
We believe that the success of these Title II projects, along with
the lack of controversy about them, is due in part to the pilot
program, which creates incentives for the RACs to recommend projects
with the goals of conservation and restoration. Title II projects that
The Wilderness Society has reviewed implement stewardship-type
practices which benefit forests, as well as improve the overall health
of the land. The following are a few examples of projects that we have
examined:
Late Successional Reserve Enhancement, Gifford Pinchot
National Forest, Washington (2004): This project involved pre-
commercial thinning located in a Late Successional Reserve, and
aimed to accelerate the development of late-successional
conifer habitat to benefit species dependent on this
environment.
Young Stand Density Management, McKenzie River RD, Mount
Hood and Willamette National Forests, Oregon (2004): The
project thinned young stands in order to maintain stand health,
enhance species diversity, and provide a future source of large
woody debris and shade for streams.
North Shore Meadow Restoration, Mount Hood and Willamette
National Forests, Oregon (2004): This project restored an area
that had been degraded by an invasion of noxious weeds, conifer
encroachment, loss of Oregon white oaks, and construction and
ongoing maintenance of power lines.
Chewaucan Watershed Monitoring, Fremont-Winema National
Forest, Oregon (2002-2004): A watershed restoration and
monitoring program for the Lakeview Federal Stewardship Unit in
the Fremont National Forest was developed and supported by a
diverse collaborative group including The Wilderness Society.
The monitoring project employs a crew of eight students from
Lake County, supervised by a high school science teacher and
expert soil scientist, to gauge the ecological health of the
Chewaucan watershed. This kind of scientific monitoring is
essential to build trust and develop management plans that are
based on good resource data and sound science.
Ishi Wilderness/Mill Creek Watershed Tehama County,
California: This project removed feral cattle from the
watershed, by herding and fencing. The goals of removing the
cattle were to improve anadromous fish habitat, seeps and
springs, heritage resource sites, and hiking trails which were
damaged and eroded. In the project's submission form, it states
that it will improve and restore 77,290 acres of soil
productivity, and 14 miles of stream/river and fish habitat.
merchantable materials pilot program
There does not seem to be a clear and compelling rationale for
changing the pilot program, especially when considering The Wilderness
Society's findings, and a preliminary status report from the Government
Accountability Office (GAO).
The Wilderness Society's review of Title II projects and pilot
program projects has revealed significant support from the conservation
community where the pilot program projects we reviewed are located (all
of them in Oregon and California). It is crucial to recognize and value
the opinions of people involved in project implementation. RAC members
representing either local, regional, or national environmental groups
are in strong support of keeping the pilot program as a requirement in
the new law. They believe that the program facilitates decision making
between the timber industry and environmentalists, especially on
projects that would have originally been difficult to approve (i.e.
fuels reductions). In addition, they feel that without the program
there would be greater emphasis on commercial values instead of
conservation, making it more complicated to achieve any outcomes
authorized by Title II. For example, the RACs may be presented with
projects that would thin large natural stands that are economically
more attractive than the plantations of smaller trees now being
thinned. Conservationists strongly believe that the current
merchantable materials pilot program will be essential to the continued
success of Title II.
An interim status report from the GAO in 2003 on the merchantable
materials pilot program stated that out of the approximately 1,300
forest-related projects at the time, 13 were expected to generate
merchantable material, and six of those were to be conducted within the
pilot program. The report stated that none of those six projects had
been implemented at that time. However, our research shows that now one
project has successfully been completed, and others will be completed
by the end of this year. Two projects that were listed on the GAO 2003
report as ``Density Reduction-Chetco'' and ``Westside Small Tree-
Chetco'' were submitted as two separate projects, and then combined
into one: ``Small Tree Treatment Project #111056''. The status reports
of these early projects are as follows (the project names have been
updated since the GAO report):
Small Tree Treatment Project 111056: The project is 28%
completed, and consists of cutting pre-commercial and
commercial (merchantable) size trees. A contract for this
project was awarded two years ago (June FY03), but work was not
started due to a few reasons: there was a forest fire
precaution restriction, the contractor was unavailable, and
then the area was too wet to operate on. The actual work by the
contractor started the week of 2/22/05. The contract terminates
at the end of May 2005, and the project is expected to be
completed at that time.
Boaz Forest Health and Small Diameter Utilization #OR-116-
03-03: This project is approximately 30-40% complete, with 3
out of 9 units completed. The Medford BLM stated the project
will be completed by this year, and that this project is an
example they use for other projects.
West Side Small Tree Treatment Project 111335: The status of
this project is uncertain, due to the non-merchantable material
this project is producing. The original intent of the project
was to thin smaller trees, and make a fuel break along the road
system. The byproduct was going to be made into mulch to leave
on the ground. Miscommunication within the Forest Service led
to this discrepancy, since this project was originally marked
as a pilot program project.
Waters Creek Project 112007: The mechanical work on this
project was completed in April 2004, and the material was sold
as of 2/16/05. The Siskiyou National Forest believes this
project was a success.
Small Tree Treatment Project 114333: This project is only
20% completed because there was a pullback of FY03 Forest
Service funds necessary to implement the project (due to a
redirection of funding to wildfire response). The project is
currently being implemented, and the contractor is operating,
with completion expected by fall 2005.
Mr. Chairman, as a matter of principle The Wilderness Society is
concerned that the Forest Service has largely ignored the congressional
directive to establish and monitor a pilot program. Section 204(e)(3)
directs the Forest Service to establish a pilot program for the purpose
of assuring that, for Title II projects generating merchantable
material, a graduated percentage of such projects would be implemented
using separate contracts for (a) the harvesting, and (b) the selling,
of the material. The intent of the sponsors was to establish an
important safeguard insulating Title II ecological restoration projects
from economic incentives that could cause them to become ecologically
damaging. Using separate contracts removes the profit motive from the
design and placement of the project and helps retain the proper focus
on restoration.
The national office of the Forest Service simply never set up such
a pilot program, and has failed to assure compliance with the law's
separate contracting requirements. The agency's written response to
Senator Bingaman's query shows that of 88 Title II projects generating
``merchantable materials,'' only six were implemented using separate
contracting. Further, the Forest Service seems not to have
institutionalized consistent criteria for the term ``merchantable,''
thus making it difficult to evaluate on a region-wide basis which
projects have generated only incidental ``merchantable'' materials, and
which generated saw-timber or other non-incidental materials, or in
what amounts. But even allowing for projects generating only incidental
materials, the agency seems to have fallen far short of implementing
the law.
the role of separate contracts
When a project is implemented utilizing a single contractor for
removal and sale of merchantable trees, the economics of the project
are tied to the value of the trees on the stump. This situation--
present in the normal timber sale--inevitably militates towards pushing
the project into areas of higher commercial value and into potential
conflict with ecological values.
But with separate contracts, the harvester has no incentive to
remove materials of higher commercial value, since he will not be
realizing any of that value, and the project can thus focus on its
proper restoration mission. The existing law's percentage requirement
is a brake, allowing half of all such projects to be implemented with a
single contract, but preventing the program from lurching onto a
largely commercial course.
Pressures to commercialize are real, and present. One Title II
project on Idaho's Clearwater National Forest proposes to use (or has
used) Title II funds to pay for the cruises of two planned commercial
timber sales, totaling 22-27 million board feet. These are substantial
commercial sales. Paying for them with Title II funding is out of step
with the law's purposes of maintaining existing infrastructure,
enhancing forest ecosystems, and restoring and improving land health
and water quality. See Sec. 2(b)(2). That this project was approved by
the Forest Service unfortunately reinforces the perception, established
by the agency's failure to initiate a pilot program or enforce separate
contracting, that the agency has not always taken the congressional
direction seriously.
the achievement of the racs should not be lost
By all accounts, the Resource Advisory Committee process has been
very successful in bringing together community members with divergent,
strongly held views; helping them interact with, understand and
accommodate each other's needs and approaches; and helping them work
together to achieve agreement on project proposals that benefit the
community as a whole. This is a very considerable achievement, and
should not be lost.
