[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BUILDING SUCCESS: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS
PROGRAM
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS
AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Thursday, July 29, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-64
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-667 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
DOC HASTINGS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Don Young, Alaska
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Jeff Flake, Arizona
Grace F. Napolitano, California Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Carolina
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Louie Gohmert, Texas
Jim Costa, California Rob Bishop, Utah
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Ben Ray Lujan, New Mexico Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
George Miller, California Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts John Fleming, Louisiana
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Mike Coffman, Colorado
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Jason Chaffetz, Utah
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming
Islands Tom McClintock, California
Diana DeGette, Colorado Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Lois Capps, California
Jay Inslee, Washington
Joe Baca, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts
Frank Kratovil, Jr., Maryland
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Rick Healy, Chief Counsel
Todd Young, Republican Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona, Chairman
ROB BISHOP, Utah, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Don Young, Alaska
Grace F. Napolitano, California Elton Gallegly, California
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico Carolina
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Louie Gohmert, Texas
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Islands Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Diana DeGette, Colorado Mike Coffman, Colorado
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming
Lois Capps, California Tom McClintock, California
Jay Inslee, Washington Doc Hastings, Washington, ex
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South officio
Dakota
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
Ben Ray Lujan, New Mexico
Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia,
ex officio
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, July 29, 2010.......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 3
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 24
Rahall, Hon. Nick J., II, a Representative in Congress from
the State of West Virginia................................. 1
Statement of Witnesses:
Coriz, Elias, Chairman, Rio Arriba County Commission,
Espanola, New Mexico, on behalf of the New Mexico
Association of Counties.................................... 37
Prepared statement of.................................... 38
Groseclose, Shirlene, Spanish Teacher, Pocahontas County,
Marlinton, West Virginia................................... 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 27
Holtrop, Joel, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S.
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture............. 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Jacobs, Mike, President, Arkansas Association of Counties,
Clarksville, Arkansas...................................... 41
Prepared statement of.................................... 44
Pearce, Hon. Paul, Commissioner, Skamania County, Washington,
on behalf of the National Association of Counties,
Stevenson, Washington...................................... 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Roberson, Edwin, Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and
Planning, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the
Interior................................................... 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Stouder, Scott, Idaho Public Lands Director, Trout Unlimited,
Pollock, Idaho............................................. 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Thayer, Allan, President, Dolores RE-4A Board of Control,
Dolores, Colorado.......................................... 34
Prepared statement of.................................... 36
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ``BUILDING SUCCESS: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SECURE
RURAL SCHOOLS PROGRAM.''
----------
Thursday, July 29, 2010
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m. in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Raul M.
Grijalva [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Grijalva, Kildee, DeFazio, Herseth
Sandlin, Lujan, Rahall, Bishop, and Hastings.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me call to order the Subcommittee on
National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands for our hearing on
Building Success: Implementation of the Secure Rural Schools
Program. The Subcommittee will come to order.
At the outset, let me turn to the Chairman of the Full
Committee, Mr. Rahall, for comments and introductions. Sir.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NICK J. RAHALL, II, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Mr. Rahall. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I certainly
salute you and Ranking Member Bishop for taking the time to
have this oversight hearing today on Building Success:
Implementation of the Secure Rural Schools Program.
This program goes back a number of decades. It has been
very beneficial to a number of counties in the rural parts of
this Nation, and especially in the district that I am honored
to represent, and I salute you and Ranking Member Bishop for
having this hearing today.
I also am very pleased and honored to welcome to the
Subcommittee one of my constituents who lives in Pocahontas
County. She has taken the time from her schedule, and has come
here to our Nation's Capital to share with us her experience
and professionalism.
She knows firsthand the struggles of rural schools, and she
has personally sacrificed to make it possible for hundreds of
children to learn Spanish.
As you will hear in her testimony today, learning a foreign
language is a crucial component of making rural schools and
rural students competitive when applying to college.
This would not be possible without the funds that are made
available through the current reauthorization of the Secure
Rural Schools Program, which I strongly support, and look
forward to working with you, Chairman Grijalva, and Ranking
Member Bishop, as we further our efforts.
I thank Mrs. Groseclose for making the trip today.
Shirlene, it is very much appreciated, and your testimony will
be very much appreciated by not only the Members present today,
but by all of us as we share your comments as they are made a
part of the record of today's hearing.
So I thank you for being with us today, Shirlene, and I
yield back to the Chairman.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me
just say that across the country real communities and the
Federal Government are neighbors. In many cases, that
relationship leads to good opportunities for economic
partnerships, as we heard during our last hearing.
It can also create challenges for rural communities when
they are continually exposed to the boom and bust cycles of
extractive industries on public lands, such as timber.
The Secure Rural Schools and Communities Self-Determination
Act of 2000 was originally designed to help rural communities
weather the storm of declining timber receipts on public lands.
The timber industry has not recovered and the recent
economic recession has further depressed that struggling
market. Congress intervened again in 2008, and granted a four-
year reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools Program.
One of the components of the reauthorization was a gradual
wrap-up of funds to local communities, with an expectation that
local governments would begin to move away from Federal dollars
toward more sustainable budgets.
We are now two years through that reauthorization of the
program, and it is a good time to review the successes and the
continuing challenges of the program. It is our hope and
intention that the Federal Government will always be a good
neighbor to the country's rural communities.
However, we know that the best help we can give will lead
to long-term sustainability. I want to thank the witnesses for
traveling so far today to join us. I look forward to hearing
from you. Now, let me turn to our Ranking Member, Mr. Bishop,
for any opening comments that he may have. Sir.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Grijalva follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Raul Grijalva, Chairman,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
The Subcommittee will now come to order. Thank you.
Across the country, rural communities and the Federal Government
are neighbors. In many cases, that relationship leads to good
opportunities for economic partnerships, as we heard during our last
hearing. It can also create challenges for rural communities, when they
are continually exposed to the boom and bust cycles of extractive
industries on public lands, such as timber.
The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of
2000 was originally designed to help rural communities weather the
storm of declining timber receipts on public lands. The timber industry
has not recovered, and the recent economic recession has further
depressed the struggling market.
Congress intervened again in 2008 and granted a four-year
reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools program. One of the
components of the reauthorization was a gradual ramp down of funds to
local communities, with an expectation that local governments would
begin to move away from federal dollars toward more sustainable
budgets.
We are now two years through the reauthorization of the Secure
Rural Schools program, and it is a good time to review the successes
and challenges of the program.
It is our hope and intention that the Federal Government will
always be a good neighbor to the country's rural communities. However,
we know that the best help we can give will lead to long-term
sustainability.
I want to thank all the witnesses for traveling so far today to
join us. I look forward to hearing from all of you. And I now turn to
the Ranking Member, Mr. Bishop, for any opening comments he may have.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. I thank you, Mr. Chairmen, for your opening
statements. I thank those witnesses who are here to testify
before us on this particular issue. It is indeed a significant
issue for those of us in the West, and throughout the entire
United States.
I would like to begin by saying that I do wish that PILT
would have been included in the agenda for this hearing given
the longstanding commitment of the Federal Government to the
PILT program, which came decades before Secure Rural Schools.
And in many ways the two still are tied together
inextricably. I view this as a missed opportunity now to have
included that as part of the discussion. Seeing how the
Administration has tried to delay PILT payments by nearly two
months in early June for what appears to be no clear reason.
It would have been nice to talk about the implementation of
that program as well. So I hope that, following this hearing,
those who are here to testify today about the Secure Rural
Schools remain as committed to seeing that the PILT program is
also equally treated.
The way a government deals with property, especially
personal property, is a window to the soul of that government.
Sir Henry Maine once wrote in the Village Communities that
nobody is at liberty to attack several property and say, at the
same time, that he values civilization.
The way that this government has been treating property
impacted by Secure Rural Schools over the last 30 years--
especially in these particular counties--is certainly a cause
for problems, and does not speak well to the soul of what we
are trying to do.
And, indeed, what we found right now is looking for
solutions which would make Rube Goldberg proud. I want to thank
those who are testifying today, especially on the second panel,
ahead of time.
I know that you come here today to talk about your
concerns, at no small inconvenience to you or the
municipalities that paid for you to come here. I apologize to
you in advance that I will be leaving early and may not be able
to hear that second panel.
It is one of the joys of working in Congress, where time
management is not an art form but, in fact, totally ignored.
However, having said that, I also recognize how land has always
been tied to the funding of schools.
When Henry VIII closed monasteries, and redistributed the
land to the barons who got that property, one of the
requirements was to fund the education programs of the day.
Connecticut was the first State to try and set land aside. They
set 3 million acres that they tried to sell to form a permanent
school trust fund.
Naturally, in the workings of Connecticut, the land that
they tried to sell was in Ohio but, nonetheless, they were at
least trying to sell some land. Texas, which was wise enough at
admission to keep all of its land, did still put 17,000 acres
aside for a school trust fund.
The State of Georgia in 1777 was the first State to
actually assist local communities in funding education. It is
interesting to note that the counties of Georgia at the time
rejected the State assistance as an insult to their ability to
cope with the situation at hand. My how times have changed.
So to cautiously borrow a phrase from a certain former
President, I feel your pain when it comes to your issue. Before
I had the fortune of getting elected to Congress, I was a
school teacher, a teacher in a State that has 70 percent of its
land owned by the Federal Government--and also a State that is
one of those 15 States that has a hard time funding education
primarily due to that fact. I also served in the State
Legislature, where for 16 years I worked on the school funding
issues as part of that particular committee.
So I know what it takes to stare at funding amounts that
don't cover what we perceive to be our schools' needs. I know
what it is like to deal with worries of getting pink slips
because there are rumors that funds are not going to be there
to keep the school open next year.
I know how important it is to have some level of certainty
when it comes to funding, and if funding will not be available,
and how important it is not to give false hopes and unclear
answers to individuals.
I know what it is like to try and fund small rural schools,
which by their very nature are going to be more expensive than
schools in an urban setting. So I understand what you are all
talking about and how you are trying to deal with what may
become the unvarnished truth.
I am appreciative of how some States, and I look
specifically at Oregon, have tried to step up to try and have a
statewide solution to the pain that their schools and these
Secure Rural School areas, rural counties that no longer have
resource abilities, feel.
I am also chagrined at the last meeting we had by listening
to what California was doing, which basically was nothing, to
try and solve the problem on a State level. I certainly hope
that situations have changed now, and that California and so
many other states are looking for statewide help and solutions
to part of these problems.
Since the main topic of this hearing today is
implementation of Secure Rural Schools, I was also hoping that
we would have witnesses from the Department of Agriculture
rather than just the Forest Service, not that I am opposed to
the Forest Service, or Mr. Holtrop, but we are hearing that the
Department at the Secretary level is taking too long to appoint
people to RACs.
So one of the issues that I would have liked to have
discussed, and to be brought up by the several witnesses, is
also the issue of roads, which the Secure Rural Schools Program
helps fund.
I believe we need to begin the discussion of the future of
this program since the issue of reauthorization will be
discussed. During the last round of reauthorization debate, we
were told that the issue of forest management and getting the
timber industry back on its feet was a separate discussion from
the Secure Rural Schools.
I feel that is a sad mindset, because the truth is that it
must be part of a long-term solution. So I applaud the National
Forest Counties and Schools Coalition Concept Paper that Mr.
Coriz, if I pronounce that properly, I hope, mentions in his
testimony.
It is a step in the right direction, and should be a step
in the right direction in this discussion. We need to find a
way to pay for this program that does not involve deficit
spending.
A start would be to use some of the $900 million from
offshore drilling revenue to pay for this program, instead of
simply using it to buy more Federal land that we cannot manage.
Long term, we must be looking at ways to return control
back to the local level, and solutions that don't require
constant lobbying efforts by your communities to grovel before
Congress just to get your basic needs met. Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, and let me invite the first
panelists, please. Thank you very much gentlemen, and welcome
back, I guess, Joel. Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, Forest
Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Sir.
STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTROP, DEPUTY CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Holtrop. Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the
United States Department of Agriculture regarding the
implementation of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act.
My comments will focus primarily on our experiences with
Title II, Special Projects, of the Secure Rural Schools Act.
Our written testimony provides additional information on Titles
I and III.
The Forest Service places tremendous value on the
relationships fostered under Title II and the work of more than
100 resource advisory committees nationally. While we can put a
dollar value on the projects, the relationships built among
tribal, county, and school officials, interest groups, and
other stakeholders, are invaluable.
An eligible county that receives a share of the State
payment greater than $100,000 is required to allocate 15 to 20
percent of the payment to Title II, Special Projects on Federal
lands, or to Title III, county projects.
Title II funds are to be spent on projects that maintain
existing infrastructure or enhance the health of ecosystems on
national forests. The Act calls for the establishment of
resource advisory committees, commonly referred to as RACs, to
review and recommend projects to be funded under Title II.
Each RAC has 15 members, comprised of citizens who have
volunteered to work together to help recommend projects.
Diverse interests are represented, including environmental and
conservation groups, recreation users, and advocates, commodity
interests, tribal, local governmental officials, and teachers,
and officials from local schools.
RACs generally meet several times each year to review
proposed projects. Members learn about the richness of natural
resources on the national forests, and share their knowledge of
the natural and social environments.
They trade viewpoints and opinions. They discuss legal
concerns and implementation strategies with Federal officials.
They deliberate and recommend a list of projects to fund.
This collaboration among many interests leads to community
supported projects. Types of projects that have been
implemented include maintenance or obliteration of roads and
trails, maintenance of infrastructure, stream and watershed
restoration, control of noxious and exotic weeds, and
reestablishing of native species.
Fuels reduction has been very important to many RACS to
help protect important watersheds, habitats, and communities.
The result has been an unequivocal success. RACs improve
cooperation, increase knowledge, and break down barriers among
interest groups and local agencies.
The projects have enjoyed broad-based support without
appeals or litigation. There are numerous examples of Title II
successes since 2001, and I will provide three quick examples
that showcase the diversity of projects, and partners that are
involved.
In Southwest Washington, a four county partnership with the
Forest Service increased the efficiency and effectiveness of
what were previously poorly coordinated, separate, and
underfunded programs to reduce noxious weeds. Prior to the
Title II funding each county had limited means to fund this
important work to protest habitats and forest health. Through
the Secure Rural Schools Act, projects recommended by the RAC
have supported a comprehensive weed control program on national
forests and county lands, and have enabled each county to
leverage additional program funds through several other
partnerships. In fire-prone Northern California, Title II
funding has supported numerous projects to reduce fuels and
lessen the risks of the severe effects of wildfire on
watersheds and communities, spanning several years and numerous
projects. The Lassen, Modoc, and Shasta Resource Advisory
Committees, two fire-safe councils, the Forest Service, and the
Bureau of Land Management have worked together to reduce
hazardous fuel loads of fire-prone dense undergrowth, with the
goal of protecting resources on national forests and private
lands.
Both the Forest Service and the BLM have leveraged the
Title II commitment by treating adjacent Federal lands. An
additional benefit of these projects has been providing
employment in economically hard-hit rural communities.
Montgomery County, Arkansas, and the Forest Service have
had a highly successful cooperative program to maintain
national forest recreation areas with Title II projects
recommended by the Ozark-Ouachita RAC.
The projects help reduce adverse impacts on watersheds and
wildlife habitat, and improve visitor safety and enjoyment of
the national forests. In conclusion, for the Forest Service,
local communities and those who work and play in the national
forests, Title II has been a success.
Title II and the RACS create a positive forum for community
interests to collaboratively participate in the selection of
resource projects on their national forests, and many valuable
projects have been completed.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak, and I will be
happy to answer any questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holtrop follows:]
Statement of Joel Holtr0p, Deputy Chief, National Forest System,
U.S. Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
regarding the implementation of the Secure Rural Schools and Community
Self-Determination Act of 2000, as amended and reauthorized in 2008
(P.L. 110-343).
Overview
Since 1908, when Congress enacted what is commonly known as the
Twenty Five Percent Fund Act (16 USC 500) to compensate local
governments for the tax-exempt status of the national forests, the
Forest Service has shared 25 percent of gross receipts from national
forests with states to help fund public schools and roads. The so-
called ``25 percent payments'' were made to the states for the benefit
of public schools and public roads in the counties in which national
forests are located. The allocation of the funds between schools and
roads varies according to state laws. The receipts, on which the 25
percent payments are based, are derived from timber sales, grazing,
minerals, recreation and other land use fees, deposits and credits.
In the late 1980s, 25 percent payments began to decline
significantly and fluctuate widely. This was largely due, especially in
western states, to a significant decline in timber sales. The declines
and fluctuations created hardships for local officials charged with
providing services to communities in and near the national forests.
