![](media/image1.pct){width="1.7in" height="0.61875in"} for Community
and Environment

Testimony of Dr. Jonathan Kusel to the

**Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests**

**of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources**

**March 1, 2007**

Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony to the Subcommittee
on Public Lands and Forests regarding Senate Bill 380 to reauthorize the
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.

I direct the Sierra Institute for Community and Environment. The Sierra
Institute is a non-profit research and education organization that works
locally, regionally, and nationally. The Departments of Interior and
Agriculture contracted the Sierra Institute to examine Title II and
Title III of the 2000 Secure Rural Schools and Community
Self-Determination Act (P.L. 106-393). My testimony will focus on key
findings from our 18 month study, offer some recommendations based on
these findings, and conclude with a view of the future for this
legislation.

**THE STUDY**

**Methods and County Participation**

To give you a sense of the breadth and depth of our study, we conducted
16 case studies in nine states. A case study includes an analysis of the
Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) and the projects they approved and
that were funded, as well as Title III projects in the associated county
areas. The 16 case studies themselves include over a third of all Title
II and a fifth of all Title III allocations for the first four years of
the program.

To improve our understanding of Title III, as part of the Mississippi
case study we reviewed the Title III expenditures for the entire state.
We also examined Title III expenditures for all of California for the
first three years to track patterns across 32 counties.

Nationwide, a total of 85% of all counties eligible to opt into the
secure payment program have done so. The high proportion of counties
that opted into the program is an indication of the difficulties
counties and forest-dependent communities have faced in providing road
and school services based on a tax base that is constrained sometimes by
poverty, always by the tax-exempt status of the public lands within
their boundaries, and by declining revenues due to reduced timber
harvests. Difficulties counties face in serving their own citizens are
compounded by increased settlement adjacent to wildlands and by their
obligation to provide further services such as search and rescue and to
assist with fire prevention on public lands within the county
boundaries. Secure payments under P.L. 106-393 have been an essential
source of revenue allowing counties to meet these obligations.

**Title II and Resource Advisory Committees**

One of the most important findings from our study is RAC success. There
are few pieces of legislation that exceed the expectations of even the
most optimistic supporters, but the collaborative relationships
established and learning among RAC members, and between RACs and the
counties and the federal agencies has, in general, been exceptional. As
the first legislation to require multi-stakeholder collaboration to
advance resource management projects, few would have predicted the
breadth and depth of success it achieved.

The initial trepidation and skepticism among environmentalists, timber
industry, and other interest group representatives over simply sitting
in the same room together after years of conflict gave way to joint work
and learning. RACs have supported a plethora of projects that are now
improving forest and watershed health on federal lands and enriching
education and services associated with the counties' natural resource
endowments.

A key ingredient of success is that RACs have money for projects and
on-the-ground work.

RAC members know that unless they can come to an agreement, no projects
will be funded. This proved to be a powerful motivator to work together
and is different from coming together to talk policy. While the money
was critical, members of many RACs reported an increasing openness among
representatives from the different interest groups to consider projects
that would previously have been anathema to them. One environmentalist
said that had someone in the past suggested she would support the old
growth thinning project she did as a RAC member, she would have
dismissed that individual as "crazy."

RAC-funded projects have leveraged millions of additional dollars, many
partnerships, and thousands of volunteer hours.

Many projects have been implemented that demonstrate the power of
multi-jurisdictional and public-private partnerships. All of the RACs
funded some projects that leveraged additional resources, partnerships,
and volunteer work. Some of the largest projects were the most
leveraged, including funds from other federal programs. Project record
keeping was insufficient to determine the precise number of dollars and
volunteer hours, but by all reports it was impressive.

Similar to interest group collaboration, an equally impressive
collaboration has taken place between RAC interest groups and the
federal agencies.

The RAC process has led to a new and qualitatively different kind of
interaction between the RAC interest groups and the agencies. As a
result of their participation, many RAC members have a greater
appreciation for agency constraints, processes, and requirements for
engagement with the public. In a similar vein, agency representatives
spoke of their enhanced and more nuanced understanding of interest group
perspectives. In many cases Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management
personnel have become more responsive to public concerns as a result of
interactions with the RAC. Agency representatives acknowledged that work
with the RAC has helped them learn new ways of doing business.

By the close of our study, no RAC project had been appealed or
challenged, confirming the success of Title II. Two other indicators of
the success of RACs came from members reporting that they are learning
from each other and collectively generating new ideas. This was not just
"happy talk." These same members often expressed surprise at how well
things were working. Many RAC members reported that relationships are
being carried into other collaborative endeavors.

Additional evidence of RAC success is the shift in funding: as counties
grew more comfortable with RACs and their accomplishments, we saw a
significant increase in the amount of funding allocated to Title II from
early to later years, a pattern slightly more pronounced with Forest
Service RACs.

Collaboration is fertile ground for more collaboration.