However, the proposed changes in the law removing the pilot program
and separate contracting percentage requirements threaten to sow
dissension in the RACs. Removing the brake of separate contracting is
likely to be perceived by some as a signal from Congress that it finds
the stewardship and restoration component of Title II to be less than
compelling. It is likely to increase proposals for projects generating
merchantable materials--that is, for projects whose community benefit
is more closely tied to cutting and selling saw-timber. And because of
their perceived economic benefits, such proposals will be strongly
supported by some RAC members and by some in local communities.
On the other hand, such project proposals are likely to be even
more strongly opposed by RAC members for whom conservation is a more
important goal. As we discussed above, given the voting structure of
the RACs, wherein a majority of the members of each of the three
recognized categories of community interest is required for project
approval, the proposed change in the law could polarize RAC members,
undermine the law's most impressive accomplishment, and significantly
hinder the program from going forward.
conclusion
To address these concerns, S. 267 should be amended to restart the
required merchantable materials pilot program, with a gradual increase
during the reauthorization period in the proportion of merchantable
materials projects using separate contracts. Congress should retain the
current direction and definition of the merchantable materials pilot
program. The Wilderness Society is ready to work with the Subcommittee
to achieve the objectives of the program of restricting the potential
abuse of commercial timber sales under Title II while not hindering
fuel reduction service contracts and restoration contracts with
incidental merchantable material, and other stewardship-type efforts.
The Wilderness Society strongly recommends that the current
merchantable materials pilot program be retained in the
reauthorization.
In closing, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, The
Wilderness Society supports a clean reauthorization of the Secure Rural
Schools and Community Self Determination Act (P.L. 106-393). We stand
ready to work with the Subcommittee on our strong concerns about
certain provisions of S. 267.
Senator Craig. Mike, thank you very much for that
testimony.
Now, Bob, we'll turn to you. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF BOB DOUGLAS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FOREST COUNTIES
AND SCHOOLS COALITION
Mr. Douglas. Thank you for the invitation to testify in
support of S. 267. As you mentioned, my name is Bob Douglas.
I'm the elected county superintendent of schools in Tehama
County, California.
Since 1998, I've served as president of the National Forest
Counties and Schools Coalition, a broad-based umbrella
organization of over 1,100 organizations nationwide. A list of
our membership is appended for your information.
Our coalition has worked closely with sponsors and
cosponsors of the legislation. We are strongly supportive of S.
267, as it is currently presented. We believe the strong record
of success established during the first 4 years of implementing
Public Law 106-393 is a solid reason for Congress to extend
this statute. This bill is a public policy success story.
The county and schools safety net under title I has
resulted in the restoration and retention of programs in public
schools all across rural America. From 1986 through 1999, rural
forest schools were devastated by a decline of over 70 percent
in forest reserve funding. Teachers were laid off. Counselors,
nurses, music and art programs, field trips, elective programs,
sports, and extracurricular programs were curtailed or
eliminated. Some schools were forced to move to reduced
instructional days or weeks, and some small isolated schools
were actually closed.
For the last 4 years, title I funds, under Public Law 106-
393, have restored many of those programs and prevented the
closure of isolated schools that would not have survived
without this support.
Likewise, the title I funds provided to counties for road
infrastructure has allowed them to address the substantial
maintenance and construction backlog that was created during
1986 through 1999, as well. County roads and national forest
areas are under increased user pressure as urban and suburban
populations expand and seek greater recreation opportunities.
All of this increased use is creating an ever expanding
demand for winter snow removal, road and bridge maintenance,
and new road construction. I can assure you that the title I
funds for the support of county roads in the last 4 years has
been put to good use. Without the continuing support of title
I, the snow removal and road and bridge maintenance shortfalls
of the 1980's and 1990's will return.
In summary, I would submit that title I of Public Law 106-
393 has completely fulfilled its objectives; and the need for
continuing this support is even greater in the next 7 years, as
receipts have now declined from 70 percent to 87 percent or
greater of their historic levels in the 1986 through 1990
level.
Title II of Public Law 106-393, however, is certainly the
most exemplary and revolutionary contribution of this Act. This
was a bold land management initiative. Today, we have 59 active
Resource Advisory Committees, representing over 150 of our
largest forest counties nationally. These RACs have invested
$48.1 million in title II projects on Federal lands in 2004. To
date, these RACs have, through consensus-based decisionmaking,
approved 2,000 projects to improve watersheds, wildlife
habitat, and reduce the risk of catastrophic fire.
Simultaneously, they've created a substantial number of jobs.
Finally, title II has reduced forest management gridlock
through its decisionmaking process. As I stated, over 2,000
projects have been approved. To date, no Resource Advisory
Committee has disbanded or melted down due to unresolved
conflict. Even more impressive is the fact that, to date, no
title II project has been appealed, nor litigated.
In our view, Resource Advisory Committees are creating a
new foundation and body of knowledge that will support the next
generation of public land management initiatives. An indicator
of this is the fact that, in each year of implementation, the
RACs are bringing more partners, more funding sources, and more
creative ideas to the table. Today, over 30 percent of RAC
project funding in some parts of our country is coming from
outside partners. The RAC projects are generally becoming more
complex, treating larger areas of our national forest, and
involving larger numbers of partners.
Title III has, likewise, provided funds to counties which
have been invested to great advantage. Many forest counties
have been able to offset the rising cost of search-and-rescue
work on Federal lands. A number of counties with rapidly
expanding populations are using title III funds to purchase
conservation easements to complement their efforts to conserve
green spaces and open spaces through their county general
plans.
And in fire prevention, a large number of our counties are
investing their funds in fire prevention strategies and
educating citizens in safe actions.
Mark Rey mentioned that our RACs are working with our
counties to develop title III funding, and are also working
with title II funding to fund the implementation of these
projects.
And, finally, in title III, I would mention forest-related
education programs, because one of the finest examples was in
the room with us today.
Basically, in summary, I would say that Public Law 106-393
is a remarkable success story. It represents public policy at
its best. It is achieving its congressionally intended
objectives of restoring essential rural school and county road
infrastructures, creating essential forest health improving
projects through title II, and educating and protecting our
public, and conserving open space in our growing forest
counties.
The legacy and accomplishment of Public Law 106-393 over
the last 4 years has been positive and substantial. We believe,
the National Forest Counties and Schools Coalition believes,
that this law deserves to be, and should be, extended so it can
continue to benefit the citizens of our forest counties, our
public schools, and our national forests.
Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Douglas follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bob Douglas, President, National Forest Counties
and Schools Coalition
Thank you for the invitation to testify in support of Senate Bill
267 to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act of 2000. My name is Bob Douglas and I am the elected
County Superintendent of Schools in Tehama County, California. Since
1998, I have also served as the President of the National Forest
Counties and Schools Coalition. The Coalition is a broad-based umbrella
organization of over 1,100 organizations nationwide. A list of the
member organizations is appended for your information. As you can see,
we represent 37 states and a wide array of organizations representing
county and municipal governments, school districts, school
administrators, teachers, business and industry, local, state, and
national Chambers of Commerce, labor unions, forest user groups, and
conservation organizations. We represent the interests of 750 forest
counties nationwide and over 4,400 school districts. Our Coalition has
worked closely with sponsors and co-sponsors of this legislation prior
to its introduction, and we are strongly supportive of S. 267 as
presented. We believe that the strong record of success established
during the first four years of implementing P.L. 106-393, is a solid
reason for Congress to extend this statute. Few laws can present a more
positive record of achievement in their initial years.