The decline in timber sales, and corresponding reduction in the 25
percent payments, was particularly acute in northern California,
Oregon, and Washington. To address this concern, Congress provided
``safety net payments'' to counties in California, Oregon, and
Washington for fiscal years 1994 to 2003. The safety net payments were
enhanced payments structured to decline annually and was intended to
help the counties transition to the reduced amount of the 25 percent
payments.
Before the safety net payments expired, Congress enacted the Secure
Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (the Secure
Rural Schools Act), which provided the option of decoupling the
payments from receipts, by authorizing enhanced, stabilized payments to
states for fiscal years 2000 through 2006. The Secure Rural Schools Act
provided eligible counties with two options. A county could elect to
continue to receive its share of the State's 25 percent payment, which
fluctuated based on receipts, or the county could elect to receive a
share of the State's ``full payment amount'', which was a stabilized
amount. A county that elected to receive a share of the State's full
payment amount was required to allocate 15 to 20 percent of the
payments to title II (special projects on federal lands) or to title
III (county projects). Title II funds could only be spent on projects
that were recommended by resource advisory committees (RACs). As part
of the initial implementation of the Act, the Forest Service
established 55 RACs.
Congress appropriated payments to states for fiscal year 2007, and
in October 2008, amended and reauthorized for the Secure Rural Schools
Act for fiscal years 2008 through 2011. With a few notable exceptions,
the Secure Rural Schools Act as reauthorized in 2008 mirrors the 2000
Act. The primary change was a new formula for the stabilized State
payment, which includes a ramp down of funding each year. In addition,
the 2008 reauthorization amended the Twenty-Five Percent Fund Act to
reduce the fluctuations in the 25 percent payments. The 25 percent
payments are now calculated as the rolling average of the most recent
seven fiscal years' 25 percent payments.
In 2008, approximately 70 counties elected to receive a share of
the State's 25 percent payment (based on receipts), and approximately
650 counties opted to receive a share of the State Payment (enhanced,
stabilized). All together, the Forest Service makes payments to 41
states and Puerto Rico to benefit more than 720 counties, boroughs,
townships and municipalities.
The last payment under the Secure Rural Schools Act will be for
fiscal year 2011. Under current law, in fiscal year 2012, all eligible
states will receive the 25 percent payment to states calculated using
the new formula based on a seven-year rolling average of 25 percent
payments. The total of 25 percent payments for all states is projected
to be approximately $64 million for fiscal year 2012.
The Secure Rural Schools Act has three principal titles. The U.S.
Forest Service defers to the Department of the Interior for Secure
Rural Schools' activities undertaken by that agency.
Title I--Secure Payments for States and Counties Containing Federal
Land
Title I of the Secure Rural Schools Act, as reauthorized, provides
the new formula for the State Payment for fiscal years 2008 through
2011. An eligible county's adjusted share of the State Payment is
determined by a complex calculation involving multiple factors
including acres of national forest, the average of three highest 25
percent payments from 1986 through 1999, and the county's annual per
capita personal income. The formula reduces the total payments to all
states by approximately 10 percent of the preceding year for each of
the four years, 2008 through 2011.
Eight states (California, Louisiana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington) receive a transition
payment in lieu of the State Payment for fiscal years 2008 through
2010. The transition payment is based on the fiscal year 2006 payment
and declines by about 10 percent per year. The fiscal year 2011 payment
to these states will be calculated using the same formula used for the
other states and will be significantly less than the final transition
payments in fiscal year 2010.
The Act directs that the majority of the State Payment be used to
help fund county schools and roads. This portion of the payment is
commonly referred to as the title I payment and has averaged about 85
percent of the total State Payments to date. For fiscal years 2008
through 2011, title I funds are projected to total nearly $1.5 billion.
Title II--Special Projects on Federal Land
An eligible county has the option to allocate part of its share of
the State Payment to title II for projects that maintain existing
infrastructure or enhance the health of ecosystems on national forests.
Title II provides for the establishment of resource advisory committees
to review and recommend projects. The Secure Rural Schools Act as
reauthorized added to the duties of the committees and expanded the
interests represented by members.
Title II projects enhance forest ecosystems, restore and improve
the health of the land and water quality; and, protect, restore and
enhance fish and wildlife habitat. Examples are maintenance or
obliteration of roads, trails, and infrastructure; improvement of soil
productivity; stream and watershed restoration; control of noxious and
exotic weeds; and, re-establishment of native species. These projects
provide employment in rural communities and an opportunity for local
citizens to advise the Forest Service on projects of mutual interest
that benefit the environment and the economy. For fiscal years 2008
through 2011, title II funds are projected to total $172 million for
projects recommended in more than 300 counties.
Title III--County Funds
Funds allocated by a county under title III may be used on county
projects. Title III initially had six authorized uses: search and
rescue, community service work camps, easement purchases, forest
related educational opportunities, fire prevention and county planning,
and community forestry. When the Secure Rural Schools Act was
reauthorized, Congress limited the use of title III funds to three
authorized uses: activities under the Firewise Communities program,
reimbursement for emergency services on national forests, and
preparation of a community wildfire protection plan. As reauthorized,
title III now directs each participating county to certify annually
that title III funds were used for authorized purposes. For fiscal
years 2008 through 2011, title III funds are projected to total $87
million.
Additional revenue sharing and payment programs
Along with the payments to states under the Secure Rural Schools
Act, the Forest Service shares 25 percent of net revenues from minerals
receipts, grazing, and other uses of the national grasslands in the
payments to counties program under the Bankhead Jones Farm Tenant Act,
(7 U.S.C. 1010-1012). Payments to counties go to approximately 70
counties in 17 states, and total about $15 million annually. There are
also payments made under special acts including those in Arkansas for
Smoky Quartz (Public Law 100-446), in Minnesota related to the Boundary
Waters Canoe Area (16 U.S.C. 577) and in Washington for the Quinault
Special Management Area (Public Law 100-638.)
The Forest Service coordinates with the Bureau of Land Management
which administers additional payments to certain counties in western
Oregon under the Secure Rural Schools Act. In addition, national
forests are included in the eligible federal lands for which the
Department of the Interior administers the Payments in Lieu of Taxes
(PILT) program.
Secure Rural Schools Act successes
For fiscal years 2008 through 2011, the Secure Rural Schools Act
will provide nearly $1.5 billion for public schools and roads. The
Forest Service values the relationships fostered with tribal and county
officials and other stakeholders under title II. The Forest Service
expects to have 118 resource advisory committees fully functional by
the end of the year in 33 states. Although the chartering and
nomination process took longer than anticipated due to the large volume
of returning and new RACs (118 total), the Forest Service and
Department have continued to improve and streamline the process.
Each of the 15-member committees represents diverse interests such
as environmental and conservation groups, watershed associations,
forest and mineral development, hikers, campers, off-highway vehicle
users, hunting and fishing enthusiasts, tribal, state and local
government officials and teachers and officials from local schools.
These groups learn about the richness of natural resources on the
national forests, and share their knowledge of the natural and social
environment. Members hear one another's views, interests and desires
for national forest management and come to agreement on projects that
will benefit the national forests and nearby communities.
Here are a few examples that illustrate successful projects
undertaken with title II funding since 2001. In southwest Washington, a
four-county partnership with the Forest Service increased the
efficiency and effectiveness of what were previously poorly-
coordinated, separate, under-funded programs to reduce noxious weeds,
one of several authorized uses of title II funds. Prior to the title II
funding, each county had limited means to fund this important work to
protect habitats and forest health. Through the Secure Rural Schools
Act, projects recommended by the RAC have supported a comprehensive
weed control program on national forest and county lands and has
enabled each county to leverage additional program funds through
several other partnerships. Youth conservation crews and private
contractors were used to accomplish the work.
In fire-prone northern California, title II funding has supported
numerous projects to improve forest health including fuel-breaks to
reduce the severe effects of catastrophic wildfire on watersheds and
communities and to protect important fish and wildlife habit. In Lassen
County alone, partnerships have provided more than $5 million in
additional resources and support. The additional benefit of these
projects is to help provide employment in hard-hit rural communities.
Title II projects have enjoyed broad-based support, and none have
been appealed. In total, projects valued at $172 million in more than
300 counties have been funded under Title II to maintain and improve
the environment and provide local employment.
Conclusion
The Secure Rural Schools Act has provided more than a decade of
transitioning payments to eligible states and counties to help fund
public schools and roads and provided predictably declining payments to
states to transition to the 25 percent payment. In addition, it has
also created a forum for community interests to collaboratively
participate in the selection of natural resource projects on the
National Forests, and assisted in community wildfire protection
planning.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this program with the
Subcommittee. We would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, sir. Ed Roberson,
Assistant Director for Renewable Resources and Planning, Bureau
of Land Management. Thank you, sir, for being here. Welcome
back. We look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ED ROBERSON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR RENEWABLE
RESOURCES AND PLANNING, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Roberson. I appreciate it. Thank you both, Chairman and
Ranking Member, and members of the Committee. I appreciate the
opportunity for BLM to discuss our implementation of the Secure
Rural Schools Act at the midpoint of its reauthorization, and
we have submitted written testimony, and I would just ask that
it be put in the record.
Of the 245 million acres of public land managed by the
Bureau of Land Management, our Secure Rural Schools Act program
applies exclusively to 2.4 million acres, spanning the 18 O&C
counties in western Oregon.
It builds off the foundation of the 1937 Oregon and
California Lands Act, under which 18 counties receive yearly
payments equal to 50 percent of the receipts from timber
harvests on BLM managed lands.
Those receipts dropped at the beginning of the 1990s due to
declining harvests in the O&C. The Secure Rural Schools Act
program strives to support county governments through direct
payments. It also encourages local economic development through
restoration projects on public lands.
The BLM has a minor role in implementing Titles I and III
of the Act, which provide funds directly to the counties. Just
as Joel stated, under Title II, that is what I would like to
focus on.
The BLM works in active collaboration with Resource
Advisory Councils (RACs) to fund and implement restoration
projects that will improve resource conditions on public lands.
Five RACs, one for each of the BLM districts in western
Oregon, review proposals, recommend their priorities for Title
II funding. The RAC members are drawn from local communities
and represent diverse interests.
In the two years since the Act was reauthorized the five
RACS have recommended a total of 319 Title II projects, and the
BLM has approved more than 14.6 million to implement them.
Currently, the RACs are reviewing 272 proposals, and we
expect to receive recommendations on those this summer. Since
2001 the BLM has used Title II authority to reduce threats from
insects, disease, and fire, on over 3,500 acres of forests and
woodlands.
We have restored nearly 250 acres of grasslands, reduced
hazardous fuels on 265 acres, constructed and maintained over
100 miles of recreational trails, eradicated weeds on some
30,000 acres, and restored about 250 miles of streams.
No RAC-approved project has been protested, appealed, or
litigated. With this collaborative process the BLM land and
resource conditions in the O&C have been improved, and there
have been jobs provided to local contractors and on-the-ground
training opportunities have also been made available.
To give a few examples, in Josephine County, BLM is
partnering with a cooperative association to provide work crews
to complete restoration projects, while offering on the job
experience for local at-risk youth between the ages of 16 and
21.
In the Roseburg area, local conservation groups worked with
the BLM to plant over 3,000 willow poles and restore wetland
conditions for the endangered Harry Popcorn Flower.
Near Keno, local contractors worked with the BLM to restore
a three mile section of Spencer Creek by placing over 50 log
structures in the creek to restore its natural habitat and
increase native fish population.
I have included photographs of these Title II projects in
with our written testimony so that you may look them over. The
BLM Title II program faces a big challenge. Because RAC numbers
are not staggered, the RACs are expecting 63 vacancies out of
the 75 positions when members' terms expire in August of 2010.
The current RAC charters allow for them to continue for an
additional 120 days. We hope to fill the vacancies before
December 15th, and are actively recruiting new members.
In addition to publishing the Federal Register notice, the
BLM expects the use of the new social media--new to us--to
generate interests in the significant role that RAC members
play in restoring and enhancing public lands.
We want to make sure they understand how important this
role is so that they will submit their nominations. The BLM has
enthusiastically implemented the Title II authorities, and we
look forward to continuing important work in the coming year,
and I am happy to answer questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Roberson follows:]
Statement of Edwin Roberson, Assistant Director, Renewable Resources
and Planning, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the
Interior
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Bureau of Land
Management's (BLM) implementation of the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-393) at the mid-
point of its reauthorization by the Emergency Economic Stabilization
Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-343). The Secure Rural Schools Act applies to
nearly 2.4 million acres of BLM-managed public lands in 18 counties
located in western Oregon (generally called the ``O&C''). The BLM
defers to the U.S. Forest Service on activities accomplished by the
Forest Service on its lands. I will briefly summarize the unique
relationship between the Department of the Interior and these 18
counties and then describe the BLM's successes and challenges in
implementing the Secure Rural Schools Act.
O&C County Payments
The Secure Rural Schools Act builds upon the foundation laid in
1937 with enactment of the Revested Oregon and California Railroad and
Reconveyed Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act (the O&C Lands Act). The
O&C Lands Act directs 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.'' Under the O&C Lands Act, the 18
O&C counties receive yearly payments equal to 50 percent of receipts
from timber harvests on public lands in these counties.
In the years between 1989 and 1993, income to O&C counties from
timber harvests dropped significantly from the historic highs
experienced in the late 1980s due to litigation on threatened and
endangered species. In response, Congress enacted ``safety net
payments'' to stabilize income flow to timber-dependent counties during
this period through the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L.
103-66).
To make up for the reduction in O&C county payments from decreased
timber harvests, Congress repealed the ``safety net payments'' and
enacted the Secure Rural Schools Act in 2000. It set a stable level of
O&C county payments in each of the subsequent six years. 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 to be distributed directly to the
counties (Title I), and the remaining percentage to be allocated
between Title II projects (administered by the BLM), Title III projects
(administered by the counties), or returned to the Treasury.
The payments have been extended twice. The first extension (P.L.
110-28) was for a one year payment. The second (P.L. 110-343) extended
payments for 2008 through 2011. As amended by P.L. 110-28, payments are
a declining percentage of the payments made in previous years. When the
law sunsets, the payments based on 2012 receipts to the 18 counties in
western Oregon would revert to the 50 percent share of federal receipts
from activities on O&C lands.
Title I & Title III--County Payments
The Secure Rural Schools Act authorities are set out in three
sections. Title I of the Secure Rural Schools Act replaces receipt-
based county payments and accounts for 80 to 85 percent of the total
payment. Title III of the Act provides funds for eligible county
expenditures and accounts for up to 7 percent of the total payment. The
BLM has only a minor role in implementing Titles I and III of the
Secure Rural Schools Act.
Title II--RAC Collaboration
Title II of the Secure Rural Schools Act authorizes up to 15
percent of the total payment amount each year to fund restoration
projects on public land in the O&C and on private land if the project
benefits public land resources such as in watersheds.
Title II established a structure--Resource Advisory Committees \1\
(RACs)--to promote cooperative working relationships among the people
who use and care about the O&C lands and the federal agencies
responsible for managing the resources. There is a RAC for each of the
five BLM administrative districts in western Oregon (Coos Bay, Eugene,
Medford, Roseburg, and Salem) that cover the 18 O&C counties. Each RAC
has 15 members representing three interest areas equally: commodity
interests, non-commodity interests, and local area interests. Current
and previous RAC appointments have included representatives of state
and local governments, tribal interests, watershed councils, private
and nonprofit entities, and landowners. RACs are chartered for two-year
terms; members are appointed by the Secretary of the Interior and
provide this community service without compensation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Secure Rural Schools Act Resource Advisory Committees are
separate and distinct from the BLM's state or regional Resource
Advisory Councils, which are authorized by the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The requirement that RACs represent diverse interest groups offers
the BLM opportunities to engage early and often with individuals
holding a wide range of opinions on western Oregon resource management.
Title II allows the BLM to bring local representatives to the table to
help prioritize funding so it can be spent most effectively. The RACs
review restoration projects proposed by both external partners and the
BLM, and screen project proposals to ensure they meet the legislative
intent of the Secure Rural Schools Act. The RACs then recommend their
highest priorities for Title II funding to the BLM.
Successes
Since the Act's reauthorization in 2008, the RACs have recommended
319 Title II projects out of a total of 470 proposed projects, and the
BLM has approved more than $14.6 million of Title II funds to implement
these projects. The RACs are currently reviewing the 272 project
proposals for FY 2010 and are expected to make recommendations this
summer. Projects have included hazardous fuels reduction; stream and
watershed restoration; forest road maintenance and road
decommissioning; noxious weed eradication; and fish and wildlife
habitat improvement. These projects also provide job opportunities in
rural western Oregon counties.