Previous experience with collaborative approaches in local government
and with natural resource management has helped RACs to become
operational sooner. In the West, the history of community involvement
with the federal agencies has speeded RAC development. For example, in
the Northern Panhandle of Idaho, years of working together as a
five-county region not only helped the RAC get started, but also helped
its members avoid the temptation to negotiate to receive project support
equivalent to their Title II allocations---as many RACs did---and to
focus more on the quality of and regional need for individual projects.
The Southwest Mississippi RAC, whose members lacked a history of
resource-based collaboration, is proving more successful in those
counties that have had successes in overcoming a historic legacy of
racial conflict. These RAC members are still learning about how best to
use RAC funds, but they already view their work as positive and offering
unique future possibilities.

Despite RAC successes, the general public is still in the dark about
RACs and RAC work.

In most of the RAC areas, there remained a disappointing lack of
knowledge among the general public about the RAC. The wider population
simply knows little about RAC work. Project and collaborative learning
was primarily confined to members of the RAC, with one key effect being
a reduced number of non-agency and non-county applications for RAC
funding.

**RAC Membership and "Replacement" Members**

For the most part, interest group representation on RACs is sound,
although some interest categories are filled with inappropriate
representatives.

Some interest group designations like "wild horse and burro" do not fit
the diversity of environments, regional economies, or sociodemographic
conditions found in all regions of the country. Other categories like
"organized labor" have proven difficult to fill.

The wild horse and burro position reflects an idealized west and is
relevant only in certain regions; it was the most difficult category to
fill in the RACs we examined in our study. The labor category has also
proven difficult to fill in part because of the general decline in
organized labor and in part because of the decline in the number of
timber industry jobs, a sector that at one time historically constituted
the highest number of unionized workers in forest dependent rural areas.
Where other labor organizations exist they should be considered
appropriate surrogates when traditional organized labor representatives
are unavailable.

Despite their historic and continuing relationship to natural resources,
including those on federal land, Native American groups are
under-represented or not represented on some RACs and do not receive
project support to the degree that might be expected.

Filling the Native American position on RACs proved difficult for a
number of RACs. Reasons varied. In some cases tribes had little
experience with collaborative groups, and, federally recognized tribes
may view collaboration with a RAC as inappropriate given their unique
relationship to the U.S. government. In areas with multiple tribes,
obtaining representation is further challenged by the fact that a tribal
member may not speak for more than one tribe. One solution to this is to
recognize that participation by tribal members should not be limited to
one reserved position on the RAC. Tribal members are often well
qualified to serve in other positions such as an environmental or
industry group representative or as a public official, and should be
invited to do so. Tribes have participated effectively on some RACs, but
more consistent attention by the agencies and by RAC members alike are
needed to engage more tribal members.

Some RAC members and agency officials misunderstand the role of
"replacements."

Many RAC members and officials spoke of replacement and alternate
members interchangeably. They felt a "replacement" could step in as an
alternate at meetings, filling in for an absent member. Replacement
members are appointed to move into an interest group position within
their subgroup when one of five positions is vacated. While perhaps
assuring continuity in RAC functioning, this process can lead to
inappropriate filling of interest positions since there is no way to
ensure that the replacement fits the vacated interest position.

**RAC Projects**

The largest category of spending for the 15 case study RACs we examined
is roads, representing 26% of total RAC expenditures (see the attached
Figure 1). This category also includes culvert replacements. The second
largest category of RAC expenditures is for projects that restore,
maintain, or improve wildlife and fish habitat totaling nearly 17% of
all RAC expenditures. A total of 9% was allocated for watershed
restoration and maintenance-related projects such as upslope
stabilization efforts, downslope sediment reduction projects, and
estuary-related projects, such as fish-friendly tidegates. Given that
most habitat projects involved watershed improvement, project work in
these three categories met the legal requirement that 50% of all Title
II projects be used to fund road maintenance/obliteration or watershed
improvement/restoration.

Forest health-related projects constitute the third largest RAC
categorical expenditure, with 95% of these expenditures concentrated in
three Oregon RACs. A total of 13% of total Title II expenditures for the
15 case study RACs was allocated in this project category. Most forest
health projects involve pre-commercial thinning. Few RACs have supported
forest health projects that involve extraction of merchantable timber.
At 9% of total expenditures, fuels reduction projects represent the
fourth highest categorical expenditure. Noxious weeds were the fifth
highest, receiving just under 8% of the funds.

Given the budget shortfalls the agencies are experiencing, RAC dollars
have enabled the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to
implement projects that would otherwise not be done. There are hundreds
of examples of RAC funds being used to complete projects that the
agencies need to do and that the public wants. RAC money represents a
new source of funds for the agencies to do needed work, and to do so
through partnership with a RAC.