I last appeared as a witness before this Committee in October of
1999 as you were considering the Secure Rural Schools and Communities
Self-Determination Act of 2000. I think it is safe to say that none of
us, including myself, envisioned the level of success that was to be
achieved by P.L. 106-393 over the next four years. P.L. 106-393 has in
all ways surpassed our expectations.
The reasons that our Coalition supported the enactment of the
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 were:
1. To restore the historic 25% forest reserve payments to county
schools and county governments for roads. (To meet the federal
obligation under the 1908 Forest Reserve Act to support county roads
and schools as essential infrastructures.)
2. To reduce political gridlock and forest management at the local
level by involving stakeholders in the active management of National
Forest lands.
3. To generate local employment through the creation of forest
health improvement projects.
4. To improve the health of our National Forests through active
management.
On all counts, P.L. 106-393 is a public success story.
The county and school safety net under Title I of P.L. 106-393 has
resulted in the restoration and retention of programs in rural schools
across the United States. From 1986 through 1999, rural forest schools
were devastated by a free fall reduction of over 70% in Forest Reserve
funding. Teachers were laid off, counselors, nurses, music and art
programs, field trips, elective programs, sports, and extracurricular
programs were curtailed and/or eliminated. Some schools were forced to
move to reduced instructional days or weeks, and some small isolated
schools were even closed. For the last four years Title I funds under
P.L. 106-393 have restored many of those programs and prevented the
closure of isolated schools that would not have survived without this
support. From a rural school administrators viewpoint, Title I funding
and its programmatic impact has been enormously beneficial.
Likewise, as I communicate with county commissioners and county
engineers responsible for road and bridge construction and maintenance,
I am repeatedly told that the Title I funds provided to counties has
allowed them to address the substantial maintenance and construction
backlog created during the 1986 through 1999 period of plummeting 25%
Forest Reserve payments. County roads in National Forest areas are
under increased user pressure as urban and suburban populations expand
and seek more recreational opportunities. All of this increased use is
creating an ever expanding demand for winter snow removal, road and
bridge maintenance, and new road construction. Title I funds for the
support of county roads has been put to good use. As a school
administrator for 39 years in forest counties, I can tell you that
timely and dependable snow removal is a serious concern for parents,
school administrators, school board members, and bus drivers. I recall
stories from county commissioners and school superintendents about how
regular snow removal had been drastically curtailed during the late
1980's and 1990's. Without the continuing support of Title I, the snow
removal and road and bridge maintenance shortfalls of the 1980's and
1990's will return.
In summary I would submit that Title I of P.L. 106-393 has
completely fulfilled its objectives, and the need for continuing this
support is even greater in the next seven years than it has been over
the last four years. I say this because if the forest counties and
schools had to return to support from actual forest receipts have now
declined from 1986 by 87%. In 2000, when P.L. 106-393 was enacted, we
had experienced a 70% decline. The need for Title I has never been
greater in our rural forest schools and counties.
Title II of P.L. 106-393 is certainly the exemplary and
revolutionary contribution of this Act. When Congress passed this bill
most envisioned creating a mechanism wherein county commissioners would
dedicate between 15 and 20% of their funds to create forest health
improving projects on National Forest and adjacent lands. Those
projects were to be recommended and approved by a broad-based 15-person
local stakeholder group that by federal design had to reach consensus
on project before recommending them to the agency for final approval.
This was a bold public land management initiative. Today, we have 59
active Resource Advisory Committees representing over 150 of our
largest forest counties nationally. These Resource Advisory Committees
in 2004 invested $48.1 million in Title II Projects on federal lands.
To date these broad-based stakeholder committees have, through
consensus-based decision making, approved over 2,000 projects to
improve watersheds, wildlife habitats, and reduce the risk of
catastrophic wildfire. Simultaneously, these projects have created a
substantial number of jobs in local communities and made significant
contributions toward community economic stability as originally
intended. Finally, Title II has reduced forest management gridlock
through its consensus based decision making process. As I stated, over
2,000 projects have been approved. To date, no Resource Advisory
Committee has disbanded or melted down due to unresolved differences
and conflict. None of us would have predicted this level of success.
Even more impressive is the fact that to date no Title II Project has
been appealed or litigated. No other active land management initiative
in either the Departments of Agriculture or Interior can equal such a
track record. The lessons we are learning about collaborative public
land management and local stakeholder involvement with our public land
management agencies are very powerful. In our view Resource Advisory
Committees are creating a new foundation and body of knowledge that
will support the next generation of public land management initiatives.
While it has been enormously successful to date, in our view, the most
impressive contributions lie ahead of us as we learn to maximize its
potential. An indicator of this is the fact that in each year of
implementation the RAC's are bringing more partners, more funding
sources, and more creative ideas to the table. Today over 30% of RAC
Project funding comes from outside partners. Projects are becoming more
complex, treating larger areas of our National Forests and involving
larger numbers of partners. Each year our RAC's are learning to partner
more effectively with state, county, federal, and private entities.
Additionally, it is important to remember that critics of P.L. 106-
393 predicted that RAC's once established would act irresponsibly and
authorize logging in old growth and roadless areas, propose clearcuts,
and generally practice non-sustainable and irresponsible forest
management. Nothing could be further from the truth. The record shows
that no single project has been approved under Title II that remotely
approaches any of these concerns. So, one of the real collateral
contributions of Title II has been the creation of trust and the
reduction of cynicism in our forest counties, and that has powerful
possibilities for the future. In summary, Title II is reducing
gridlock, improving the health of National Forests, and is contributing
positively towards economic stability--one community and one National
Forest at a time.
Title III of P.L. 106-393 has likewise provided funds to counties,
which have been invested to great advantage. For example:
Many forest counties have been able to offset the rising
cost of search and rescue work on federal lands. With increased
recreation pressure on our federal lands, rural law enforcement
is being called upon to provide search and rescue support at a
rapidly increasing rate. Without P.L. 106-393 support, most
counties could not meet this demand.
Conservation Easements--a number of counties have used Title
III funds to purchase conservation easements to compliment
efforts to conserve green spaces through their county general
plans.
Fire Prevention--a large number of forest counties have
invested P.L. 106-393 Title III funds in developing fire
prevention strategies and educating citizens in fire safe
actions. Since the passage of the Healthy Forest Restoration
Act, over 100 counties have been actively engaged in developing
Community Wildfire Protection Plans using Title III funding.
These same counties will be investing Title II funds through
the RAC process to implement their community wildfire
protection plans through HFRA. We believe this nexus between
Title II and III of the Secure Rural Schools and Communities
Act and HFRA is an example of positive synergy and effective
government.
A number of excellent forest related education programs have
been established with Title III funds.
While we would concur that additional guidance and oversight is
needed for Title III, we would be equally quick to add that most
counties across the country have invested in projects which have made
very positive contributions to public safety, fire prevention,
conservation of green space and open space through easements, and
forest education. A number of counties have used Title III funds to
partner with public, private, and community-based/non-profit
organizations to create important public service or public education/
information projects. The guidance and oversight provisions recommended
in S. 267 will improve the effective use of Title III funds without
compromising their creative/collaborative uses.
In summary, P.L. 106-393 is a remarkable success story. It
represents public policy at its best. It is achieving its
congressionally intended objectives of restoring essential rural school
and county road infrastructures through the Title I safety-net.
Essential forest health improving projects are being created through
Title II. Title II funds are being used as a catalyst to attract other
federal, state, county, and private funds which allow for larger more
effective forest health improvement projects. The work of the Resource
Advisory Committees is building trust, reducing cynicism, and most
important building the capacity in our major forest counties and the
federal agencies to engage in effective stakeholder-based decision
making. Forest management gridlock is being reduced one community and
one forest at a time. Essential services to educate and protect our
public, to conserve open space in our growing forest counties, and to
plan catastrophic fire prevention in concert with the Healthy Forest
Restoration Act, are being sponsored by Title III under P.L. 106-393.