By working collaboratively with the RACs and incorporating local
input, the BLM strives to build consensus on natural resource issues.
No RAC-approved project has been protested, appealed, or litigated.
Through the RACs, trust and solid working relationships are being
strengthened between the counties and the BLM, and between very diverse
interests.
The following are a few examples of successful Title II projects
undertaken by the BLM under the Secure Rural Schools Act:
In Josephine County (BLM Medford District; Medford
RAC), the BLM is partnering with The Job Council, a cooperative
public association providing workforce resources, to conduct a
variety of restoration and land management activities. This
cooperative project received Title II funding for the previous
two years that resulted in the construction of new trails,
removal of noxious weeds, upgrade, and maintenance of existing
trailheads, and maintenance of recreation sites. The BLM's
partnership with The Job Council provides the agency with work
crews to complete projects that enhance the public lands while
offering on-the-job experience and forestry education
opportunities for local youth ages 16-21. (Attachment 1)
The BLM is using Title II funding to restore habitat
critical for the protection of special status species. In BLM
Roseburg District (Roseburg RAC), Title II funds are restoring
wetland conditions necessary for the survival of the endangered
hairy popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys hirtus). Compacted soil
resulting from historic grazing practices, road construction,
and inadequate drainage has reduced water flows to the habitat
of this endangered plant. This Title II project is restoring
the beneficial wetland conditions through willow plantings,
placement of log structures in stream channels, installation of
erosion matting on high angle banks, and creation of drainage
dips in a nearby road. (Attachment 2)
A Title II project restored a three-mile section of
Spencer Creek near Keno, Oregon (BLM Lakeview District; Medford
RAC). Over 50 log structures, created from 220 cull logs
salvaged from local timber sales, were placed in Spencer Creek
to reestablish its original sinuosity, channel complexity, and
gravel accumulations. Additionally, the project plans to
restore the creek's natural habitat and increase the population
and distribution of native fish and amphibians, including the
Klamath River redband trout, Klamath small-scale sucker,
lamprey, and Pacific giant salamander. (Attachment 3)
Challenges
The BLM has found its RAC members to be extremely committed to the
community services they perform. Many RAC members work with multiple
counties located within RAC boundaries and have done an outstanding job
balancing diverse interests, while developing cooperative project
recommendations.
BLM has experienced some difficulties with RAC vacancies. The law
does not allow the RACs to meet, review, and recommend project funding
if vacancies on a RAC panel prevent the establishment of a quorum.
Vacancies on a RAC, if unfilled, may prevent the RAC from meeting and
recommending projects to be funded. This, in turn, can prevent the BLM
from initiating a Title II project on the ground in a timely manner.
Because RAC member terms are not staggered, the Secure Rural
Schools RACs are expecting a total of 63 vacancies (out of a total 75
positions) upon expiration of members' terms in August 2010. The
current RAC charters (filed in January 2010) provide for 120 days of
membership continuity, so if members are not appointed by August 15,
current members will continue to serve on the RACs until December 15,
2010, or until new members are appointed. Many of these members have
pledged to remain available for service on the RACs until the law
sunsets. The BLM is currently working to fill the expected vacancies.
Given the complexities involved in filling RAC positions, the BLM is
extending the call for RAC nominations.
Conclusion
The BLM has enthusiastically implemented the authority given to it
under Title II. It has enabled the BLM to accomplish on-the-ground
improvements in land and resource conditions in the O&C Lands and
promoted economic stability of local communities. The RAC process has
strengthened working relationships among diverse groups, individuals,
and federal agencies with the shared goal of improving the condition of
the O&C lands. The BLM looks forward to continuing this important work
in the coming year.
Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss the BLM's
implementation of the reauthorized Secure Rural Schools Act. I am happy
to answer any question you may have.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. This first question is for
both of you gentlemen. What difficulties have the Forest
Service and BLM, and the counties, I guess, experienced with
the new formula outlined in the reauthorization? If you could
speak a little about those challenges with that new formula.
Mr. Holtrop. Well, with over 700 counties, and the formula
has both the number of acres of Federal land in the county,
there are some complexities, with another factor being the
income level of each of the counties.
There are just a lot of details that are associated with
it. There has also been the fact that there has been the
transition payments for eight States that have required a
second level of calculation as well up through 2011, or up
through 2010.
Mr. Grijalva. Sir?
Mr. Roberson. The BLM has really been focused on Title II
and the money that arrives, and I think that our biggest
problem is with making sure that we have RAC members that can
make the decisions, or help us make the decisions on what to
actually spend and get it spent before the expiration of the
Act.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me follow up if I may, Mr. Roberson. In
terms of staffing the RACs, do you have any recommendations to
deal with that issue; and would you change the makeup of the
RACs?
And you mentioned expediting the approval of nominees. Any
comments on any one of those or on all of them?
Mr. Roberson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We had some challenges
last year in getting RAC nominations. We had some challenges
this year. I think we are trying to broaden our outreach and do
a better job of that.
Also, these RAC members are reviewed by the county
commissions, the Governor. They go all the way up through our
department, and it is similar to what the Ranking Member
mentioned, that they go all the way to the White House, and so
there is a time frame involved in that.
So, one, we have an issue with making sure that we get the
word out to people that here is an opportunity for you to
really make a difference, and it is going to be a time--you
know, our Roseburg RAC, most RACs only meet twice a year, but
Roseburg meets about six times a year.
And that is a time commitment for people. So we want them
to realize that that time commitment is really worthwhile, and
as I mentioned, none of the RAC-approved projects have been
litigated or protested.
So it is a really good formula. We are streamlining our
approval, our review and approval process, and we do anticipate
that we will be able to get those 63 new members on board by
December 15th when the current terms expire.
Mr. Grijalva. And my question about the makeup of the RACs,
do you see any need to deal with that, or change it?
Mr. Roberson. I don't, sir. I think that they do represent
a broad group of constituents in the area, and so I don't see
any need.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Holtrop, the timber industry, we all
know, continues to struggle during this recession, and it is
unlikely that it will ever return to those pre-1990 levels. Do
you have any thoughts on changing the formula to account for
factors such as number of conservation acres, or level of
wildfire preparedness, as part of the formula?
Mr. Holtrop. I think there are a lot of different
approaches that could be considered and taken. I think that
those are a couple of suggestions, and that I would certainly
be willing to continue to work with you and other members of
the Committee to see how that would play out, in terms of the
financial aspects of it.
There has been quite a bit of work done in the past in
looking for ways to secure what we all understand and recognize
as a need for some long-term certainty in how this funding is
going to occur.
Mr. Grijalva. I appreciate that. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To both of you, Mr.
Roberson, and Mr. Holtrop, I appreciate you being here. I
appreciate the services that you are giving to this country in
your various areas.
I will still criticize your agencies, but I appreciate what
you two are doing in those agencies specifically. Mr. Holtrop,
let me come back to you and ask the same question that the
Chairman did of Mr. Roberson, dealing with the Resource
Advisory Councils.
Who is responsible for appointing the people to those RACs?
Mr. Holtrop. The appointments are vetted at the Department
level in the White House.
Mr. Bishop. So we have been hearing for the past couple of
years that appointments to RACs are taking an unusual amount of
time, and in some cases an unacceptable amount of time.
And we are also hearing that there are millions of dollars
for Title II projects that are still sitting in accounts
because the Administration, and the Secretary of Agriculture,
are taking so long to clear appointments. Has the appointment
process for RACs slowed over the past two years?
Mr. Holtrop. Well, when the Secure Rural Schools Act was
reauthorized in 2008, there was a significant increase in the
number of RACs that were formed at that time, and so I think
that there was a backlog that formed immediately with the
reauthorization.
Many more counties chose to become involved in the Secure
Rural Schools Program, and so there was a large number of new
appointments that needed to occur, and it has taken time.
It has taken more time than any of us wished it had, but I
do think as Mr. Roberson mentioned, I think that we are looking
for ways to streamline, and I think we have made some progress,
and we have every expectation that we will have all of our
committees filled before the end of the year as well.
Mr. Bishop. So if I was a donor to the RAC would I have a
better or less chance of getting appointed? That is not a
legitimate question, and even if I did ask that one, I wouldn't
expect an answer from you.
Let me go to something that you can answer, which deals
with roads. Many of the witnesses on the second community panel
will testify to the importance of road construction and road
improvements in the communities, especially given the fact with
how much forest land is in their areas.
Do you believe that the double-digit budget cuts the
President recommended in FY 11 for road construction and road
maintenance will have an impact on these communities, and if
so, will it be detrimental or positive?
Mr. Holtrop. Well, the President's budget, of course, is
weighing all of the various constraints, and we have a
constrained budget, and many competing interests. The
President's budget includes funds in several different areas
for funding for roads, and we do recognize the importance of
roads, and road maintenance.
In some cases when it is time to decommission roads, those
funds need to be made available to accomplish that so that we
have a correctly-sized road system and the resources to
maintain it. That is what we are working toward with this
budget, and Title II funding helps us with that as well.
Mr. Bishop. So let me ask you about last year, 2009. How
many new roads or how many new miles, how many miles of new
roads did the Forest Service actually construct in '09?
Mr. Holtrop. I will be happy to get back to you with that
figure. I don't have the figure off the top of my head, but the
number of new miles of road constructed is a fairly small
number. It is probably less than a hundred miles.
Mr. Bishop. Is that the best ballpark that you can give me?
Mr. Holtrop. For right now that is the best ballpark that I
can give you, and I can give you a precise number very shortly.
Mr. Bishop. Let me say that if you are in that same
ballpark, if you go just to the infield, you will be closer to
the actual number that you did construct last year. I would
appreciate you getting that number.
Mr. Holtrop. I will get it for you.
Mr. Bishop. I understand the number is actually 16 miles,
which would be under a hundred. I appreciate your answers, and
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Chairman, any questions?
Mr. Rahall. No questions.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Lujan.
Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Mr. Roberson,
as revenues are being collected on BLM land, especially
compared to the way that resources are shared with States for
rural education with the United States Forest Service, why is
it that we don't see more revenue being shared from oil and
gas, or from grazing, with those States that have a lot of BLM
land where there is revenue coming in?
Mr. Roberson. There is sharing, sir, through the royalty
disposition that we have, similar to the O&C Act. There are
half of the royalties that go back to the State, and some of
the original trust lands in the State were set aside for the
State from the Federal Government so that they could support
their schools.
And part of the grazing fee goes back in as well, but I
could get back to you on the exact numbers so we could talk
about how much money goes back into the various States from our
oil and gas royalties and from grazing.
Mr. Lujan. Is there a possibility that we might be able to
establish SRS as a payment program like the United States
Forest Service has, and where the BLM apparently does not have
one, to accumulate funds like the Forest Service?
Mr. Roberson. That is beyond my--I really can't answer that
question. I am sorry, Mr. Lujan. I mean, we can get back to
that.
Mr. Lujan. That is fine. Mr. Chairman, through our deputy
chief, Mr. Holtrop, thank you again for being here. There is a
question that I have with some infrastructure that we have
within our forest lands in New Mexico that actually predate the
United States Forest Service that typically are not seen maybe
as part of the United States Forest Service, and they are
called acequias.
There is a ditch, a waterway system, and an old aqueduct
system that provide sustainability and subsistence for many of
our northern communities. Are there opportunities or programs
that we might be able to engage in to help maintain the
integrity of these acequias working with those local
communities who depend on these areas, and to even make sure
that as we look at these programs, even though not directly
related to the education fund, they play a key part in
education in this part of the country, and especially in our
State and these prominently Hispanic communities?
Mr. Holtrop. I am aware of the importance of these
facilities, and I assure you that we would like to continue to
work with you, both at the local level and if there are things
that I can do here to help pursue ways to make sure that we are
adequately accounting for those, I would be happy to do so.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Chief, thank
you very much. I will take you up on that, and we will be
getting in touch soon. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Lujan. Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for
convening this very important hearing, particularly important
for my State and my district. Mr. Holtrop, you already
addressed the issue in part, but I am concerned about the RAC
appointment process, and think that it really needs to be
somehow streamlined or simplified, because we are now going to
be looking at--what, there are 124 now?
Mr. Holtrop. 118.
Mr. DeFazio. 118, and they all have terms, and so they are
all going to be coming up for reappointment, and so isn't there
the prospect that you are going to get overloaded again? I
mean, vetting everyone of--every person for 118 RACs is a
tremendous task.
Is there a way to simplify the process, have longer terms,
have staggered terms, do something so that we would always be
assured of having a quorum on all the RACs, because we had
quite a few RACs recently that couldn't operate because they
didn't have quorums.
Mr. Holtrop. I think those are both excellent ideas,
staggering, and having longer terms. I do think that we have
learned some things through the vetting process with the volume
of business that we had here in the last couple of years, that
we have learned some ways to be more efficient, and we would
continue to utilize that as well. So I continue to look forward
to ways, and to find ways to do that.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, we would be pleased to have some
recommendations, but in absence of recommendations, we will
have to come up with some, because I think the process needs to
be improved. So if the Agency has recommendations, and/or
Interior, that would be great.
I am going to read you both a quote from our ultimate boss,
and that would be President Obama. ``What I would like to do is
convene meetings between Federal Agencies, local and State
governments, and interested parties, and start hammering out a
long-term solution that acknowledges the revenue issues that
are at stake for local government.''
That is in reference to the Safe and Secure County Rural
Schools Act. Federal Agencies have been meeting and discussing
how we are going to extend this, since we are facing the
extinction of the program in the very near future.
Can you tell me about that, and what kind of process is
going on downtown, and what high-level meetings are going on,
and what kind of meetings are you having other than people who
asked for appointments with local and State governments and
interested parties?
Mr. Holtrop. There certainly have been conversations and
recognition that the program concludes in a couple of more
years.
Mr. DeFazio. A year from October actually.
Mr. Holtrop. Right. And that is the reason that I said a
couple of more years, is that the funding would continue, and
the funding comes the year after. So there will still be some
Title II projects the following fiscal year.
Mr. DeFazio. Yes, but we are not just talking Title II
here. We are talking about a small percentage of the program,
and Title III, which is a small percentage of the program. We
are talking about the payments to counties and school
districts.
And I have counties that were looking at the last
expiration date, before we extended the program, which had
consulted with attorneys on dissolution. We have not done
anything like that since the Great Depression.
We are in a bit of a Great Recession, but I would think
that other than conversations and recognition, I am just not
aware--and I have discussed this personally with the President,
and I have discussed it with both Secretaries--I am pretty
frustrated.
I don't feel that there is a high-level focus and/or sense
of urgency, and I know that the OMB people carefully scrub all
your testimony and don't allow you to refer to anything where
we might spend money to help people, or school districts, or
have public services, or law enforcement, or any of those
things.
But it just seems to me that the two agencies, that I just
don't hear anything going on, or see anything going on, and I
would like to know how we can get something moving here, in
terms of a meaningful dialogue and discussion.
There are grassroots groups organizing, and that is great,
but what is going on in this Administration? I can read you a
number of other quotes from the President where he promised a
long-term solution, stability, and all those things, and I will
certainly be holding him to account, and he will be held to
account in the next election cycle.
But I would hope that we wouldn't have to get to that
point, and that he would want to deliver on these promises, and
so there has been no direction from the president that you are
aware of, or the Secretaries have not discussed putting
together ongoing working groups at a high level, or anything
like that?
Mr. Holtrop. Well, I am aware of the quote, and I am aware
of the interest in doing so, and I do believe there is both the
responsibility at our level to be looking at ways to come up
with approaches that are going to help us deal with what is
obviously a significant transition that is going to occur when
this authorization ends.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, it is not a transition. It is a collapse
actually. It is not a transition. For many of these counties in
my State, there is no alternative.
We are Constitutionally limited in our State in raising
property taxes. So they don't have that option, and basically
some of our counties won't even be able to keep their jails. I
mean, that is more than a transition.
Mr. Holtrop. Yes, sir.
Mr. DeFazio. How about over in Interior?
Mr. Roberson. I think that Mr. Holtrop expressed it well. I
don't have much to add. I know that we are in the process of
formulating the 2012 budget, and there are negotiations,
discussions, about it in that process, and when the President
is ready to present that, hopefully that will address your
concern.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, that will be great, and I would just
like to know that those discussions are meaningfully going on,
and there is meaningful consideration, and there will be a
proposal.
But I will have to, I guess, follow up with some higher
level folks and see if we can get a more transparent robust
process going here to be sure that we don't get or are
forgotten in the crush at OMB to eradicate as many programs as
they can. So, thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, and I have no further questions,
unless members of the Committee have any followup.
[No response.]
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, gentlemen, and let me invite the
next panel up.
Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, this is Mr. Lujan. If I could just
make reference to a letter. I know that Mr. DeFazio co-authored
it, and I know that there were many of us that did sign on, and
it did go to the President, talking about the importance of
these programs.
And again just to reinforce what Mr. DeFazio is saying,
these are school districts, and when we talk about States that
are not receiving any help with the race to the top, my State
is one of those.
And these are programs that will be devastated, and so when
we talk about education, and money that is disappearing, a
State like New Mexico, where we have numbers and problems that
we are already exceeding, and compounded by this program
disappearing, and not being in line right now for race to the
top, again with the second round.
The President has clearly said that the path out of poverty
is education, and these are people who have sacrificed so very
much so that the rest of the country, and the rest of the
world, can visit some of the most beautiful lands that exist.
There is a way for us to make sure that we put people on a path
to success, and this is one of those programs that will help
achieve that. So, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir, and gentlemen, I appreciate
it very much, and let me invite the next panel.
[Pause.]
Mr. Grijalva. Let me welcome our witnesses. Thank you very
much for being at the hearing, and those of you who had to
travel long distances, we are particularly appreciative of all
of you for being here. Let me now ask my colleague, Mr. Lujan,
for introduction of one of the witnesses. Sir.
Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Chairman
Grijalva, today I have the pleasure of introducing one of my
constituents and a friend from Chimayo, New Mexico, County
Commissioner Elias Coriz of Rio Arriba County.
Commissioner Coriz has served on the Rio Arriba County
Commission for over the past decade in a number of capacities.
They give him a full range and unique understanding of the
implementation of this important program for rural New Mexico
communities.
For the past 7-1/2 years, Elias has served as a County
Commissioner, with four of those years serving as Chairman. He
served as a member of the Espanola School Board, and has a
sound perspective into both the funding of rural schools and
the implementation of these funds.
As a trustee of the Jemez Mountains Electric Cooperative,
and as a member of the county who represents our tribes, our
stockmen, our land grants, and our executives alike,
Commissioner Coriz sees these issues in our community in a
unique way.
New Mexico's schools have concerns unique to our State,
with diverse student populations, abundant Federal lands,
numerous rural counties, as well as limited Internet access.
There are many challenges facing our students.
While many overcome these difficulties, I am proud to have
Commissioner Coriz here to share his perspective and to give us
his insight and thoughts on what we can do to make education
more accessible for these students, and students all across
America.
Thank you for attending our hearing today, Commissioner
Coriz, and I look forward to hearing your testimony. With that,
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. Let me begin with Mr. Paul
Pearce, National Association of Counties. County Commissioner,
the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF PAUL PEARCE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES,
STEVENSON, WASHINGTON
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Chairman
Rahall, and thank you very much, Chairman Grijalva, and Ranking
Member Bishop, who has had to leave, for this opportunity for
me to testify on behalf of the National Association of
Counties.
Seven hundred twenty-nine counties, or 24 percent of the
counties in this country, have national forest lands as part of
their land base, some of them up to 90 percent. The 154
national forests cover an area of 193 million acres.
These counties are responsible for the infrastructure,
schools, roads, and other infrastructure to maintain those
counties that are the host of those particular forests. I think
what is important to say is Gifford Pinchot, the first Forest
Service Chief, said those forests were created for the greatest
good of the greatest number of folks for the longest period.
In 1891, Congress created forest reserve authority through
the General Revision Act, and by 1905, those reserves were more
than 80 million acres, all of which came from counties.
President Roosevelt remade the United States Bureau of
Forestry into the USDA Forest Service, and Gifford Pinchot was
the first chief. It began a three-year process, which resulted
in Congress transferring all forest reserves to the new Forest
Service.
The 1908 Act also concluded a conversation between the
counties, the Congress, and the Administration. The contract
fulfilled a second promise from Gifford Pinchot, who said that
no community would suffer from hosting these lands.
And I don't think we can say that that is true necessarily
any longer. The contract was for revenue sharing, 25 percent of
all revenue generated on these lands. It clearly made sense at
that time because we were extracting resources for a growing
Nation, and it was in the best interests of all.
The contract worked well for nearly a century and into the
late 1980s, when court decisions, Endangered Species listings,
like the spotted owl, and a general change in the priorities of
the Nation dramatically reduced timber and other extraction.
In 1994, Congress created a 10-year program called Owl
Guarantee Monies for those counties that were hardest hit. In
2000, Congress passed the Secure Rural Schools Act, three years
prior to the end of the Owl Guarantee Monies, which authorized
payments through 2006.
These payments were a lifesaver for forest counties, and
again in 2007, there was a one-year reauthorization, and then
in 2008, the four-year reauthorization. That reauthorization
could not have come at a better time, and it clearly recognized
the ongoing contract between these forest counties, who host
these forests, and the Federal Government, and it has been a
tremendous success.
The Act has three titles. Title I is payment for county
roads and schools. Each State determines the division based on
the 1908 law. The money equates almost exclusively in these
counties and schools as jobs.
There are county road employees, and there are school
employees, and without this symbiotic relationship, children
will not be able to get to school. They may not even have
schools to get to or teachers to instruct them.
I mentioned how important the 2008 reauthorization was.
When that came in the fall of 2008, it was at the same time
that the economy was pretty much in free fall, as Congress
recognized.
And according to Dr. Eylers' economic analysis, and that
report is attached to my testimony, these payments in these 700
counties have an impact to the tune of $1.3 billion in sales,
$188 million in realized tax revenues at both the State, local,
and Federal level, and most importantly represent 11,000 jobs.
Just consider for a moment had it failed, and had we not
gotten reauthorization at the same time that the economic
downturn came. The loss of one family wage job in a county
often means that they have to move.
That means that you lose the spouse's employment, and the
children are pulled out of the school, which just creates a
downward spiral. So on behalf of NACO, we want to thank the
Congress for the reauthorization, which resulted in so many
positive economic benefits to our communities and schools,
these rural communities and schools.
The century long contract has served its purpose well,
keeping these forest counties and schools vibrant and
successful. Others will talk about the RACs. The RACs are an
absolute success, and will be even more so once we get them
fully outfitted with folks.
They are the most successful collaborative nationwide
effort ever seen within the Forest Service, and I think they
should be used for more than just resource advisory. They
should be there collaborating on all things.
Title III, which is money to the counties specifically for
county services that result in services on the forests from the
county, in the original Act, there was a number of services,
including emergency services, fire planning, community service
work camps, easement purchases, and so on.
The new Act actually did away with all of those, except for
the emergency services, and community wildfire planning and
implementation. In terms of search and rescue, in my county
alone, which we have 88 percent of our county as the Gifford
Pinchot National Forest, and Mount St. Helens, the Mount St.
Helens National Monument, and 80,000 acres of the Columbia
Gorge Scenic Area, we have had two searches this year that were
in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
One of those searches was a gentleman who fell into a
crater at Mount St. Helens, and it cost $150,000; and another
one was a young lady who was lost near the Columbia Gorge, and
sadly it was a recovery. It was a two-week search, and it was a
$550,000 bill to the State, local, and Federal folks.
Mr. Grijalva. Commissioner, if you could wrap it up.
Mr. Pearce. Yes. The last two things that I wanted to
mention is that the Forest County Payments Committee, which met
and made a report in 1993, was made up of members appointed by
Congress, including Mark Evans, Dr. Tim Creal, and Bob Douglas
from the Schools Coalition, Doug Roberts from the County
Commission, and Elizabeth Estill, who was a Deputy Chief of the
USDA Forest Service.
And they made a recommendation, which we will put into the
testimony, but it talks about a 10-year reauthorization. It
talks about establishing minimum payment levels, and that this
program should continue. That was a report to Congress.
Finally, I just want to state----
Mr. Grijalva. Let me say that the whole statement is in the
record, and we are asking people to try to summarize their
opinions in five minutes, but please.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you. I apologize.
Mr. Grijalva. There is no need to apologize.
Mr. Pearce. As to Mr. Bishop's concern with reference to
PILT, I am the Chair of the NACO Federal Payment Subcommittee
of the Public Lands Steering Committee, and I want to affirm to
him and everyone else that we are committed to the continued
full funding of the PILT program nationally, and it is one of
our primary platforms. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pearce follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Paul Pearce, Commissioner, Skamania County,
Washington, on behalf of the National Association of Counties (NACo)
On behalf of the National Association of Counties (NACo) I wish to
thank Chairman Rahall, Ranking Member Hastings, Subcommittee Chair
Grijalva, Subcommittee Ranking Member Bishop, and members of the House
Natural Resources Committee for this opportunity to discuss the
benefits and successes of the Secure Rural School and Communities Self
Determination Act.
Seven hundred twenty nine (729) or 24%, of the nation's three
thousand sixty eight (3068) counties contain national forests, some
equaling up to 90% of their land mass. The 154 National Forests cover
an area of 193 million acres across this country. These counties are
responsible for the infrastructure . . .. Roads, Schools, and Emergency
services . . . that allow those forests to exist for . . . .. as
Gifford Pinchot, the first Forest Service Chief, said ``The greatest
good, of the greatest number, for the long run.''
In 1891 the Congress created Forest Reserve authority through the
General Revision Act. By 1905 those reserves had grown to more than 80
million acres. President Roosevelt remade the U.S. Bureau of Forestry
into the USDA Forest Service with Gifford Pinchot as the first chief
forester. That began a three year process which resulted in Congress
transferring all forest reserves to the new Forest Service.
The 1908 Act also concluded the conversation between the Counties
containing these forests, Congress and the Administration. The contract
fulfilled the promise of Gifford Pinchot who said that no community
would suffer for hosting these lands. The contract was for revenue
sharing . . . . the first in the nation .. of 25% of all revenues
generated on these lands. This clearly made sense at the time as the
growing nation extracted renewable resources for the good of all.
The contract worked well for nearly a century . . . into the late
1980's when court decisions, Endangered Species Listings, such as the
spotted owl, and a general change in the priorities of the nation
dramatically reduced timber and other extraction. In 1992 congress
created Owl Guarantee monies for those counties hardest hit by the
spotted owl.
In 2000 Congress passed the Secure Rural School and Communities
Self Determination Act which authorized payments through 2006. These
payments were a life saver for our forest counties. In 2007 Congress
reauthorized for one year and then in 2008 reauthorized for an
additional four years through 2011. This reauthorization could not have
come at a more appropriate time and clearly recognized the ongoing
contract between these forest counties and the Federal government--and
what a tremendous success it has been.
The Act has three Titles, each of which has clearly defined
responsibilities.
Title I is payments for county roads and schools. Each state
determines the division of these funds based on the original 1908
revenue sharing law. This money equates almost exclusively in these
communities to jobs--county road and school employees. Without this
symbiotic relationship our children would not be able to get to school,
often over large distances, nor would they necessarily have schools to
attend or teachers to instruct them.
The gateway communities to our national forests would simply not
exist without this infrastructure. These County roads are how the vast
population that recreates on these millions of acres travel to and from
them.
I mentioned how this reauthorization could not have come at a
better time. Reauthorization in the fall of 2008 came at the same time
as the economy was beginning to fall apart. According to Dr. Eylers'
economic analysis (report attached) these payments have an impact to
the tune of 1.3 billion in sales, 188 million in realized tax revenue
and most importantly represent 11,000 jobs.
Consider for a moment that this loss had occurred at the same time
as the full force of the recession hit. This is especially true, in
these mostly rural communities where the loss of one family wage job
often results in the entire family having to leave the community to
find work,--the spouse quits their job and their children are withdrawn
from school, lowering enrollment, causing even greater job loss.
We wish to thank Congress for the reauthorization which has
resulted in so much positive economic benefit to our communities and
schools. This century long contract has served its purpose well keeping
these forest counties and schools vibrant and successful.
Title II of the Act is money specifically to be used for projects
on and for the forest itself utilizing one of the greatest successes of
this entire act--the resource advisory committees or as they are known
RAC's. Others will speak at length to the RAC's. Suffice it to say that
the RAC's are the most successful collaborative nationwide effort ever
seen within the forest system.
Finally there is Title III which is money to be used by the county
for specific purposes other than roads.
In the original act these purposes included emergency services on
the forest, fire planning, community service work camps, easement
purchases, forest related after school programs and planning efforts to
reduce or mitigate the impact of development on adjacent Federal lands.
The 2008 reauthorization removed all categories except emergency
services, as well as community wildfire planning and implementation.
In terms of search and rescue I will speak to some actual cases in
my county to demonstrate how these incidents can become very expensive.
Covering 88% of Skamania County is the Gifford Pinchot National Forest
including the Mt St Helens National Monument. Added to that is the
80,000 acres of the Columbia Gorge Scenic Area. Search and rescue
events are frequent. Our volunteer searchers are not reimbursed except
for their mileage. Yet our average search costs are in the several
thousand dollar range for those searches lasting just a few days and
not requiring any aircraft. That being said, this year alone we have
had two searches in the hundreds of thousands.
The first was a hiker who fell into the Mount St Helens crater. The
total local, state and federal cost reached over $150,000 dollars. The
other involved a two week search for a young woman which cost local,
state and federal taxpayers $550,000. Sadly; both cases ended up being
recovery's rather than rescues. Without Title III and assistance from
both state and federal resources our counties could not afford these
costs.
Finally, I want to tell you about a program in my county called
Forest Youth Success which we funded from Title III under the 2000 Act
and now fund through Title II. This program puts 40 high school age
kids to work on crews in the forest on restoration projects during the
summer. Recently WSU did a survey and study of the past participants of
the program and found some very interesting initial data. Some of the
reported outcomes:
100% said FYS increased their life skills such as
team work and leadership.
97% said they learned important workplace skills such
as punctuality and responsibility.
92% said they increased their use of financial
resources.
69% said FYS influenced the shaping of their career
choices.
47% said FYS shaped their college degree goals.
We believe this proves the value of connecting our kids to the
forest that plays such a major role in their lives.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to speak about the success
of the Secure Rural Schools and Communities Self Determination Act.
[NOTE: The attachment has been retained in the Committee's official
files.]
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, and the Ranking Member of the Full
Committee, Mr. Hastings, has a statement, a comment, and since
he yielded Commissioner Pearce two minutes, you have about 60
seconds left.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Hastings. That does not quite add up. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and thank you for the courtesy of allowing me to be
here, and I think it is only fitting that I follow one of my
constituents in his testimony.
More than a century ago, the Federal Government began
setting aside large sections of land in what was the beginning
of our National Forest System. Realizing that county tax bases
would be affected by this action, Congress allowed these
communities to share in revenue produced from the Federal
forests as compensation.
This arrangement worked well for counties and the Federal
Government for many years. However, in the early 1990s, timber
harvests in the Northwest began to suffer as a result of the
Endangered Species Act lawsuits brought forward by groups
opposed to Federal timber sales.
In an attempt to resolve this issue, the Clinton
Administration brokered the Northwest Forest Plan in 1994. This
plan called for setting aside 80 percent of the Federal forests
in the Northwest, and allowed for some timber to continue to be
harvested.
Even with the Northwest Forest Plan, environmental groups
continued to file lawsuit after lawsuit to further limit
Federal harvest levels. As the area to harvest shrank, so did
the economy that surrounded it.
Countless mills closed, and thousands of hardworking men
and women lost their jobs. Counties that are impacted by the
national forest land were left with no compensation for their
eroded tax base.
County Commissioner Pearce from Skamania County in my
district is here, as I mentioned, and has testified that over
80 percent of the land in Skamania County is publicly owned,
and only two percent of their land is taxed at full value.
With declining timber receipts, students would have been
faced with severe reductions in school services, including
losing dozens of teachers, shuttering school buildings, and
cutbacks in classes and extracurricular offerings.
In 2000, Congress recognized that many counties were faced
with serious declines in their timber receipts, and passed the
Secure Rural Schools and Communities Self-Determination Act.
This law was a recognition by Congress of the commitment
made by the Federal Government to these counties at the outset
of the National Forest System. The Secure Rural Schools Act
payments have made the difference for many counties that would
otherwise not be able to provide essential services for their
residents and quality education for their students.