The legacy and accomplishment of P.L. 106-393 over the last four years
has been positive and substantial. This law deserves to be, and should
be, extended so it can continue to benefit the citizens of our forest
counties, their public schools, and our national forests. Through P.L.
106-393 we are moving closer to restoring healthy forests and healthy
communities in the forest counties of America. The National Forest
Counties and Schools Coalition recommends that you support S. 267 as
presented.
[The following attachments have been retained in subcommittee
files:]
A. National Forest Coalition Member List
B. Mission Statement of the National Forest Counties & Schools
Coalition
C. The Case for Reauthorizing P.L. 106-393
Senator Craig. Bob, thank you very much.
Well, Mike, let me be frank with you, as I always have been
in our discussions. Frankly, in saying that, I never thought
that this particular day would come. And I say that most
sincerely, recognizing the expressed opposition your
organization placed against this legislation during its
formation. But I am also not one to look a gift horse in the
mouth, and I thank you most sincerely for your testimony today.
Mr. Francis. I think the testimony really belongs to those
people at the local level who sat down and worked out and
worked on this legislation. I started the research about 6
months ago to find out what was happening, because when I got
done with the project, I had other things to go on to.
Senator Craig. Sure.
Mr. Francis. And we went through about 1,300 to 1,800
projects, looking at them and--selecting things out and looking
at them. And even the most paranoid part of me couldn't find
things that were really wrong with these projects. They were
good projects. They had good stewardship objectives on them.
They were doing things on the land, helping the land. And when
you came away from it, you had to say that this really worked.
And I'm the first one to eat crow on that one. This one has
worked. Conservationists out there on the ground feel it has
worked, too. So----
Senator Craig. Well, I appreciate you saying that. I think
that's the general conclusion when we look at the total. I
think that maybe even I could find some criticism along the
way, but clearly our objectives are being met--in the broad
sense and, in most instances, as you've just explained, in the
particulars, in the real sense. That is extremely important, I
think, for all of us.
Is there something fundamentally wrong with putting this
decision in the hands of those RACs that you, yourself, have
testified are working? When we talk about that, I am talking
about the Pilot Sort Yard Program.
Mr. Francis. I think, in theory, it probably isn't. I
think, in practice, though, we might be going out and trying to
do it too fast. Based on conversations with the conservation
members of the community out there, they all feel strongly that
this is a check--it keeps the RACs going and focusing on their
objectives--and that they feel that a change like this could
lead to conflict, and that they think that right now the status
quo--we don't have enough information, really, to know. I am
disappointed that there haven't been more projects on that. And
when I looked at the results of Senator Bingaman's questions
and gone over them, I find some of the projects they listed
as--separating the log and the contracting--as, well, not
really there. It doesn't--one of the projects is creating mulch
on the forests. They're using a brush hog and mulching the
forest. I don't know where the merchantable value of leaving
the stuff on the forest.
And so, I don't think the Forest Service has done a good
job of monitoring and knowing what's going on in the field. We
don't have the information to do it. And I think the BLM person
testifying explained, this is modeled after their stewardship
program, and it seems to work well when it is working. And we
think it should run another cycle and ask Congress to really
give some directions to the administration to try to run the
program, see how it works, then we can make a judgment of
whether it goes. And then conservationists on the ground can
make a judgment of whether this is as beneficial as they think
it is.
Senator Craig. Well, as you know, when we passed the
legislation, it was to be a ramp-up over a 5-year period, as it
relates to this. And at the end of the 5-year period--you've
indicated that very few of the sort yards have been tested, and
that seems to be the general consensus, yet you seem to have
complete faith that they'll work.
Mr. Francis. I have no information whatsoever that says
they won't work. We have information from the BLM that they do
work, because they had been using them prior to this going on.
I think I would recommend, as a minor housekeeping measure,
that if Congress--and we hope they would--will continue the
program, that you start the ramp-up again. We probably ought
not to start where we are now, because I'll be very frank with
you--the agency, in my opinion, has not done the job of getting
this program out there and defining what they mean by
``merchantable materials,'' giving some guidance to regional
foresters on how this program should be done and where you
should do it. I don't think it was ever designed by its
sponsors. And Senator Bingaman was one of those sponsors, so
he'd have to answer this. But to--incidental materials were
never meant to be covered under something like this.
Senator Craig. Yes. Well, my next question, I think you
have answered, as it relates to examining this and seeing its
worth. And I think that's a reasonably good suggestion to
proceed on. So we'll leave it at that.
Mr. Francis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Bob, I don't want to belabor what I said
earlier, but I want to thank you for your testimony. And I want
to thank you for your coalition's involvement in the
implementation of Public Law 106-393. I know you understand
that the passage of it was to be a short-term safety net. And
with the introduction of S. 267, we are about to cross the
Rubicon on the term ``short term.''
In an informal survey of forest supervisors, by my staff,
we've been asking them if they received more or less input from
county commissioners and school superintendents on forest-
related activities, now that we have been living under Public
Law 106-393. Not surprisingly, to a supervisor, they have
indicated they have fewer calls from county commissioners and
school superintendents. And I know that you also heard my
concern to Mr. Rey related to the falling Forest Service
revenues--or receipts, I should say.
What specific steps would you suggest we take to improve
Forest Service revenues based on your observations? And do you
understand what will happen if the Treasury must continue to
pick up more and more of the total cost of these programs?
Mr. Douglas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would respond to the first question by saying that our
coalition has asked and supported both HFRA and other measures
that would lead to more active forest management on our
national forests. And I think you are very familiar, and most
Members of the committee are familiar, with the principles upon
which this coalition was founded, both short term and long
term.
We are on the record as favoring active forest management
in a sustainable way. And we believe that, in fact, receipts
can be generated on the national forests in a sustainable,
long-term manner, and protect the ecosystem that is out there.
And so, we are favorably disposed toward supporting efforts to
do timely reforestation after catastrophic events.
We hope that HFRA is extended to allow for more timely
reforestation and intervention in post-catastrophic events--
that would certainly be an area that our coalition would
encourage the Congress to further explore--to maximize the
efforts under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act to essentially
do forest restoration.
We believe that it's going to be very difficult, as a
coalition, as you pointed out earlier, to fund long-term forest
restoration at the scale that is needed in the U.S. National
Forest System, off of the appropriation process. We think that
some of the ability to pay for that must come from reinvesting,
harvesting commercial materials off of the national forest, and
putting them into the American market. Now, saying that, I
would hasten to add that--within a context of long-term
sustainability and ecosystem protection.
Senator Craig. Okay.
Now, you've testified on how well the RACs have been
working. And I appreciate that. It's always good to hear that.
I have visited with several of them over the last good number
of years. I've sat in the back of the room and watched the
interaction that goes on. And it's always amazing to me, and
gratifying. At the end, they can decide not to decide, or they
can decide to decide and move forward.
At our last hearing on the implementation of Public Law
106-393, I asked Under Secretary Rey if earmarking a certain
percentage of the Forest Service budget to be expended through
RACs outside of existing Public Law 106-393 funds would be a
good idea, and he avoided directly answering the question.
So my question to you is, If Congress were to earmark 15
percent of the Forest Service and BLM budget to be invested in
Resource Advisory Committees, in the projects they've
recommended, do you think that would be helpful at the local
level?
Mr. Douglas. I think our coalition would be supportive of
that kind of a concept. We have certainly had those
discussions, with both the Forest Service and the Department of
the Interior in the past, and recommended that, given the
success, and given the ability--a seemingly ability of Resource
Advisory Committees who have resources to expend to overcome
gridlock and agree--as Mr. Francis reported, and I did, too--
overcome the gridlock, agree upon projects, and do that in a
way that we can move forward, we believe that the concept of
earmarking some portion of the agency's budget, or certain
kinds of programs that would be referred to the RACs, could be
a way to move forward and get some of the projects out on the
national forests and BLM lands done that we all know need to be
done.