The current authorization for this program expires at the
end of Fiscal Year 2011, and as that day draws closer, we must
determine how to address the future of these payments. And with
that, Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your courtesy, and I
want to thank Commissioner Pearce for being here.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. Mr. Kildee, let me extend the
courtesy. Do you have any comments?
Mr. Kildee. Not at this time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Let me now turn to Ms. Groseclose,
a Spanish teacher, Pocahontas County, introduced by the
Chairman of the Full Committee. Welcome, and I look forward to
your comments.
STATEMENT OF SHIRLENE GROSECLOSE, SPANISH TEACHER, POCAHONTAS
COUNTY, MARLINTON, WEST VIRGINIA
Ms. Groseclose. Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop,
and members of the Committee, friends and family, good morning,
and buenos dias. I am here on behalf of this coalition to give
you an insight into my life as a teacher in a small county in
Pocahontas County in West Virginia, the most beautiful county
in the world, which has 62 percent State or Federally owned
land.
I reside there with my husband, Jesse, our pets, our cows;
and I have the insight into what it would mean or what it means
to have this money for our teachers and about 1,300 students
that receive a consistent and more enriching education because
of SRS.
One teaching position also equals about two personnel
positions, and so I am also here to defend them and their job,
because it is very important. It is very important that you
also know that the educational system is the second largest
employer in our county, which is a low socioeconomic area.
It is second only to the Snowshoe Ski Resort, and that is a
seasonal employment. I teach at Marlinton Middle School and
Green Bank Elementary-Middle School, and travel 45 minutes each
day.
I teach Spanish exploratory to about 130 fifth and sixth
grade students and Spanish for high school credit to 7th and
8th grade students.
Since students are required two credits in Spanish to
graduate, a high school teacher, who is very overwhelmed
already, can concentrate on teaching more high-level Spanish.
Colleges expect students to have at least three credits to be
competitive. I know this because students were asked, a former
student of mine was asked, by an elite college why she had not
taken three credits of a foreign language and, of course, she
had to reply that at that moment she had taken French, and
French had been eliminated, and she was not able to finish that
credit.
Thank goodness for SRS. We are able to have the funding to
at least have a Spanish program. That allows me to have a more
flexible schedule so that I can service those students for 45
minutes each day, each class. We all know how important a
foreign language is to our country.
Twenty percent of our revenues comes from Federal funding.
We have about 312,000 acres of land, with no tax revenues and a
decreased harvest. This will likely not change.
SRS directly allowed Green Bank's School to keep their
technology integration specialist. We have in Green Bank the
NRA, or the National Radio Astronomy Observatory. Therefore, we
cannot use wireless, and our technology integration specialist
is a woman who helps those students do all their research, and
the school would be crippled without her.
It also allowed for two first, second, and third grades so
that teachers can be more attentive to the needs of the little
ones. Just as impactful, they were permitted to keep their
music program at least 30 minutes each day for a class, and she
also enriches the curriculum with guitar classes. That was
threatened a few years ago.
They are also able to keep an aide known to my husband as
Old Mean Aida, who reaches as many students today as she can
and supplements their IEP, or individualized education plan,
since we lost our special education teacher also a few years
ago.
Again, SRS is the heart of our education. People come to
our town in search of small time life, and what we have to
offer is the peace of mind, the fresh air, the outdoor
lifestyle.
But they also should have the expectation that we are
giving their children a competitive education, and this should
be met even if we are a rural area. It is the only way that we
will ever overcome this socioeconomic challenge.
SRS provides funds to the board of education so that they
can pay for buses for community-based learning experience, such
as an archeology dig for science class, and are able to bus my
students to the airport to take them to Costa Rica. How
exciting is that?
Global exposure and awareness is the key in our curriculum.
Nine other positions that teach at least a thousand students
are sustained by SRS. This means that 10 families as you have
said are living, playing, and spending their tax dollars in our
county.
The bottom line is SRS funding is responsible for almost
all enrichment opportunities offered to our students, and it is
enrichment that creates a competitive education for our kids.
Now, yes, core subjects are also important, and teachers
who teach core subjects would also lose their jobs. People
should be able to come to our county knowing that they are not
giving up the type of lifestyle that they should be able to
have, and that we are giving their children a competitive
education.
I am not your typical West Virginian, but I love Pocahontas
County, and I love sharing my knowledge and my culture with
those students. There are students there that have such great
potential that they may be one of you some day.
And we need to make sure that those students can get there
by giving them the best of us. I believe in finding solutions
and that is why I am here today. Thank you very much for your
consideration.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Groseclose follows:]
Statement of Shirlene Groseclose, Spanish Teacher,
Pocahontas County, Marlinton, West Virginia
Chairman Grijalva, Ranking member Bishop and members of the
Committee, good Morning. My name is Shirlene E. Groseclose. I reside in
Beautiful Pocahontas County, West Virginia, 62% of which is federally
or state-owned land. I personally do not mind since this is what we
wanted to live in, a peaceful rural setting where we can breathe fresh
air and climb the rolling hills of the farm lands, fish the wooded
creeks and hike the pristine trails. This is where we wish to raise our
children someday. I live on a farm with my husband of ten years, our
pets and our beef cattle. I've been asked here today to give you
insight into my life as a teacher in my county, a county that depends
of the forestry money to employ about 10 teaching positions and which
would suffer immensely without that support. I can't say I am an expert
on the matter. I am just a teacher who knows what half a million
dollars means to me, my colleagues and our students. It means ten of us
have a job and that a little over 1300 students can enjoy a more
consistent and effective education. One teacher position salary is
equivalent to two service personnel positions. They are also why I am
here today. Our school system is the second largest employer in our
county after Snowshoe Mountain Ski Resort.
I teach Spanish exploratory to 5th and 6th grade and Spanish for a
high school credit to 7th and 8th grade at Marlinton Middle School and
Green Bank Elementary Middle School. I travel 45 minutes between
schools every day. I hold one of the most hectic schedules of any
teacher in the county. I once taught up to ten different classes in a
term and have been known to fill in and teach careers, keyboarding and
anything else that is needed, thus sacrificing the length of time I
teach my own classes. When I began my position, at one school I taught
8th grade Spanish for \1/2\ an hour, at the students lunch time, which
they didn't care for, and taught all these other fillers for 1 \1/2\
hour periods. I explained to my principal how detrimental this schedule
was to my students. It is already a great challenge to convince the
students of why they need a foreign language and to change their
stereotyping inclinations predominant in the county. After much hassle,
he did everything within his power to ensure I taught what I should be
teaching, Spanish. Why is this important, because it demonstrates how
stretched out we already are and how SRS funding allows for better
scheduling. Having enough staff to cover other needs, I can enjoy a
better schedule that allows for me to teach only Spanish for at least
45 minutes every day in both schools.
The high school Spanish teacher depends on me to send at least 30
students to the high school with one credit under their belt. This
lowers the demand for Spanish 1 at the high school and allows her to
focus more on levels 2 and up. She is still greatly overloaded in class
size as she is the only foreign language teacher at the high school.
French was cut from our program a few years back to lack of funds.
Students are also being offered a minimum of Advanced Placement
courses. These courses allow students to graduate with a college
credit. We, of course, need AP Spanish but thank goodness for SRS so we
are able to teach Spanish at all. We do not want our students at a
disadvantage when competing for college and one student I personally
know was asked by an elite college she desired to enter why she only
taken two credits in foreign language. She answered that that is what
she was able to take since the French program had been eliminated from
her school. Without Spanish our students would be in a real hurt when
applying for college.
The Technology Integration Specialist (TIS) system at Green Bank
Elementary school is a vital part of the education program and without
proper funding 280 students would be without it. Because of the close
proximity of the National Radio and Astronomy Observatory to Green Bank
Elementary the school cannot have wireless and other multimedia
technologies. The hands-on TIS system allows students to have search
aids in the computer labs and without funding the students would be at
a large disadvantage.
The SRS dollars provided to Green Bank Elementary was extremely
important in keeping many programs and staff that are vital to our
children's education. While many schools are having to cut their music
programs the dollars provided by Secure Rural Schools saved this
program and the teacher who helps children in all grade levels. Small
class sizes is another important aspect of providing a good education
and the SRS dollars allowed us to keep two first, second and third
grade teachers thus allowing our teachers to be more attentive to the
students needs.
When people move to our town, they do so because they love the
environment we offer and they believe they can raise their children
here. They should also believe that we can offer them a complete
education where their children can successfully compete in the world
even if we are a low income county. It doesn't take making a lot of
money to live here but it still takes a lot of funds to offer a
complete education comparable to the rest of our nation. Our nation can
overcome our challenges if we start with the children and educating
them for the competitive world our nation is a part. The Secure Rural
Schools dollars ensures part of this demand is met.
20% of our revenue for our schools comes from federal funding.
312,000 acres in Pocahontas County are Federal land. This means they
provide no property tax revenue and the harvest has decreased
substantially It is likely this scenario will never change. Our county
also ranks 51 out of 55 in total expenditures and salaries and benefits
for teachers are near the bottom compared to other counties in WV. The
Secure Rural Schools dollars is vital and part of great contract first
established in 1908 that helps our county and educational system give
more to its people.
Secure Rural schools dollars supports my teaching about 75 students
level 1 Spanish and approximately 130 5th and 6th grade exploratory
Spanish () throughout the school year. Teaching exploratory better
prepares the students for success in Spanish 1 as they are more
confident in their abilities and more willing to learn the younger they
are reached.
SRS funding also allows the schools to offer a few educational
community based learning experiences to our students. The Board of
Education can provide transportation for these events. Events, such as
the archeology dig in Science class, take the students to a real dig
site in which they enjoy a hands-on experience. I am also excited that
the BOE can provide transportation to the airport and back so I can
take my students on an immersion trip to Costa Rica. This trip is very
meaningful to the students and helps integrate global awareness into
our curriculum.
Nine other teaching positions reach approximately 1000 students in
the county across all disciplines. Most teachers at middle school level
teach 7 classes daily in which there are 20-30 students on average.
Elementary teachers have classes of 20 to 28 students and high school
teachers on block schedule teach 30 plus students per 3 blocks. Our
music teacher at Marlinton Middle school is stretched between two
schools as well but he was able to begin a choir class which boasts
about 50 members and has been an absolute hit with the students, staff
and parents. Ten positions in our county also allows for ten families
who live, own land or housing, work and play here and thus bring their
income into our county.
Personnel are coveted members of our staff. Green Bank School is
able to have 4 aids positions, one of which works directly with a
mentally handicapped student giving him the hands-on help he needs.
Another wonderful aid divides her time in the elementary wing. She sees
and personally intervenes or supplements the instruction of at least 30
students daily while still helping the overall flow of the classes. She
helps teachers create flashcards or resources they would normally not
have time to create. She is a great help since Green Bank lost their
half time Special Education teacher and struggles to meet all the
Individualized Education Plans of some students. While this may sound a
little grim, I can assure you that Secure Rural School's dollars are at
the heart of keeping our education to students consistent.
My husband was raised on this land. He loves it and I love it here.
We have created a home. We own land and cattle and we farm. So, yes,
Secure Rural Schools funding is very important to me personally but
more importantly, it really matters to the great young minds that call
Pocahontas County home.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. I appreciate it. Mr. Scott
Stouder, Idaho Public Lands Director, Trout Unlimited. Welcome,
sir, and I look forward to your comments.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT STOUDER, IDAHO PUBLIC LANDS DIRECTOR, TROUT
UNLIMITED, POLLOCK, IDAHO
Mr. Stouder. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Committee. My name is Scott Stouder. I live in Pollock, Idaho.
I am Trout Unlimited's Public Lands Director in that State.
I appreciate the chance to talk with you today about my six
years of service in the Idaho Southwest Resource Advisory
Committee. Trout Unlimited believes that Title II of the Secure
Rural Schools Act is an effective conservation and community-
building program.
We strongly support reauthorization. To increase the Act's
public benefits, we offer two recommendations. One, allocate at
least 15 percent of Secure Rural Schools funds in Title II
projects. This allocation would roughly double the current
level of Title II funding.
Two, dedicate at least half of the Title II funding
allocation, 7-1/2 percent of the Act's total, to watershed
protection and restoration projects to improve watershed health
for fish and wildlife habitat.
Trout Unlimited makes these recommendations based on long
experience in restoring streams in rural communities, and
working with ranchers in the West, farmers in the Midwest, and
mining communities in the East.
My Southwest Idaho RAC encompasses seven counties, and has
averaged approximately $1 million per year in Title II funding
to invest in collaborative projects, maintaining public lands,
and restoring watershed health.
Over the years, I have reviewed hundreds of projects. I
feel like every one of those projects has value. I would like
to share a story of one of them with you. Several years ago a
dedicated and enthusiastic school principal from Council,
Idaho, figured out how to raise the money----
Mr. Grijalva. Sir, if I could ask you for the recording
purposes and hearing purposes to pull the microphone a little
closer to you.
Mr. Stouder. I am sorry. Is that better?
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, thank you.
Mr. Stouder. OK. So I would like to share a story of one of
these projects with you. Several years ago a dedicated and
enthusiastic school principal from Council, Idaho, figured out
how to raise money for a biofuels plan, basically a woodchip
burning facility that directly heats and cools the Council's
school buildings.
For five years now, it is saving the district about $40,000
a year in energy costs, and the district is paying off their
local bonds with those savings. This is a good story, but it
gets even better with the involvement of the RAC.
Title II funding expanded this biofuels effort, and brought
the National Forest and the community together in accomplishing
a lot more than just simply saving electrical bills.
The local high school had been raising native plants in a
small school greenhouse for the Payette National Forest
Restoration Projects. Students and teachers love the hands-on
nature of the project, and build a really robust curriculum
around the whole effort.
But the program was constrained by a small and inefficient
greenhouse. So they put their heads together and asked, why
don't we build a bigger and more efficient greenhouse and use
this new biofuels plant to heat and cool it?
We listened to the enthusiasm that teachers, parents,
students, and local Forest Service folks had, who explained how
this effort would not only give the Ranger District a valuable
source of native plants for restoration work, but also instill
an enthusiasm in the students for forestry and ecology, even
gaining college credits in natural resource programs at Idaho
State colleges.
Over the past three years, and in two phases, our RAC has
funded about $150,000 worth of state-of-the-art improvements in
the greenhouse to make it run efficiently off the biofuels
facility.
This year, high school students and Forest Service
personnel have had their first successful restoration planning
of over 2,000 plants from the greenhouse. We are really looking
forward to this project as it benefits both the Forest Service
and the local economy for years to come.
This is the same kind of collaboration that my friend and
co-worker, Matt Woodard, from Idaho Falls, has fostered in his
almost 10 years of work to restore the South Fork of the Snake
River.
The South Fork is one of the jewels of the greater
Yellowstone system, and in this intensive restoration project,
Trout Unlimited has been partnering with the Southeast Idaho
RAC.
Matt's RAC has held funds for four major stream restoration
projects over the years, contributing a total of $62,000. Other
funding on these projects all match the RAC funding several
times over.
This collaborative work has helped to keep Yellowstone
Cutthroat off the Endangered Species list, and has restored
fish populations throughout the South Fork. This is an example
of the RACs investing in watershed health in their community,
with the support of local landowners and sportsmen.
These projects help illustrate how the value of public
lands for recreation, and wildlife habitat, and clean water,
are associated with economic growth and well-being. Local
government services help public land counties attract and
retain businesses and families who choose to live near public
lands.
Secure Rural Schools reauthorization, with the
recommendations that I have outlined, has the opportunity to
build support for the conservation and restoration activities
on public lands, and contribute to local governments' abilities
to leverage these values into a community's sustainability.
In today's world the bulk of the economic value of public
land lies in its ability to attract people who want to live and
work near these lands. To summarize, Trout Unlimited strongly
supports the Secure Rural Schools Act, and urges Congress to
reauthorize these programs.
And Trout Unlimited respectfully recommends that the
Committee consider our recommendations that are detailed in my
written testimony. So, thanks again to all you folks for the
opportunity to testify. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stouder follows:]
Statement of Scott Stouder, Idaho Public Lands Director, Trout
Unlimited
Dear Chairman and Members of the Committee:
My name is Scott Stouder. I live in Pollock, Idaho. I'm Trout
Unlimited's (TU's) public lands director in that state. I appreciate
the chance to talk with you today about serving on one of Idaho's
Resource Advisory Committees, or RACs. I've served on the Southwest
Idaho RAC for the past six years, and in that time I've discussed and
considered hundreds of project proposals.
My brief testimony today will demonstrate why TU affirms that Title
II of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act
(``SRSCA'') is an effective program for conducting substantial resource
conservation projects in a cooperative manner with excellent
stakeholder and community buy-in. Because of its great record of
success, we strongly support reauthorization of the program and urge
Congress and the Administration to work together to ensure a smooth and
seamless future for it. To increase the Act's public benefits, we offer
two recommendations for a reauthorized program:
Allocate at least 15% of SRSCA funds to Title II
projects. Though it would not apply to Counties that receive
less than $100,000 per year, this allocation would roughly
double the current level of Title II funding.
Dedicate at least half of the Title II funding
allocation (7.5% of the SRSCA total) to watershed protection
and restoration projects that will improve watershed health and
fish and wildlife habitat.
I. Trout Unlimited and RAC's
Under Title II of the SRSCA, the Secretaries of Agriculture and
Interior--who are responsible for National Forest and BLM lands,
respectively--are authorized to establish Resource Advisory Committees
(RACs). The RACs are charged with proposing Title II projects. Each RAC
must consist of fifteen stakeholders, broadly representing
conservation, community and commodity interests. The applicable
Secretary has the discretion to approve of RAC projects. Such projects
must further the purposes of the SRSCA, including fostering investment
in roads and other infrastructure, soil productivity, ecosystem health,
watershed restoration and maintenance, control of noxious weeds, and
reestablishment of native species. RACs typically have authority over
some subset of a state's territory. For instance, there are six RACs
for the State of Idaho: Central Idaho, Eastern Idaho, the Idaho
Panhandle, North Central Idaho, South Central Idaho, and Southwest
Idaho.
TU works to restore streams and rivers, because anglers and
sportsmen care about healthy rivers and great places to take their kids
fishing. This means that TU works in rural communities across the
country: with ranchers in the West, farmers in the Midwest, and in
rural mining communities in the East. TU cleans up mining pollution,
works with farmers and ranchers to improve riparian habitat and restore
stream channels, and works with western irrigators to improve water
management and restore streamflows. TU also works with sportsmen who
care about protecting great hunting and fishing places on public lands.
That's mostly what I do.
The RACs that the SRSCA started back in 2000 are a natural fit with
TU's work because of our partnership approach, and our focus on
restoring watersheds. The funding that comes through the RACs has
contributed to these watershed efforts.
From FY 2001 to FY 2009, Title II of the SRSCA has directed $308
million to the RACs. That's only 8.3% of the total SRSCA funding, but
it has made a difference. One hundred and eight (108) RACs have been
authorized through the SRSCA; 55 were initially organized, and 53 more
have been added since.
I'm going to tell you about what my RAC has done, and also mention
how the South East Idaho RAC helped restore the South Fork of the Snake
River--the great work that my Idaho co-worker Matt Woodard has done in
partnership with his local RAC.
II. My Story
My SW Idaho RAC encompasses seven counties: Adams, Boise, Elmore,
Gem, Idaho, Valley and Washington. Our Title II funding has averaged
approximately one million dollars per year, investing in collaborative
projects that contribute to maintaining public lands and restoring
watershed health. That money has been instrumental in helping these
local governments meet such basic needs on public lands within their
borders such as access infrastructure maintenance, educational and
outreach needs and other services provided by county government on our
public lands. In these large, rural counties, where land ownership is
predominately Forest Service, that's a critical source of funding. From
TU's perspective, the Secure Rural Schools program provides important
funding for watershed restoration projects stretching the spectrum from
culvert replacements to road improvement and decommissioning.
One of the project criteria that our RAC places high emphasis on is
matching funds. This effort not only multiplies the fiscal power of the
federal funding in each project, but invests other groups, agencies and
landowners into the projects and the entire program. This ``community
and collaborative building'' part of the program is an important
factor. Indeed, it could be the most important factor. Not only is this
``collaborative'' effort spelled out in the Act itself, but, in my
opinion, it's the glue that brings everything together and enables the
program to be more than just another source of federal funding.
A great example of the RACs' emphasis on collaboration, in my mind,
is a project that our RAC participated in with the Council, ID (Adams
County) school district a few years ago. Murray Dalgleish, the Council
school principal and school district superintendent came to us with a
proposal to help expand the bio-fuels heating and cooling of his
school, which he had developed, constructed and funded through various
sources, including passing a local bond.
Council, ID, like many small, rural communities, has high
unemployment, low per-capita income and is surrounded by National
Forests. Like many other communities its history is timber, but its
lumber mills have come and gone and its basic economy now is small
farms and ranches, some special-niche logging, and what jobs the Forest
Service and local government offers. So money is tight and passing a
local bond to fund a new--and basically untested--heating and cooling
system for the school, as you could imagine, was not an easy task. The
bio-fuels plant is basically a wood-chip burning facility in a small
concrete building located on the school property that directly heats
and cools the Council school buildings. The system has been up and
running for five years now. It is saving the district about $40,000 a
year in energy costs, and the district is paying off their bond with
those savings.
The Council school district's bio-fuels plant is a wonderful
success story in itself, but I want to tell you the story of how the
Secure Rural Schools program helped expand that effort to help bring
their national forests and the community closer together, while doing
much more than just saving on electric bills.
The Council high school had been involved with the Council Ranger
District on the Payette National Forest for some years, raising native
plants in a small greenhouse on the school property. Those native
plants were then used in restoration projects on national forests in
the District. The school had built up a robust curriculum around this
effort with many students involved in raising the plants and going out
on the National Forest and helping plant and work on local restoration
projects. However, the program was constricted by budget and space for
raising plants. The greenhouse was small, inefficient, and very
expensive to operate. Murray, his students and staff, and District
Forest Service personnel put their heads together and said: ``Why don't
we build a new, bigger and more efficient greenhouse, and use the new
bio-fuels plant to heat and cool it?''
So, about three years ago they came to us--the SW RAC--with a
$94,000 proposal to help construct a new greenhouse. We listened to the
enthusiasm of parents, teaching staff and students, as well as local
Forest Service folks, who explained how this effort not only would give
the District a valuable source of native plants for restoration work,
but it was instilling an enthusiasm in students for furthering their
education in forestry and natural resources--even to the extent of
gaining college credits in natural resource programs at two of Idaho's
state colleges. Our RAC decided to fund the proposal and the greenhouse
was built. Last year, as the greenhouse was being completed, Murray
came back to us, with a $55,000 funding request to vastly improve the
circulatory and computerized environmental control characteristics
within the greenhouse. We funded that project as well. This year, the
Council school district, working with local Forest Service personnel,
have had their first successful planting of over 2000 plants from the
greenhouse. We're looking toward watching this project bear fruit to
both the National Forest and the local community for years to come.
Although our committee has funded hundreds of beneficial projects
in the SW Idaho RAC's region over the years that I've served, this
project stands out to me as an example of how well the Secure Rural
Schools program and local RACs can work to bring local communities
together with their federal land agencies to help the public lands that
we all enjoy and cherish.
III. RAC's and Investment in Healthy Landscapes
This is the same kind of collaboration that my friend and co-
worker, Matt Woodard, has fostered in his almost ten years of work to
restore the South Fork of the Snake River. The South Fork is an iconic
western river that is one of the jewels of the entire Greater
Yellowstone area. In this intensive restoration project, he has
partnered with the South East Idaho RAC to produce significant
conservation benefits.
The South Fork of the Snake River Restoration Project began in 2001
with the goal of reversing the decline of the native Yellowstone
cutthroat trout fishery. The project has three basic components:
habitat restoration; dam operation improvements; and angler engagement,
with the goal of encouraging anglers to ``catch and keep'' non-native
rainbow trout. TU has successfully reconnected four major Yellowstone
cutthroat spawning tributaries to the mainstem, and works with private
landowners in the area to improve fish passage and habitat around
irrigation diversions. TU also works with the Bureau of Reclamation to
regulate flows from Palisades Dam so they support the imperiled native
fish.
The South East Idaho RAC helped fund the four major stream
restoration projects, over the years contributing $62,000. These
projects all matched the RAC funding several times over. For example,
the restoration and reconnection of Garden Creek to the South Fork of
the Snake River was an over $300,000-dollar project that matched the
RAC's $17,000 contribution with private donations, landowner
contributions, state restoration dollars, and other federal sources.
This collaborative work has helped to keep Yellowstone cutthroat
trout off the endangered species list, and has restored fish
populations throughout the South Fork, creating a healthier, more
robust river. It's an example of the RAC's investing in watershed
health in their community, with the support of local landowners and
sportsmen. It's keeping dollars in the rural areas while producing
wide-spread public benefit.
IV. Public Benefit of Title II Funding Carried out Through RACs
The Secure Rural Schools Act insulates county budgets from the
boom-and-bust cycle of timber harvest and mining operations on federal
lands. Not only is this good for rural school systems and county road
budgets, the 8% of the Act's funding that goes through the RACs helps
protect the values on federal lands in a way that benefits local
communities.
A. The Values of Public Land Contributes to Sustainable Economies
It's a given that the values of public lands--for recreation,
wildlife habitat, and clean water--are associated with economic growth
and well-being. Quality local government services help public-land
counties attract and retain businesses and families who choose to live
near public lands. SRSCA reauthorization with the recommendations I've
outlined has the opportunity to build support for conservation and
restoration activities on public lands, and contribute to local
government's ability to leverage these values into community
sustainability.
This is because in today's economy, the bulk of the economic value
of public lands lies in its ability to attract people--and their
businesses--who want to live near protected lands for quality of life
reasons. For example, research by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Headwaters Economics, and others, has shown that 93% of employment in
the 11 western states, comes from sources other than public lands'
timber harvesting, mining or energy development. Similarly, a detailed
economic analysis of the Clearwater Stewardship Project on the Seeley
Lake District of Lolo National Forest in Montana (2003-2004, over a
project area of 6800 acres) showed that the portion of the contract
invested in restoration and monitoring accounted for 10% of the
economic activity generated from the contract, and diversified the
economic sectors that benefited from the contract. Surveys of business
owners have consistently identified quality of life, including
environmental amenities provided by public lands, as a key factor
determining where entrepreneurs choose to locate. Amenities are also
well-known to be a key factor in the attraction of retirement wealth.
A good example is the mostly rural Greater Yellowstone Area, with
18 million acres of public lands in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. When
compared to fast-growing areas of the West, such as the Silicon Valley,
the Puget Sound area, and the Front Range of Colorado, the Greater
Yellowstone has outperformed them in the last three decades in terms of
growth of jobs, and real personal income, wages, and per capita income.
Why has this area done so well despite being rural and isolated?
Because the wildland amenities of Greater Yellowstone are an asset that
attracts talented people. Stories such as these are repeating
themselves as the West transitions into a much more diverse, and
resilient economy. Healthy, naturally functioning public lands with
abundant fishing, hunting and outdoor recreation play a key role in
that transition.
B. Recommendations for the Future
To summarize, TU strongly supports the SRSCA and urges Congress to
reauthorize its programs. Title II funding, and the RACs which develop
the Title II projects, have been extremely valuable for improving
watershed health in communities around the Nation. Recognizing this
link between creating resilient, sustainable rural economies and
investing in healthy federal lands, TU respectfully recommends that the
Committee consider the following:
Allocate at least 15% of SRSCA funds to Title II
projects. Though it would not apply to Counties that receive
less than $100,000 per year, this allocation would roughly
double the current level of Title II funding.
Dedicate at least half of Title II funding (7.5% of
the SRSCA total) to watershed protection and restoration
projects that will improve watershed health and fish and
wildlife habitat.
Healthy watersheds on federal lands provide not only high quality
habitat for fish and wildlife, but also a suite of ecosystem services,
such as clean drinking water and delivery of water for downstream
users, that benefit nearby communities. TU sees the provision of
ecosystem services from counties' federal lands as an opportunity to
provide a compelling rationale for sustainable funding for county
payments, while also contributing to protecting and restoring the
health of our large, public landscapes.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. Mr. Allan Thayer, President
of Dolores RE-4A Board of Control, Dolores, Colorado. Welcome,
sir, and I look forward to your comments.
STATEMENT OF ALLAN THAYER, PRESIDENT, DOLORES RE-4A BOARD OF
CONTROL, DOLORES, COLORADO
Mr. Thayer. Thank you. Chairman Grijalva, and Ranking
Member Bishop, and members of the Committee, good morning,
Allan Thayer at your service. I am an elected school board
member, and business owner, and coach, and father of a
sophomore daughter.
My son graduated from the University of Colorado at Boulder
last year, pre-med. I live in Montezuma County, in southwest
Colorado. It is an arid region, half high desert and half
mountains. It is home to the Mesa Verde National Park, Canyon
of the Ancients, and Four Corners National Monument.
There are 2,084 square miles in the county, an area a
little larger than Delaware. Six hundred seventy-six square
miles are the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe reservation. Three hundred
eighty-seven square miles are National Forests. Two hundred
eight square miles are Bureau of Land Management.
The county is roughly 70 percent Federal land, and 30
percent private. There are approximately 27,000 people here,
and three school districts. My school district, Dolores RE-4A,
has 710 students.
Last year the Dolores RE-4A School District received
$37,598 in Secure Rural School funds. We used this money for
another elementary teacher. This allowed us to keep our class
size small, about 18 to 22 students.
Our elementary school focuses on reading and math, and with
this money over the last couple of years, we are continually
bringing up test scores in these areas. Even with our school
population at 55 percent below poverty level, we are a high-
achieving district within our State.
The Mancos School District, the smallest in the county with
about 400 students, received $20,271. Their superintendent said
that in these hard economic times, the Secure Rural School
funds have allowed us not to have to cut a teaching position.
The Cortez School District, our largest, with an enrollment
of approximately 2,900 students, received $155,514. The Cortez
Chief Financial Officer wrote that our average teacher costs is
about $48,100. Our 2009 and 2010 payment from Secure Rural
Schools paid for a little over three teachers.
This money has been essential with our declining
enrollment, need to change, and the economic climate that has
reduced our State funding. A few years ago the Acting
Superintendent of Mesa Verde National Park, William Nelligan,
and his family, moved to Dolores from New Jersey. He has three
school-aged children, and he and his wife were worried about
coming to a small rural area as their children had attended a
private school in New Jersey. They checked out Dolores and
couldn't believe the quality of our staff, administration,
curriculum, and our community involvement. Two years ago, we
passed a Mill Levy Override.
Mr. Nelligan said that my fifth grade son was welcomed
personally by the principal, and then he was assessed by the
counselor and his teacher, and they challenged him to the high
end of his learning level. He was allowed to slide nowhere.
My freshman daughter was excited that you had an FFA
program, and it is quality from top to bottom. Your graduation
rate and college placement of seniors is unheard of.
The Dolores RE-4A School District graduates on average 95
percent of our incoming freshman. In May's graduation, we sent
over 40 of our seniors--we had 54 seniors--to higher education.
We are an economically depressed area. Dolores RE-4A ranks
in the bottom 15 percent in our State. We need and are very
appreciative of these Secure Rural School dollars to maintain
our high standards.
Colorado limits school district revenue to property taxes
in a State equalization formula that even the Colorado
Department of Education does not understand. Every dollar
outside of our property taxes is very important. 163 people in
Dolores work for taxing districts, the school or the Federal
Government.
The other half work for taxpaying employers, the largest of
which is the Aspen Wildwood Lumber Yard with 16 employees. I
stated earlier that 70 percent of Montezuma County does not pay
property taxes. Our income is farming, tourism, mom and pop
sawmills, and very little mining.
Our small businesses, grocery stores, gas stations, and
restaurants, hotels, these places generate our tax dollars.
Secure Rural Schools funding shows the United States Government
understands the 41 States and Puerto Rico that receive these
dollars need them to maintain the level of excellence in
education that America demands.
Montezuma County Commissioners have partnered with our
school districts and give us the maximum amount of money at
their disposal, which is 75 percent of the SRS money. The other
25 percent goes to roads.
I believe America's future quality of life depends on the
education that we give our kids today. Thanks for the
opportunity to testify, and please protect this funding source
for our schools.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thayer follows:]
Statement of Allan Thayer, President,
Dolores RE-4A Board of Control, Dolores, Colorado
Chairman Grijalva Ranking member Bishop and members of the
committee, good morning. Allan Thayer at your service. I'm an elected
School Board member, business owner, coach, and father of a sophomore
daughter. My son graduated from University of Colorado Boulder last
year pre-med.
I live in Montezuma County in southwest Colorado. It's an arid
region half high desert and half mountains. It is home to Mesa Verde
National Park, Canyon of the Ancients, and Four Corners National
Monument. There are 2,084 square miles in the county, an area a little
larger than Delaware. Six hundred seventy six square miles are Ute
Mountain Ute tribe reservation. Three hundred eighty seven square miles
are National Forest. Two hundred eight square miles are B.L.M. The
county is roughly 70% federal land and 30% private land. There are
approximately 27,000 people here and 3 school districts. My school
district, Dolores RE-4A, has 710 students.