Senator Craig. You've testified on the need for some
oversight on the implementation of title III projects. And
you've listened to Mark Rey's answer and explanation of the
changes they would like us to consider. What are your thoughts
on Mark's suggestions as it relates to title III and how they
would be dealt with through the RAC system?
Mr. Douglas. I think that that's an alternative that we
should explore. We have not thoroughly discussed that
alternative within the coalition, although I'm recalling, 5
years ago in this process, that is one of the options that was
explored as the first bill was being put together.
I think, at this juncture, we know a lot more about
Resource Advisory Committees and how they will function than we
knew then, and certainly the counties know how the Resource
Advisory Committees--so I think that's a viable alternative
that needs to be explored by the coalition and by the Members
of the committee.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Bob.
Mike, I want to leave you with this last thought. I have
very serious concerns about your testimony suggesting that the
approval by the Clearwater RAC of funding to help fund NEPA
work on two commercial timber sales is out of step with the
law's purpose of maintaining existing infrastructure.
First, if the RAC approved the sale, it would indicate that
the projects have local acceptance. Second, nowhere in Public
Law 106-393 did we indicate that timber sales would not be
undertaken. In fact, the ``maintenance of infrastructure''
language was aimed at maintaining a forest products industry to
work in our forests. And I understand that the Wilderness
Society would dearly like to see our forest products industry
disappear, if you will, in most instances. But I guess I would
say, please don't attempt to rewrite the legislative history of
the bill by suggesting that Congress didn't want or expect the
RACs to consider or undertake commercial timber harvesting. I
believe, based on my experience, that nothing is further from
the truth.
Would you like to comment on that?
Mr. Francis. I would. First of all, I know it's easy to say
the Wilderness Society doesn't like the timber industry. We are
not an ``end commercial logging'' organization. We've never
supported that part.
The reason I put that example in there--I agree with you,
there's nothing in the law that says commercial timber sales
are not--are prohibited or do not function. It was to point out
the fact, in my statement, about the change of direction if
Congress moves to eliminate the pilot program. You know, when
these sales should be allowed. They're allowed. But we need to
have a kind of a balance in how we do these sales to make sure
there are some stewardship objectives that are still being
maintained in the law.
I used the project as--if Congress sends the wrong signals,
that the pilot programs aren't essential, projects like these
could become--you know, could become more controversial, I
think, and could cause problems. And that's why I put it in my
testimony.
I agree with you, it is covered under the law. The
Wilderness Society doesn't object to projects like that.
Senator Craig. Okay. I thank you for that clarification,
appreciate it.
Gentlemen, thank you both, for being before the committee.
Let me close with this thought, because I have growing
concerns that while this law is working well, it is a very
large chunk of money out of the U.S. Treasury. We all know
that, and that's why we're struggling, at this moment, to try
to claim our place inside that budget, for all the reasons that
most of you have spoken to this morning. And I think, for some
of the benefits that are growing out of the relationships that
weren't really seen in--by some, and by all of us in some
instances, at its formation. But we have a major problem, and
it is a problem of perception and reality.
There is a historic perception, on the part of Congress,
that the Forest Service was a relatively self-funding
organization. When we look back at the 1980's, when they were
producing probably 75 to 80 percent of their revenue--yes, it
went into the general fund, no question about it, but, then
again, there were claims to it, and obviously it could be
argued that this was a large agency, in large part supporting
itself. By 1997, we were at about 50-50.
Today, gentlemen, the chart is going to look like this. And
I'm doing work on it now to try to better understand it. These
are receipts, and these are expenditures. About 3 to 4 percent
of the total Forest Service budget is now covered by receipts.
And the reality is that we're not funding the Forest Service at
the levels necessary, for a variety of programs, and almost all
of them deal with conservation, with water quality, and on and
on and on and on and on--reforestation after fires. We play the
fire game, and we steal--we borrow--it's been stealing, in the
last few years, because we haven't been replacing all the
money.
I think our challenge is to help the Congress perceive and
understand the differences that have occurred in two decades of
time, largely driven by public policy. Some I was critical of,
some I'm not. But the reality is, there's been a very
significant change.
The first victim of the change that was a perceivable
victim was, of course, county payments. It was dollars on the
ground, schools in crisis, and counties in trouble. And, of
course, we've responded to that. But we haven't responded to
fire, and we haven't responded to a lot of other things that
are necessary out there as we struggle to get these budgets in
balance. And so, because of a decline in receipts, it is very
difficult, or increasingly difficult, to argue, without a
broad-based perception during times of deficits and tight
budgets, that we ought to sustain these levels and ask for more
in areas where we know we're short, or we haven't replenished
funds as a result of borrowing out of them for these
catastrophic fire seasons that we've been having over the last
six or 7 years.
I express that as a broad-based concern of this Senator,
and, I think, of this committee, that those of us that spend
more time looking at the management of our public lands than,
maybe, other Senators do, and then we get to these points of
budget, when we're trying to be advocates of these agencies to
make sure they get the proper funding, to run it up against all
kinds of excuses coming from other Senators that we're missing
the point, that we're pushing money from somewhere else to fund
what otherwise would have been funded, or could have been
funded.
I express that simply as a closing thought, because it's
the circumstance in which this Congress lives today, and will
continue to live under these current relationships. And I'm not
advocating, in any way, that we could effectively return to the
receipts levels of the 1970's or the 1980's. That's not my
point. My point is simply to argue that we've got a problem, a
significant problem. Work is not being done on the ground that
ought to be done, for all the right reasons. And here is one
little example of some successes, but there is a much broader
effort out there that needs to be undertaken, that isn't being
funded.
So, your assistance in all of these areas would be greatly
appreciated. You all have access to my colleagues to argue
certain points. I would argue that funding of Forest Service
budgets and BLM budgets is critically important for the
environment and the quality of our public land management.
Gentlemen, thank you for your time and your commitment. And
I appreciate your testimony before this subcommittee this
morning. Thank you.
Mr. Francis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. The committee will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Department of Agriculture,
Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC, March 25, 2005.
Hon. Larry E. Craig,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Craig: Enclosed please find the Department's responses
to the written questions from the Subcommittee hearing on March 8,
2005, regarding the reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.
Sincerely,
Mark Rey,
Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment.
[Enclosures.]
Questions From Senator Craig
Question 1. I see that you are interested in some changes in the
section of S. 267 that calls for audit reports of the Title III
projects. I think I understand the concept. Are you recommending that
Title III funding only be used to pay for hazardous fuel reduction
projects in the WUI on non-federal land?
Answer. No, we are recommending that a priority be placed on using
Title III funds for hazardous fuel reduction projects. We would not
recommend eliminating the other current funding categories but rather
adding hazardous fuels projects as a priority. The counties would
continue to determine which of the projects are funded, but could fund
only projects that are recommended by RACs.
Question 2. What would the impact of that be on those counties that
use Title III to repay counties for search and rescue and other police
work on federal lands? Can you give us your estimate of how much of the
Title III funding has been expended on reimbursement for search and
rescue work?
Answer. According to a report being prepared by Jonathan Kusel of
Forest Community Research, counties in California expend approximately
32 percent of Title III funds for search and rescue work. Putting
priority for the use of Title III funds towards hazardous fuels
projects would give the counties more options in addressing hazardous
fuel conditions in the wildland urban interface however; if search and
rescue or law enforcement assistance is also a high priority for county
government then funding for that work is still allowable under Title
III.
Question 3. During the Clinton Administration, the Forest Service
pursued the concept of utilizing sort yards to market timber sales in
its normal operations. Then the County Schools BM included the concept.
We are attempting to fmd out what the outcome of the Clinton era sort
yard initiative was. We understand that within P.L. 106-393, you only
have six projects that might test the concept, but were there others
outside the RAC process and did any of them work? What is the status of
the sort yard initiative, unrelated to county schools? Are the regions
still attempting to test the concept of utilizing sort yards in your
normal timber sale program?
Answer. The sort yard initiative is part of the stewardship program
and has been tested in a few locations. Two projects using ``delivered
log contracts'' are included in the stewardship contracting report,
``Implementation of Multiparty Monitoring and Evaluation: The USDA
Forest Service Stewardship End Results Contracting Demonstration
Program'' for FY2003, Pinchot Institute, 2004. This report, excerpts
attached, documents monitoring and evaluation of the stewardship
contracting program. The evaluation found that the two ``delivered log
contracts'' projects experienced a low bid response and contract
administration costs were higher than regular timber sale contracts.
Sort yards could be used under the Secure Rural Schools Act (P.L. 106-
393) and continue to be used in stewardship contracting when market
conditions are suitable. The sort yard initiative has not been
considered in our normal timber sale program because the contract and
administration costs would be higher and there would be a greater risk
to the government for loss.
Question 4. On an unrelated subject, I note that this past Friday
the agency announced a plan to pursue independent third party
certification on six National Forests. In the past this Administration
and others have resisted the suggestion that certification be pursued.
Why the change?
Answer. We are considering a field test of forest certification
using six forests. Recently the Forest Service promulgated a new
planning rule, which includes an Environmental Management System (EMS)
creating a feedback loop to determine how well we are meeting our goals
and incorporating a third party auditing process. By testing a forest
certification system in conjunction with our EMS, we believe that field
testing will help us better understand third party audits and
strengthen our ability to introduce an effective EMS.
Question 5. What steps will the agency take to guarantee that the
people who undertake the certification process are people who will
provide a scientific certification untainted by political bias?
Answer. Auditors from the independent audit community whose members
have experience with the certification systems and meet the
impartiality standards will be used in the field test. For the EMS, the
Forest Service will be sponsoring an independent certifying body that
will adhere to impartiality standards. This certifying body will be a
board similar to the FSC and SFI oversight boards which assure
independence of auditors.
Question 6. At the end of this process if the independent third
party concludes that current management is unsustainable, either due to
over management or under management, will the Forest Service take
immediate steps to address those problems?
Answer. We are exploring the applicability of forest certification
to national forests. The purpose for conducting these tests is to
identify ``gaps'' between Forest Service management and direction and
those required by the two certification systems. Depending on the
extent and content of any gaps identified, we could take a wide variety
of actions that would allow conformance, or we might decide to continue
with our existing management.
Question 7. If, for instance, the certification process on the Mt.
Hood shows that the forest cannot be sustained without additional
management, how long would it take under the forest planning process to
make the changes recommended by the certification process?
Answer. We have not yet begun our testing process to determine the
applicability of the forest certification process or to make any
determination on what appropriate management changes would be based on
third party monitoring. Any changes to the forest plan will be
accomplished through our regular revision and amendment process under
the new planning rule. We will be keeping the Committee informed as we
learn from our testing program.
Questions From Senator Bingaman
s. 179, the sierra national forest land exchange act
Question 1. As I understand it, Shaver Lake is primarily used in
the summer for fishing, sailing, swimming, boating, and other related
recreational activities. Would the transfer of the Federal subsurface
lands to the Boy Scouts affect the public's access to waters above
those lands for these recreational activities?
Answer. Transfer will not change current recreational access. The
above-surface lands to be transferred are currently under a Special Use
Authorization to the Boy Scouts as part of their local camp. The public
has had, and will continue to have, access to all the waters of the
reservoir.
Question 2. Would this transfer affect in any way the Forest
Service's mandatory conditioning authority under the Federal Power Act?
Answer. Transfer will not affect Forest Service authority in this
licensing proceeding. There are other National Forest System lands
within the project boundary.
Table 3.2.--PROJECTS
[Status for FY 2003]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Name Leg. Auth. Administrative Unit State
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region 1--Northern
Tobacco Roots.................... Sec. 338............... Beaverhead/Deerlodge NF MT
Westface......................... Sec. 338............... Beaverhead/Deerlodge NF MT
Butte South...................... Sec. 332............... Beaverhead/Deerlodge NF MT
Bitterroot Burned Area Sec. 338............... Bitterroot NF.......... MT
Restoration.
Sheafman Restoration............. Sec. 338............... Bitterroot NF.......... MT
North Fork Big Game Habitat Sec. 347............... Clearwater NF.......... MT
Restoration.
Three Mile Restoration Project... Sec. 347............... Custer NF.............. MT
Condon Fuels Project............. Sec. 332............... Flathead NF............ MT
West Glacier Fuels Project....... Sec. 332............... Flathead NF............ MT
Paint Emery Stewardship Sec. 347............... Flathead NF............ MT
Demonstration.
Main Boulder Project............. Sec. 332............... Gallatin NF............ MT
Clancy-Unionville Project........ Sec. 332............... Helena NF.............. MT
North Elkhorns................... Sec. 332............... Helena NF.............. MT
Alice Creek/Nevada Dalton........ Sec. 338............... Helena NF.............. MT
Iron Honey....................... Sec. 338............... Idaho Panhandle NF..... ID
Priest Pend Oreille Land Sec. 347............... Idaho Panhandle NF..... ID
Stewardship.
Treasure Interface............... Sec. 338............... Kootenai NF............ MT
Yaak Community Stewardship Sec. 347............... Kootenai NF............ MT
Contracting.
Dry Fork Project................. Sec. 332............... Lewis & Clark NF....... MT
Judith Vegetation & Range Sec. 338............... Lewis & Clark NF....... MT
Restoration.
Dry Wolf Stewardship Project..... Sec. 347............... Lewis & Clark NF....... MT
Frenchtown Face.................. Sec. 332............... Lolo NF................ MT
Game Range....................... Sec. 338............... Lolo NF................ MT
Clearwater Stewardship........... Sec. 347............... Lolo NF................ MT
Knox-Brooks Stewardship Project.. Sec. 347............... Lolo NF................ MT
Red River Watershed Project...... Sec. 332............... Nez Perce NF........... ID
Meadow Face Stewardship Project.. Sec. 347............... Nez Perce NF........... ID
Region 2--Rocky Mountain
Seven Mile....................... Sec. 338............... Arapaho-Roosevelt NF... CO
Mt Evans Collaborative Sec. 347............... Arapaho-Roosevelt NF... CO
Stewardship.
Winger Ridge..................... Sec. 347............... Arapaho-Roosevelt NF... CO
Ryan Park/Ten Mile............... Sec. 338............... Medicine Bow-Routt NF.. CO
Upper South Platte Watershed Sec. 338............... Pike-San Isabel NF..... CO
Project.
Beaver Meadows Restoration....... Sec. 347............... San Juan/RioGrande NF.. CO
Southwest Ecosystems Stewardship. Sec. 347............... San Juan/RioGrande NF.. CO
Upper Blue Stewardship........... Sec. 347............... White River NF......... CO
Region 3--Southwestern
Mogollon Rim Biomass Utilization Sec. 332............... Apache-Sitgreaves NF... AZ
Project (formerly NF Biofuels to
Energy).
Montlure/Benne Thinning and Fuels Sec. 338............... Apache-Sitgreaves NF... AZ
Reduction.
Ranch Iris....................... Sec. 338............... Apache-Sitgneaves NF... AZ
Cottonwood/Sundown Watershed Sec. 347............... Apache-Sitgreaves NF... AZ
Project.
Zuni-Fora Corners Sustainable Sec. 338............... Cibola NF.............. AZ
Forestry Initiative.