Last year, the Dolores RE-4A School District received $37,598.00 in
Secure Rural School Funds. We used this money for another elementary
teacher. This allowed us to keep our class size small, 18-22 students.
Our Elementary focus is on reading and math, and with this money we are
continually bringing up these test scores. Even with our school
population at 55% below poverty level, we are a high achieving district
within our state.
Mancos School District, the smallest, with about 400 students
received $20,271.00. Their superintendent said, ``In these hard
economic times the Secure Rural School Funds have allowed us not to
have to cut a teaching position''.
Cortez RE-1 School District, our largest, with an enrollment of
approximately 2,900 students received $155,514.00 (in 08-09 they
received $181,523.00). The Cortez Chief Financial Officer wrote: ``Our
average teacher cost is $37,400.00 salary, $10,700.00 in benefits for a
total of $48,100.00. Our 2009-2010 payment paid for a little over 3
teachers. This money has been essential with our declining enrollment,
need to change, and the economic climate that has reduced our state
funding''.
Two years ago the acting Superintendent of Mesa Verde National
Park, William Nelligan and his family moved to Dolores from New Jersey.
He has 3 school age children. He and his wife were worried about coming
to a small rural area, as their children attended a private school in
New Jersey. They checked out Dolores and couldn't believe the quality
of our staff, administration, and curriculum. Mr. Nelligan said ``My
5th grade son was welcomed personally by the Principal. Then he was
assessed by the counselor and his teacher, and then they challenged him
to the high end of his learning level, he was allowed to slide nowhere.
My freshman daughter was excited that you had an F.F.A. program, and it
is quality from top to bottom. Your graduation rate, and college
placement of seniors is unheard of.''
Dolores Re-4A School District graduate on average 95% of our
incoming freshman. In May's graduation, we sent over 40 out of 54
seniors to higher education
We are an economically depressed area--Dolores RE-4A ranks in the
bottom 15% in our state. We need and are very appreciative of these
Secure Rural school dollars to maintain our high standards. Colorado
limits school district revenue to property taxes and a state
equalization formula that even the Colorado Department of Education
doesn't understand. Every dollar outside of property taxes is very
important. One hundred sixty three people in Dolores work for taxing
districts (the school or the federal government). The other half work
for the tax-paying employers, the largest of which is Aspen Wall Wood,
a lumber yard, with 16 employees.
As stated earlier, 70% of Montezuma County does not pay property
taxes. Our income is farming, tourism, and very little mining. Our
small businesses, grocery stores, gas stations, restaurants, hotels,
these places generate our tax dollars.
Secure Rural Schools Funding shows the U.S. government understands
the 41 states and Puerto Rico that receive these dollars need them to
maintain their level of excellence in education that America demands!
Montezuma County Commissioners have partnered with their school
districts and give them the maximum amount of this money at their
disposal. I believe America's future quality of life depends on the
education we give our kids today.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak and please protect this
funding source for our schools.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. Mr. Elias Coriz, Chairman,
Rio Arriba County Commission, Espanola, New Mexico. Welcome,
Commissioner. I look forward to your comments.
STATEMENT OF ELIAS CORIZ, CHAIRMAN, RIO ARRIBA COUNTY
COMMISSION, ESPANOLA, NEW MEXICO
Mr. Coriz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Committee, and Ranking Member Bishop, I would like to take the
opportunity to provide a grassroots local perspective in regard
to very special legislation. I would also like to recognize The
Honorable Congressman from New Mexico, Ben Ray Lujan, Junior,
for all the support and commitments that he has to New Mexico.
A brief history: 22 out of 33 New Mexico counties receive
Secure Rural Schools and Communities Self-Determination
funding. The Rio Arriba County Commission, for the past 7-1/2
years that I have served, has taken steps to implement numerous
projects compatible with the Secure Rural Schools, in addition
to spending county general fund dollars in pursuing similar
goals.
Rio Arriba County is larger than three of our smallest
States. We have over 5,100 square miles of land within our
county. Seventy percent is in the public domain. We have nearly
900 miles of county roads in our inventory, and over half of
that mileage provides access to our national forests.
We have had agreements in place for decades to assist the
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to maintain not
only county roads, but county roads that also access our Forest
Service.
This is where 85 percent of these SRS monies go. New Mexico
law requires that Title I monies go into road budgets, a
restricted fund. Prior to 2008, the county received less than
$200,000 per year for our road fund, and $60,000 for Title II
and Title III.
The increase in monies that came with the adjustable and
more equitable 2008 funding formula has resulted in upgrades of
road construction. The county has been able to pave some of its
primary roads to some of its Secure Rural communities, and
roads that also lead to our forest lands.
An example of the use of Forest Service lands in New
Mexico, the Rainbow Family had their reunion in 2007 on the
Carson National Forest and on the Santa Fe National Forest in
2009, and nearly 10,000 family members attended this reunion,
and placed an extraordinary demand on county law enforcement
and emergency services, road maintenance, hospital clinics, and
other local services.
Repairing the ecological damage at the end of a month of
camping by the equivalent of a medium-sized city population
involved many volunteers, county and State staff, to clean and
repair very large areas.
Rio Arriba County is diligent in the protection of its
natural resources in our rural communities through the forest
resources, for these were connected to our grant lands.
The advocacy for the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo is a duty
imposed on New Mexico County Commissions and State officials in
our State Constitution. We have engaged our communities in
developing the vision and the goals embodied in the
comprehensive plan.
The comprehensive plan tracks closely with those initially
adopted and today are a part of SRS. The association currently
has memorandums of understanding with the BLM and the Forest
Service, and has a Federal employee liaison working full-time
to implement public plan initiatives, such as watershed
protection, wildland fire planning and mitigation, forest
restoration, and Federal programs, all of which are under the
Title II and Title III SRSCA.
Because of the history of lost land grants and most
recently the loss of multiple use of forest plans reduced to
such laws as the Endangered Species Act, the people of Rio
Arriba County at times have a strained relationship with the
Forest Service.
It is sometimes difficult to get the county residents to
trust and engage in activities with these Federal agencies. Our
county government tries hard to fulfill our commitments and
responsibilities to all our residents under existing Federal
and State laws.
Hundreds of Acts, legal cases, and regulations, have been
promulgated in the Organic Act of 1897. If you look at the
statistics, those counties who have the largest tracts of
national forests ranked among the poorest, and most unemployed,
and have the poorest access to health care, and too numerous
other challenges.
Let us continue to join our efforts to keep forest-
dependent communities sustainable in their culture, their
economic and social viability, for this will be the best way of
conserving and benefiting from the boundary and beauty of our
national forests. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Coriz follows:]
Statement of Elias Coriz, Immediate Past Board Member and Treasurer,
New Mexico Association of Counties; Member, Rio Arriba County Board of
Commissioners, Former Member, Espanola Valley Schools Board of
Education, on behalf of the New Mexico Association of Counties and Rio
Arriba County
First, let me thank the Honorable Chairman of this Committee,
Congressman Grijalva and all the other Members of the committee for the
opportunity to provide a local perspective in regard to this very
important legislation. I would also like to acknowledge, and thank, our
own Congressman Ben Ray Lujan, Jr., a member of this Committee, for all
the support that he provides for his constituents in Northern New
Mexico.
22 of 33 New Mexico counties receive some Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self Determination Act (SRSCA) funding. For over a century
counties have helped the federal government meet the commitments
embodied in the philosophy, mission, and goals of the Forest Reserve
Organic Administration Act of 1897.
The Rio Arriba County Commission has for the past seven and a half
years that I have served, taken steps to implement numerous projects
compatible with SRSCA in addition to, spending county general fund
dollars pursuing similar goals. Rio Arriba County is larger than the
three of our smallest states; we have over five-thousand-eight hundred
square miles of land within the county, 70% of which is in the public
domain. We have nearly nine hundred miles of county roads in our
inventory and over half that mileage provide access to National Forest
Lands or are within Forest Boundaries. We have had agreements in place
for decades to assist the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management
maintains not only on county roads but some of their roads as well,
this is where 85% of the SRSCA money goes. New Mexico law requires that
the Title I monies go into the road budget, a restricted fund.
Prior to 2008 the County received less than two-hundred thousand
dollars per year for our road fund, and sixty thousand for Titles II
and III. The increase in road monies that came with the adjusted, and
more equitable, 2008 funding formula has resulted in upgraded road
construction. The county has been able to pave some of the primary
roads that serve rural communities, roads that also serve the forest
lands.
As an example of the use of Forest Service lands in Rio Arriba
County, the Rainbow Family had their reunion in 2007 on the Carson
National Forest and on the Santa Fe National Forest in 2009. Nearly ten
thousand family members attended these reunions and placed
extraordinary demands on county law enforcement, emergency medical
services, road maintenance, hospitals clinics and other local services.
Repairing the ecological damage at the end of a month of forest camping
by the equivalent of a medium size city population involved many
volunteers and county and Forest Service staff to clean and repair a
very large area. All this happened through cooperation between three
counties (Rio Arriba, Taos and Sandoval) and the Forest Service.
We have been working closely with our rural forest dependent Indio-
Hispano villagers and our Tribal communities to implement removal of
invasive exotic vegetations and conserve water. Rio Arriba County is
diligent in the protection of usufructory rights of our rural
communities to forest resources where those were connected to grant
lands. The advocacy for Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo is a duty imposed
on New Mexico County Commissions and State Officials in our State
Constitution and the treaty is inexorably tied to National Forest
Lands. We have engaged our communities in developing the vision and
goals embodied in our County Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan
tracks closely with those initially adopted in the Organic Act and
today are part of SRSCA. In implementing our Comprehensive Plan we have
adopted Ordinances to protect our very limited irrigated agricultural
lands, worked with community water associations and traditional
irrigators to maintain water quality and to protect future supply. We
have moved to regulate Oil and Gas Development to protect private
property owners and to protect our aquifers, and we have also adopted a
``Best Practices'' Timber Ordinance for harvesting timber on private
lands, successfully defending the ordinance from a legal challenge.
Many of the private lands that are now regulated in the ordinance are
surrounded by National Forest. We have also funded the work of several
youth groups including the youth conservation corp. on Forest Service
Lands.
The New Mexico Association of Counties has had numerous discussions
with member counties related to their relationship with the Forest
Service. Most New Mexico counties are engaged in projects similar to
those described for Rio Arriba County. The Association currently has
Memorandums of Understanding with both the BLM and U.S. Forest Service
and has had a federal employee liaison working full time with the
Association and member counties to implement public lands initiatives
such as watershed protection, wild land fire planning and mitigation,
forest restoration and other federal programs all of which are allowed
under titles II and III of SRSCA
Because of the history of the loss of Land Grants and more recently
the loss of multiple use of forest lands due to such laws as the
Endangered Species Act, the people of Rio Arriba County, at times, have
had a strained relationship with the Forest Service. It is sometimes
difficult to get the county residents to trust and engage in activities
with the federal agencies.
Frances Swadesh, respected New Mexico historian in her treatise on
the Tierra Amarilla Land Grant puts it this way:
``When the Court of Private Land Claims was dissolved in 1904,
the federal government had acquired control over more than
fifty-two million acres of land in New Mexico. Many of these
acres, opened for homestead entry, fell into the hands of
powerful ranching and mining interests, while nearly nine
million acres were set aside for national forests.''
She goes on to say state that: ``During the early territorial
years, the villagers on their scattered land grants did not realize the
magnitude of what was taking place: a wholesale violation of their
property rights as guaranteed by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.''
County governments try hard to fulfill our commitments and
responsibilities to all our residents under existing federal and state
laws, hundreds of Acts, legal cases and regulations have been
promulgated since the Organic Act of 1897. The inconsistent approach by
the federal government puts states and counties at a real disadvantage
to plan budgets and long-term projects. We most often do not know when
the political ground will shift out from under us.
The New Mexico Association of Counties and Rio Arriba County
endorse the recommendations forwarded by the Senate and the Congress in
letters sent to President Barack Obama dated July 14 and 15, 2010
encouraging him to include a long-term extension of SRSCA in his 2012
budget. The letters are signed by over seventy Congressmen and thirty
Senators. A review of the signatures accompanying the letters clearly
indicate bi-partisan support for reauthorizing SRSCA. This was true in
2000 and again in 2008 when it was extended six and four years
respectively with changes in funding and requirements.
The New Mexico Association of Counties and the County of Rio Arriba
also support the National Forest Counties and Schools Coalition's
Concept Paper titled ``The Sustainable Forests and Secure Rural Schools
and Counties Act of 2010.'' (Herein included as an exhibit for the
record)
If you look at the statistics, those counties who have large tracts
of National Forest Lands rank among the poorest, most unemployed, have
the poorest access to health care and endure numerous other challenges.
Let us continue to join our efforts to keep forest dependent
communities sustainable in their cultural, economic and social vitality
for this will be the best strategy for conserving and benefiting from
the beauty and bounty of our National Forest Lands.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7667.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7667.002
.eps__
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Mike Jacobs,
President, Arkansas Association of Counties. Welcome, sir.
STATEMENT OF MIKE JACOBS, PRESIDENT, ARKANSAS ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES, CLARKSVILLE, ARKANSAS
Mr. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. My name
is Mike Jacobs, and I am a County Judge in Johnson County,
Arkansas. I appreciate the honor and the privilege to be here
today regarding the Secure Rural Schools and Communities Self-
Determination Act, a partnership between the Federal and local
government that, in my opinion, is vital to the betterment of
rural schools and roads in and about our national forests.
Specifically, allow me to address my experience with the
United States Forest Service in Johnson County. When I took
office in 1991, Johnson County contained some 1,030 miles of
roads, about 250 miles of which was located in the National
Forest in our county.
Our county road and bridge budget at that time was about
$760,000 for the entire county. Today, our budget is $2.9
million. The United States Forest Service in 1991 had a decent
budget for the maintenance and the operation of the roads
throughout the National Forest.
The budget provided for the routine maintenance necessary
to keep the gravel roads in good shape. Johnson County, of
course, assisted the Forest Service in the maintenance of these
roads on an as-needed basis.
The partnership between the county and the Forest Service
worked well for as long as our local Forest Service was
provided with the funding to take care of the roads in the
national forest.
It was not long after I became a County Judge, however,
that the funding to our local forest district began to
decrease. Fast forward to 2010, and our local office of the
Forest Service budgets some $30,000 per year for the
maintenance of--actually, they have about 700 miles of Forest
Service and county roads in the forest district there in
Johnson County.
In addition to that, the Forest Service no longer has a
single road grader to grade the roads with, doesn't have a
backhoe to put a culvert in, and it doesn't even have a dump
truck to haul gravel in to put on the roads.
The Forest Service attempts to provide some service on the
roads of the national forests. However, with only $30,000
available and no equipment with which to perform these routine
maintenance services, they simply cannot perform much more than
just cosmetic maintenance.
And I think you would agree that $30,000 is not much in the
way of maintenance. A contract for the costs of grading for
about 200 miles of roads just one time is in excess of $24,000.
So if the Forest Service were the only one that did any
work up there, those roads would get graded about once every
four years. Practically speaking, the Forest Service in Johnson
County has had its ability to maintain the roads cut so
severely that, for all intents and purposes, they no longer
maintain the roads.
Their position is that if a four-wheel drive can get up and
down the roads, then that is going to have to do, and I think
that most of you know that a lot of people in Arkansas don't
even have a car, much less a four-wheel drive vehicle.
I am sure that Members are aware that although we are
talking about roads in the national forest, there are families
that live in these areas and using these roads on a daily
basis.
There are dozens of families that live along these roads
running through the Ozark National Forest. Our citizens have to
have decent roads on which to drive to get to work, and upon
which they can receive those services we often take for
granted, such as mail service, school bus services for children
who live in the areas.
And although the funds to perform maintenance of their
roads has been cut from the Forest Service budget, these roads
must still be maintained, and that is where Johnson County
comes into the picture.
In the last several years, Johnson County has had no choice
but to assume near total responsibility for the maintenance and
the upkeep of the roads in the national forest.
We are constantly buying and hauling gravel to place on
these roads, as well as using our road graders to provide the
routine maintenance necessary to keep these roads passable.
For Johnson County, this is where the Secure Rural School
funding is vital. In 2008, Johnson County received some
$690,000, although the lion's share of this revenue went to the
rural schools, a reasonable amount comes to the county through
Title I that helps to offset the expenses of buying gravel, the
provision of heavy equipment for maintaining the roads, and the
human capital necessary for operating that equipment.
If the proposed cuts go forward, we will see Johnson
County's share decrease from $690,000 to $245,000. Johnson
County itself will experience a loss of over $60,000 that
currently goes to buy gravel for the maintenance of these
roads.
At that level of funding the county will be maintaining the
roads in our national forests essentially at very little cost
to the Federal Government. Road maintenance is required in
Arkansas by State law, and so our financial relationship with
the Forest Service is vital.
Otherwise, we will have to cut other social services to
maintain the roads inside the Ozark National Forest. I
respectfully suggest to the Members that the partnership
between the Federal and local government that was forged during
the Teddy Roosevelt Administration is in danger of completely
falling apart.
It is not a membership, a partnership, when one side
provides all of the revenue needed by that partnership. Johnson
County cannot tax the national forest. Consequently, we have no
way of making up for the loss of those lands to our tax base
without a program like Secure Rural Schools through which the
Federal Government maintains its end of the bargain struck by
President Roosevelt.
I would like to make it clear that I am not chastising the
Forest Service for the lack of maintenance on the roads in our
national forests, because I am not. I have great respect for
the Forest Service.
In fact, back in the 1950s, there were very few jobs in
Johnson County, and my father went to work for the Forest
Service, and he actually retired from the Forest Service. So I
have been around the Forest Service for about as long as I can
remember.
And that is not to say that occasionally the Forest Service
does not come up with some special dollars on a special
project, usually small projects that the county winds up with
very little expense in, but this is not the rule, however. That
is really the exception when they do come up with money.
But I realize that I am out of time, but I would like to
urge you all to support the long-term reauthorization of the
Secure Rural Schools Act so that we can provide a dependable
basis for those services that are fundamental to the economic
welfare of the citizens of forest communities all across the
United States. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jacobs follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Mike Jacobs,
County Judge, Johnson County, Arkansas
Chairman Grijalva, Ranking member Bishop and Committee members good
morning I am Mike Jacobs, County Judge, Johnson County, Arkansas. I
appreciate the honor and the privilege of testifying here today
regarding the Secure Rural Schools & Community Self-Determination Act;
a partnership between federal and local government that, in my opinion,
is vital to the betterment of rural schools and roads in and about our
National Forests. Specifically, allow me to address my experience with
the U.S. Forest Service in Johnson County, Arkansas.
I was elected County Judge in 1991. At that time Johnson County
contained some 1,030 miles of road 250 of which was located in the
National Forests in our county. Our county road & bridge budget at that
time was about $760,000 for the entire county. Today our budget is $2.9
million dollars. The U.S. Forest Service, in 1991, had a decent budget
for the maintenance and operation of roads through the national
forests. The budget provided the routine maintenance necessary to keep
gravel roads in decent shape. Johnson County, of course, assisted the
Forest Service in the maintenance of these roads on an ``as needed''
basis. This partnership between the county and the Service worked well
for as long as our local Forest Service office was provided with the
funding to take care of the roads in the National Forests. It was not
long after I became county judge, however, that funding to our local
office began to decrease.
Fast-forward to 2010 and our local office of the Forest Service
budgets some $30,000 for the maintenance of the 250 odd miles of County
roads running through the Ozark National Forest in Johnson County. In
addition, the Forest Service no longer has a single road-grader,
backhoe or dump truck. The Forest Service attempts to provide some
service on the roads in the National Forest, however, with only $30,000
available and no equipment with which to perform routine maintenance
they simply cannot perform much more than cosmetic maintenance--and I
think you would agree that $30,000 will not buy much in the way of
maintenance. The contract cost of one grading of the 250 miles of road
in the Ozark National Forest is in excess of $24,000. Practically
speaking, the Forest Service, in Johnson County, Arkansas, has had
their ability to maintain their roads cut so severely that, for all
intents and purposes, they no longer maintain those roads. Their
default position is ``if a 4-wheel drive can get up and down their
roads then that will have to do.''
I'm sure the members are aware that, although we are talking about
roads in the National Forest, there are families living in these areas
and using these roads on a daily basis. There are dozens of families
that live in along roads running through the Ozark National Forest. Our
citizens have to have decent roads on which they can drive to work and
upon which they can receive those services, we so often take for
granted, such as mail delivery and school bus services for the children
living in these areas. Although the funds to perform maintenance of
their roads have been cut from the Forest Service's budget these roads
must still be maintained. That is where Johnson County comes into the
picture.
In the last several years Johnson County has had no choice but to
assume near total responsibility for the maintenance and upkeep of
roads in our National Forest. We are constantly buying and hauling
gravel to place on these roads as well as using our road graders to
provide the routine maintenance necessary to keep these roads passable.
For Johnson County this is where the Secure Rural Schools funding is
vital. In 2008 Johnson County received some $690,000. Although the
lion's share of this revenue goes to our rural schools a reasonable
amount comes to the county through Title I that helps to offset the
expenses of buying gravel, the provision of heavy equipment for
maintaining the roads and the human capital necessary for operating
that equipment. If the proposed cuts go forward we will see Johnson
County's share decrease from $690,000 to $245,000. Johnson County will
experience a loss of over $60,000 that currently goes to buy gravel for
the maintenance of these roads. At that level of funding the county
will be maintaining the roads in our National Forest, essentially, at
very little cost to the federal government. Road maintenance is
required by State law so our financial relationship with the Forest
Service is vital. Otherwise we will cut other social services to
maintain roads inside the Ozark National Forest
I would respectfully suggest to the members that the partnership
between federal and local government that was forged during the Teddy
Roosevelt administration is in danger of falling apart. It is not a
partnership when one side provides all of the revenue needed by the
partnership. Johnson County cannot tax National Forests consequently we
have no way of making up for the loss of those lands to our tax base
without a program like Secure Rural Schools through which the federal
government maintains its end of the bargain struck by President
Roosevelt.
I would like to end by making it clear that I'm not chastising the
Forest Service for their lack of maintenance of the roads in our
National Forests because I'm not. I have great respect for the Service
and, in fact, my father retired from the Forest Service so I've been
around foresters for about as long as I can remember. Occasionally the
Service is able to obtain additional revenues when there is a major
crisis on one of their roads. Not too long ago one of our roads
sloughed off the side of a hill stranding several households. Working
with the Service in D.C. our local Ranger's office was able to get one-
time funds sufficient to make the needed repairs with little expense to
the county. This is not the rule; however, unfortunately it is the
exception. I have a great relationship with our local forester and I
know she would love to have the revenues available to better take care
of the roads in the National Forests, however, those revenues simply
aren't available.
I urge all of you to support a long-term reauthorization of the
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act so that we
can provide on a dependable basis those services that are fundamental
to the economic welfare of citizens in Forested communities all across
the United States. Thank You.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, and all of the panelists, and let
me turn to Mr. Kildee for any questions or comments that he
might have. Sir.
Mr. Kildee. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank you
for having this hearing. It is very important that we kind of
update our knowledge of the importance of this legislation.
It is very important. You have really enlightened our minds
and increased my motivation to make sure that we do what is
right for you. We made commitments to you--free roads, free
schools--and as a former teacher, I especially feel an
obligation there.
I have respect for all of you individually and
collectively. Trout Unlimited in Michigan is a great
organization. I will try to work closely with them, and so all
of you not only represent yourself, but also many other people
and institutions.
And I really appreciate this, and if I may say to Ms.
Groseclose [in Spanish] I am able to speak Spanish a little
because I taught Latin in a public school, but I must practice
more. Therefore, I should just go to West Virginia to practice
with you and your students.
Ms. Groseclose. [In Spanish] Excellent. I am going to be
waiting for you.
Mr. Kildee. [In Spanish] Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Probably the hardest class I ever took was
Spanish.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Grijalva. I went in this with this arrogant attitude
that I could speak it, and so therefore I knew it, and once I
learned it, the reading and the writing part, it has been a
wonderful addition to my life. So I am glad for teachers.
Let me start with a couple of questions. Commissioner
Pearce, the reauthorization of the legislation used a new
formula to calculate payments to counties, which in some
instances could be very difficult to implement.
How does your county feel about the new formula, and what
changes would you like to see in it?
Mr. Pearce. Well, my State is one of the eight transition
States, and so we did not immediately go under the new formula.
I think that the new formula certainly brought an addition to
those counties that have large tracts of land, but perhaps did
not have large timber industries. I think this is a great
benefit to those counties and increases their payments because
that land is certainly not on their tax rolls either.
The economic indicator is problematic, because if you take
a county--and let us say my county, which on the west end is
very close to the Portland Metropolitan Area. So, some 60
percent of the folks leave the county to go to work.
We take their income into account for the formula, but we
don't have an income tax. So, in other words, the taxing
authority for the county is a property tax, but we are using
mean income to look at that salary level.
You take the center of my county where 70 percent of the
children are on free and reduced lunch, and we have an actual
unemployment rate near 20 percent, and you realize that formula
does not quite work.
But I think that what we have put forward in discussions is
a 10-year reauthorization with a payment equal to the 2008
payment, without a formula, to be perfectly honest with you.
And to look at that 2008 payment, which helped to level the
playing field, and just move forward from there. I would
certainly suggest that.
Mr. Grijalva. Interesting. If I may, Mr. Jacobs, the
current reauthorization that we are talking about today is
working in your county. Would you change anything in the new
formula, and kind of the same question for Title II or Title
III?
Mr. Jacobs. Mr. Chairman, I am really not familiar with
what the new formula is. This is the first year that we have
actually even had a RAC project in our county. We just now are
getting caught up with the rest of the world in Johnson County.
We have always used our monies in Title III projects, which
was just for improvements, but it was just to buy some gravel
and keep the roads passable. We don't have any great success
stories to talk about, but I am not familiar with the formula.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. I want to ask you, Mr. Thayer,
that outside of the SRS funds, what do you think has led to the
strength of your school system as you described it, and could
you expand on that.
Besides the SRS funds the system is strong, and what are
some tips about how you got there?
Mr. Thayer. I think we have had very good collaboration
between our teaching staff, our board, and our community, which
is unusual in a lot of places that I have been to.
The parents are very, very behind--and all the parents,
even years smashed between students and stuff like that, are
behind education. We are very efficient with our money, and we
have a good disbursement among the board members. Some are ex-
teachers, and some are business owners.
Mr. Grijalva. And you are a board member, correct?
Mr. Thayer. Yes, and I would say that we have managed our
money very well, and we have built up a reserve, which has
helped us get through these tough times. And our teachers make
less than the surrounding areas, but because of the quality of
life in our area, they stay, even for less money.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. I was a school board member for 12
years, and I think Mr. Coriz was as well. I share your pain,
sir. Ms. Groseclose, since the reauthorization of SRS in 2008
have you seen a difference in your program as you described it?
Ms. Groseclose. Yes, I have seen a difference, that
scheduling has been much better for me. I have one of the most
hectic schedules in the school. I already travel between one
school and another, 45 minutes a day.
Mr. Grijalva. OK.
Ms. Groseclose. And when I first began teaching, and I
think it was just a rearranging of the money, too, because the
money was there at that time, I had to teach half-an-hour of
Spanish a day, and then 130 minutes of other things that they
needed me to fill in so that other teachers could teach their
core classes.
And so I am able now, after a lengthy discussion with my
principals, to teach 45 minutes each day, and also to have my
own room where I can make this an important factor in the
students' lives so they can see it as important like their core
classes.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Let me begin with Commissioner
Coriz, and then any of the other elected officials can chime
in. We were talking about the budget, and I think Mr. DeFazio
brought up that point.
We have two forces going on here. As elected officials at a
local level, you feel the pressure of a constrained budget more
than anyone else does, and being a former county supervisor in
Arizona, the demands on that budget are significant. I can tell
you. I know.
But my question is this. We have two schools going on.
There is, I think, the need to invest. We have a great lesson
today about our schools, and this Act about schools and
transportation. It is a necessary investment to make up for.
But I think, nevertheless, this is a very important
education investment that we are making in rural America and an
important transportation investment that we are making in rural
America.
And so we all agree to that, but here are the two forces.
You have the investment force going and saying that we need to
keep these programs alive. In fact, we need to augment the
amounts in many cases.
And then you have the other force that seems to be
prevalent right now. Hold off on the investments while we deal
with the debt or the deficit. And so let me begin with you,
Commissioner, only because of your comments on that dilemma we
are all going to be facing pretty soon, and certainly we are
going to face it here.
And that is the worst trickle down, because once it starts
here, it ends up at a local level where the impact is even more
severe. So if you were to advise Congress on how to reconcile
that dilemma, where wold you put the priorities?
Mr. Coriz. Definitely in education. I think it is critical
that we start there, especially in New Mexico. That funding
source goes straight to the State, and the rest is allocated to
counties.
Right now it is critical to our operation. Our operation,
actually with monies that came into play, we have been able to
stay in the black. We have been able to keep our county
employee staff where it is at, with no furloughs.
But in the same result, we see that budgets at our school
districts are declining, and I think that it is critical that
we continue to have that balance. I think it is real important,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Pearce.
Mr. Pearce. That you, sir. This reauthorization I mentioned
at the end of my testimony in 2008 was as direct a job stimulus
as Congress could have possibly made. In my county, it is a
third of our teachers, and half of the county employees, and I
just mentioned the two largest employers in the county.
It goes directly, and it is on the ground and, like you
said, it is at the lowest level. It is on the ground, and it is
actually supporting families, and on top of that, it creates
the infrastructure that allows folks from the metropolitan
areas to get out of the metropolitan areas and see some of the
beauty.
And finally I would say that I don't--I am glad that I am
not in your position when it comes to this dilemma between
spending and the debt. I would simply say until the economy
turns around the debt is only going to grow. And if we stop
this program, you are going to see----
Mr. Grijalva. It grow more.
Mr. Pearce.--without rural America, you are going to see a
worse recession in rural America. This money actually helped
many of our rural counties weather this--I guess we are calling
it the next great recession, this great recession much better
than we would have.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Mr. Thayer. One of your Committee members mentioned that
the way out of poverty is education. I read that before. With
these monies, the better we can educate our citizens--and the
more jobs they will acquire, and the better industry that we
can bring into our area.
Thus, it is a direct correlation to taxes going up, and
more jobs, and it just contributes to everyone. The better
educated your people are, the more jobs you have. They go hand-
in-hand.
Mr. Grijalva. Anyone on the panel is up to--I mean, you are
free to comment on this question if you choose to, and if not,
that is fine.
Ms. Groseclose. Could you repeat the question again,
please?
Mr. Grijalva. We are in this dilemma, where we are talking
about deficit, and balancing the Federal budget because of the
deficit, and the increasing deficit. But we are also feeling
the great deal of demand in this instance, and a very
legitimate demand on the part of rural America, saying that
this program is working, and you need to fully fund it, if not
increase it, and these are the benefits which you all talked
about today.
And so how do you reconcile that, and if you were to do
priorities, how would you put the priorities?
Ms. Groseclose. Well, my priority would definitely have to
be on education. It is the heart of the world, and I think
that, for example, we are already at our bare bones.
I know that I didn't mention any super great thing that we
may be doing. We are not discovering or making robots and doing
all these great scientific things in our county, which I wish
we could be, because we are at bare bones. What I described
were the special enrichment things that we do have.
And it is because of SRS funding, and if we were to lose
that, then we would be teaching math, science, reading, and
social studies, and that is all our children are going to
learn, if that, and not to the best of their capabilities. They
are not going to be competitive in the world.
We are being geared toward project-based learning,
community-based learning, getting these kids out there in the
real world, and teaching them in a real world environment. We
cannot do that if the Secure Rural Schools funding is lost.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Well, let me thank the panel and I
appreciate it very much. I thought that your comments and your
testimony today about this program, the reauthorization, and
how it is going were very powerful.
I think there are some needs, and this is something that we
need to work with the agencies about expediting the nominee
process, at least for the RACs, at least on the Federal level.
Then I think that will energize the parties that have to go
through this process to do it quickly and continue to advocate
for the funding that is necessary for this program.
I think sometimes when you are getting out of a hole, you
need to spend a little money to make sure everything is
stabilized. So that debate will continue, and your comments for
this program are going to be needed as the days go by.
And Mr. DeFazio said it. I mean, we are going to not only
internally have this debate among Members of Congress, but I
anticipate that we are going to have a serious debate with the
Administration when the budget comes out, and what the
priorities are from that office. So we will see you then. Thank
you very much. The meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]