Grand Canyon Stewardship Project. Sec. 347............... Coconino NF............ AZ
East Rim Vegetation Mgt. Project. Sec. 338............... Kaibab NF.............. AZ
Schoolhouse Thinning............. Sec. 338............... Prescott NF............ AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Statement of Andrea Bedell Loucks,
Pinchot Institute for Conservation
[. . .] work areas, it can be easily tailored to meet project needs
(Burns Creek-R8, 2003). Others have found that it offers the most
flexibility in fostering local community participation with minimal
upfront costs (Foggy Eden-R6, 2003).
agreement
Four projects (9% of those reporting) indicate using some form of
agreement to implement activities. For example, in the Winiger Ridge
Project (R2), the Boulder Ranger District on the Arapaho-Roosevelt NF
is working with the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) to implement
cooperative agreements for treating units with poor access. This later
developed into ``Good Neighbor Policy'' opportunities that allow the
CSFS to help treat areas that are steep, with no access except by the
adjacent neighbor (Winiger Ridge-R2, 2003).
other
Eight projects (17% of those reporting) are using other contractual
arrangements for project implementation. These include:
Construction contracts with product removal included. This
mechanism was chosen because it permitted concurrent completion
of vegetation treatments and trail construction within a single
contract (Forest Discovery Trail-R9). Also, the bulk of the
complexity in the contract may refer to construction activities
(e.g., bridge building facility construction, recreational
improvements), with any timber extraction relatively easy to
contract and convey (Dry Wolf-R1, 2003)
Delivered log contracts (``separating the logger from the
log''). This mechanism was chosen to experiment with removing
any real or perceived incentive for a contractor to cut more
trees or more valuable trees than necessary to achieve a
prescription. The service contractor bids and is paid on a per
acre basis for on-the-ground activities. Any trees removed are
sold separately, and--the receipts are retained and used to pay
service contract costs (Paint Emery -RI, 2003).
3.7 Process Review: Contractor Selection
3.7.1 The Bidding Process
Despite a high level of initial interest on the part of local
contractors, most stewardship projects have experienced unexpectedly
low numbers of bids for contracts, with an average of two bids per
contract solicitation (high: 9 bids, low: 0 bids per project) (Appendix
E). With these low response rates, some forests have surveyed or plan
to survey contractors to identify ways to clarify contracts and
associated requirements (Meadow Face-R1 and Paint Emery-R1, 2003).
According to some surveys' findings, low response rates have been
linked, in pant, to the increased complexity of contract requirements
and perceived higher risk associated with implementation.
3.7.2 The Selection Process
In FY 2003, individual projects and Local Teams also provided
information on the selection criteria used by coordinators and managers
to award stewardship contracts (Appendix E). Across the country, the
selection criteria, ranked from most important to least important,
were:
1. Price.
2. Technical proposal--generally summarizes the types and condition
of equipment used, organizational structure and focus, staffing and
management details, understanding of work to be performed, work
schedule, and production capacity.
3. Use of by-product--includes contractor's ability to manufacture
and market by-products, flexibility in delivery time, assurance of
weight, and ticket accountability.
4. Past performance--includes a narrative explaining contractor
experience with logging methods, documentation of logging certificates,
professional logger training, safety training, experience in
merchandising, experience with similar projects, dependability,
compliance with contract time, etc.
5. Local economic benefit--highlights the contractor's commitment
to recruiting and/or hiring subcontractors and workers from the
``local'' area.
These results differ slightly from previous years. For example,
compared to last year, price has increased in its importance (from 2nd
place in FY 2002 to 1st place in FY 2003), while past performance has
slipped somewhat in award consideration (from 3rd place in FY 2002 to
4th place in FY 2003).
3.8 Funding and Costs Overview
3.8.1 Funding Overview
As in previous years, financial analysis of the program is
problematic. Individual projects provided information on sources and
adequacy of finds to support planning, implementation, and monitoring
efforts. However, because the Forest Service does not have standardized
methods for recognizing and accounting for revenues and expenses on a
project basis, most figures were presented as rough estimates.
Based on these estimated figures, minor trends continue to
illustrate how projects are securing financial support for activities.
Based on FY 2003 data, sources of funding for former pilots include
federal appropriations, product value exchanged for services, retained
receipts and cooperator contributions (Table 3.8, Appendix F). Only
slight differences can be found from previous years. For example, in FY
2002 retained receipts funded more project activities than they did
this year. In part, this change may be due to confusion over how best
to apply the various authorities (see Sec. 62.1). National Fire Plan
funding has also resulted in some projects receiving higher than
average appropriated dollars or salvage rights (SWRT, 2003).
Table 3.7.--FUNDING AND COSTS OVERVIEW
[Subtitle]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Total
-----------------
FY2002 FY2003
(N=52) (N=55)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding
Appropriations.................................... 41% 67%
Product Exchanged for Service..................... 20% 16%
Receipts Retained................................. 24% 8%
Cooperator Contribution........................... 15% 5%
Other............................................. X 4%
Costs
Planning and NEPA................................. 48% 53%
Service Contract.................................. 16% 17%
Contract/Sale Preparation......................... 23% 15%
Contract/Sale Administration...................... 10% 3%
Citizen Involvement............................... 2% 3%
Monitoring and Evaluation......................... 1% 2%
Other............................................. X 7%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.8.2 Costs Overview
A review of FY 2003 cost data, coupled with results from previous
years, highlights trends in cost parameters and potential financial
obstacles for projects (Table 3.8, Appendix G). Planning and NEPA
continue to be the highest costs for projects, followed by-individual
service contracts, and contract/sale preparation. Once again, these
trends mirror those detected in FY 2002. Some of these costs,
particularly those associated with NEPA compliance, appear high due to
the fact that some analyses and associated processes often cover areas
that encompass many projects, not just anticipated treatment acres
within the stewardship contracting project itself.
3.8.3 Cost Comparisons
Because of differing project sizes and complexities, in addition to
a reliance on estimated figures, financially comparing project efforts
to one another is not a useful exercise. However, project-specific
comments offered by coordinators and Local Teams can be used to discuss
the impacts of new authorities on cost savings or inflation. As can be
expected, a variety of experiences have been had due to the diverse
nature of project activities, funding mechanisms, and contractors
involved.
administration costs
Several projects have found that the proper use of the expanded
authorities has resulted in significant cost savings to the government,
including savings in project administration: For example, the Winiger
Ridge Project (R2) found that ``. . . because a contract utilizing
designation by description does not carry the detail of a precise
cruise for volume and appraisal for value, there is a saving of money
and time in preparation of the contract.'' The Forest Discovery Trail
(R9) also found that through ``. . . a combination of construction and
timber sale contracts, thus avoiding a separate timber sale contract,
costs were saved of advertising pre-bid showing and some contract
administration costs.'' Other projects have found that specific
elements of stewardship contracting (e.g., trading goods for services)
leave accountability requirements for tracking bonds and timber sale
statements of accounts (TSSA) at a much simpler and more manageable
level (Seven Mile-R2, 2003).
However, some projects have found that the costs of administering a
stewardship contract have been higher, particularly when compared to
the use of a traditional timber sale. Contract administration for
stewardship contracting projects involving both service and timber sale
contract elements require that personnel be certified as both timber
sale administrators and contracting officer's representatives. As such,
training costs are often much higher for the administration of these
projects (Sheafman Restoration-R1, and Paint Emery-R1, 2003). Contract
administration teams have also had to maintain a presence on a job site
during all contractor working hours because of an increased need for
accountability (Paint Emery-R1, 2003). Bundled services, using
subcontractors, also require more coordination by administration
personnel (Paint Emery-R1, 2003).
Several other projects have found that there was. little to no
difference in administrative costs associated with these innovative
mechanisms as compared to more traditional contracts (Southwest
Ecosystems-R2, Burned Area-R1, Montlure Benny-R3, First Thinning
Loblolly-R8, 2003).
implementation costs
Some projects have seen direct savings in the implementation of a
project For example, in the Grand Canyon Project (R3) ``. . . the goods
for services contracted was [sic] $100 less (per acre) than comparable
contracts without goods for services.'' However, the value of wood
harvested has not always offset the entire cost of thinning (Grand
Canyon-R3, 2003). The Wayah Contract Logging Project (R8) found cost
savings through facilitation of on-site changes as needed (Wayah
Contract Logging-R8, 2003).
monitoring costs
Monitoring requirements were also identified as an additional
expenditure typically not required within a standard service contract
or traditional timber sale (Montlure Benny-R3, First Thinning Loblolly-
R8, and Paint Emery-RI, 2003). As such, the monitoring component of
stewardship contracting elevated costs over those projects utilizing
more traditional contracting or agreement mechanisms.
______
Department of the Interior,
Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs,
Washington, DC, April 15, 2005.
Hon. Larry E. Craig,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed are responses prepared by the Bureau of
Land Management and the U.S. Geological Survey to questions submitted
following the March 8, 2005, hearing on S. 213, ``To direct the
Secretary of the Interior to convey certain Federal land to Rio Arriba
County, New Mexico;'' S. 267, ``To reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools
and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000;'' and S. 485, ``To
reauthorize and amend the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992.''
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this material to the
Subcommittee.
Sincerely,
Jane M. Lyder,
Legislative Counsel.
[Enclosure.]
Questions From Senator Craig
s. 267
Question 1. On S. 267 if you found one of your BLM districts had
not contributed 50% of the O&C revenues to help fund P.L. 106-393 what
steps would your agency take?
Answer. The BLM districts do not play a role in the contribution of
revenues in connection with Public Law 106-393 because all revenues
derived from O&C sales are transmitted directly to the BLM's National
Business Center located in Denver, Colorado. Upon receipt of these
funds, the National Business Center then deposits the revenues from the
O&C lands into Treasury account 14-5882, the Oregon and California
Land-Grant Fund, and from the Coos Bay Wagon Road lands into Treasury
account 14-5897, the Coos Bay Wagon Road Fund.
Question 2. What auditing mechanism does the BLM have in place to
ensure that the correct contributions have been made?
Answer. On an annual basis, the Department's Office of Inspector
General contracts with an independent certified public accounting firm
to audit the BLM's financial statements for each fiscal year. The most
recent audit audits were performed by KPMG LLP for fiscal years 2003
and 2004. The contract required that KPMG conduct its audit in
accordance with U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards;
Office of Management and Budget Bulletin 01-02, as amended, Audit
Requirements for Federal Financial Statements; and the Government
Accountability Office/President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency's
Financial Audit Manual.
FY 2004 was the 10th consecutive year that the BLM received a clean
audit report.
Question 3. Can you provide the Committee with evidence that such
an audit has been completed for each year since 2000?
Answer. The ``Independent Auditors' Report on the BLM's Financial
Statements'' for each fiscal year is published in the BLM Annual Report
for that fiscal year. The BLM's Annual Audit Reports for the period you
requested are attached.
s. 213
Question 4. Are you suggesting that you might not support the
conveyance of all 150 acres, or that you may not support that portion
that does not apply to provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes
Act?
Answer. As noted in our testimony, the Department supports the
conveyance set forth in S. 213. However, we believe the bill should be
amended to protect valid existing rights, and we recommend some
technical clarifications. We would be happy to work with the
Subcommittee and the sponsors on these recommendations.
Questions From Senator Bingaman
s. 267, the secure rural schools and community self-determination act
Question 1. List all BLM-approved Title II projects that involve(d)
the sale of merchantable material.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implement in Fiscal
Project Name BLM District Year of Approval Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Flame Density Management.... Salem.................. 2002 & 2003............ 2006 or 2007
Thomas Creek LSR Young Stand Salem.................. 2003 & 2004............ 2005 or 2006
Management.
Thomas Creek LSR Variable Density Salem.................. 2002 & 2003............ 2005 or 2006
Thinning.
Matchbox............................. Lakeview............... 2003................... 2004
Boaz Forest Health & Small Diameter Medford................ 2002................... 2003
Utilization.
Beck Road White Oak Release.......... Salem.................. 2002\1\................ 2003 or 2004
Galesville LSR Enhance./Small Dia. Medford................ 2002 & 2003............ 2004
Removal.
Upper Umpqua Forest Habitat Roseburg............... 2003................... 2004
Improvement.
Smith River Stream Habitat Roseburg............... 2003................... 2004
Improvement.
Shivley Creek LSR Habitat Improvement Roseburg............... 2003................... 2004 or 2005
Penny Stew (aka Scattered Apples).... Medford................ 2004................... 2005
Nestucca Jane Creek Restoration...... Salem.................. 2004................... 2005 or 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The project was not recommended by the RAC for Phase II (Implementation)
Question 2. Which of the projects referred to above utilized
separate contracts for the harvesting or collection of the merchantable
material, and for the sale of such material?
Answer. Matchbox, Galesville LSR Enhancement, and Smith River
Stream Habitat Improvement (in bold) were selected as BLM Title II--
Pilot Projects where separate contracts were utilized to harvest and
sell the merchantable material.
s. 485, the national geologic mapping reauthorization act
Question 1. Your statement referenced mapping groundwater
resources. What is the extent of the hydrogeologic mapping under this
program?
Answer. Geologic maps provide critical surface and subsurface
information needed to properly describe the geometry and extent of
ground water aquifers. While all geologic maps can be used for multiple
purposes, each year we discover that more geologic mapping projects are
designed to address ground water issues and answer critical
hydrogeologic questions. Approximately 60% of the budget of the
National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP) is spent on
projects primarily interested in ground water issues. One excellent
example of federal/state geologic mapping cooperation has been underway
for the past decade in the sedimentary basins underlying Albuquerque
and Santa Fe, New Mexico. Both the USGS and the New Mexico Bureau of
Geology and Mineral Resources have produced over 125 geologic maps, and
several regional aeromagnetic maps that show many faults in the
subsurface that were unrecognized before, and which have a major
influence on the extent and flow of ground water. All of these products
are being used to create a model of the ground water system(s) in these
basins. These models in turn are being used by the New Mexico State
Engineer's Office and the water offices in both Santa Fe city and Santa
Fe County. This information is used by water managers to make decisions
about future water need and use.
Question 2. Are there many high priority areas remaining to be
mapped? Are you continuing to identify new areas to be mapped? How does
the process of identification work?
Answer. Roughly 25% of the Nation has been mapped geologically in
modern times, and many new areas are being identified as needing
geologic mapping. Therefore, NCGMP must prioritize the geologic mapping
that we do. Several important prioritization processes are used. As
required in the National Geologic Mapping Act, every state geological
survey that receives NCGMP funds through a competitive grant process
must assemble a State Mapping Advisory Committee. These committees are
broad-based and contain a spectrum of government officials, private
sector consultants and businesses, university professors, water and
health officials, etc. Over 500 people in 47 states are currently
serving on State Mapping Advisory Committees. These experts help each
state geological survey write a long-range geologic mapping plan and
set priorities for new geologic maps. While the USGS Fedmap projects
consider suggestions of these important State committees, we employ
additional procedures to align our regional mapping efforts with
Federal priorities. We coordinate our planning with our closest
partners in the USGS Ground Water Resources Program, the National Park
Service (NPS), the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest
Service. For example, the NPS (particularly the Geologic Resources
Division) routinely prioritizes national parks in need of geologic
mapping to address resource management issues. Using this prioritized
list of parks, and determining where USGS and NPS can best leverage
resources, NCGMP has produced geologic maps in over 40 national parks
since passage of the National Geologic Mapping Act in 1992. Similar
procedures are used with other sister agencies in the Federal
Government.