**RAC Administrative Fees: The Cost of Collaboration**

Agency administrative fee charges for RAC support and project
administration have been confusing, shifting, and inconsistent. First,
it is important to recognize that good RAC support and coordination is
no accident: it consumes considerable agency personnel time and dollars.
Second, agencies need to establish clear and simple guidelines for
charging and ensuring that administrative expenses are covered.

**Funding the RACs**

A common challenge of multi-county RACs is the demand by some county
officials that each county should receive project dollars commensurate
with their RAC contribution. This has sometimes led to project approval
processes that respond primarily to county priorities, with a few county
officials threatening to reduce or terminate Title II allocations when
they are dissatisfied with the distribution of project dollars between
counties. This form of control over RAC decisions is relatively
uncommon, but where it occurs it can be destabilizing.

There has been concern about Title III, and this is discussed below, but
it is important to note that there is an important relationship
established between county commissioners or supervisors and the RAC and
federal agency as a result of local officials having the choice to
allocate dollars to Title II. This provides additional pressure on the
RAC and the federal agencies to support and implement good projects and
equitably distribute Title II dollars.

#### Title III

Title III funds have proved to be most valuable to counties in covering
services they are expected to provide to their citizens and the general
public: search and rescue on public lands, fire prevention, and county
planning.

The highest funded category of Title III expenditures in the case
studies is "search and rescue and emergency services," totaling 34%.
"Fire prevention and county planning" at 24% and "forest-related
education" at 22% were the next highest funded categories.

Title III funds have been used successfully to develop community
wildfire protection plans and other capacity building work that has led
to effective leveraging of Title II and National Fire Plan dollars, and
other resources.

Considerable sums of Title III funds have been used for planning and for
building the capacity of communities to engage in fuels reduction and
forest thinning, qualifying them for National Fire Plan funds as well as
other funding. This kind of leveraging has been an extremely effective
tool for developing fire plans in the wildland-urban interface and in
completing fuels thinning projects. Title III projects that build local
capacity and leverage funds are even more important in light of
declining National Fire Plan funding, the loss of Economic Action
Programs of the Forest Service, and other funding shortfalls. Title III
funds have also been used productively to implement a multitude of
educational projects. County support for these programs has allowed
local people and others to learn about forest communities, and the role
and importance of stewardship of a working landscape.

Up to half the study counties did not disburse funds through open and
competitive processes of project solicitation and approval. Roughly half
of all Title III funds were allocated through administrative
allocations. This had the effect of restricting the diversity of groups
and projects receiving Title III project support.

On the whole, the majority of Title III funds appear to have been used
for authorized purposes, but some clearly did not meet the spirit and
intent of the act. Unacceptable allocations included payment for county
officials' salaries and for reimbursement of PILT funds lost as a result
of Title III payments. Administrative allocations and lack of oversight
contributed to funds being allocated in ways that did not fit approved
categories. Senate Bill 380 begins to get at this issue with the call
for Secretary review of Title III projects, but more is needed.

In addition to Secretary review, the study team learned that many
counties sorely needed an authoritative source for information about
Title III. There was no agency or entity designated to provide Title III
oversight or offer Title III consultation. As a result, county officials
had no one to call if they had questions or needed an interpretation
about a project's fit with the legislation. Bureau of Land Management
and the Forest Service officials informally provided information, but
this exceeded their responsibilities and many officials were clearly
uncomfortable in this role. Some state-level associations of counties
provided information, but it was not always consistent from one state to
another and sometimes questionable with respect to how well
recommendations fit with the spirit and intent of the law. This was
complicated by the fact that Title III was not as clearly written as
Title II.

#### 

#### Employment

Across almost all of the cases, RACs and Title III projects have
supported youth employment projects.

Millions of dollars have been invested in Youth Conservation Corps (YCC)
or similar employment programs, as well as programs for at-risk youth.
Almost all RACs examined supported one or more youth employment
projects. RACs in general are quite pleased with experiences projects
have offered youth, the benefits youth have gained from working on the
land, as well as the landscape improvements. These programs have
improved trails, reduced fire risks, and removed noxious weeds, among
their many accomplishments. They are also developing the human capital
needed for continued management of forests and watersheds as
participants move into resource-related jobs or educational programs.

Job creation, beyond youth employment, has been indirect and piecemeal,
despite this being a goal of P.L. 106-393. Most projects offer only
part-time or short-term work.

In a few cases the RACs or the agencies have attempted to provide
projects that bridge seasons and slow-work periods in order to offer
year-round work. While a number of RAC members expressed interest in
generating employment, they quickly learned how difficult this is and
how limited a project-by-project approach to this issue is. Some RACs,
like the Siskiyou County RAC in California, have actively discussed
funding large projects. They recognize, however, that tradeoffs involve
reduced funding for other worthwhile and needed smaller projects, and
are accompanied by the risk that large projects provide no guarantee of
providing long-term, family wage employment. Lack of good monitoring and
review prevents RACs and others from building a knowledge base of
successful approaches to employment generation.

## Monitoring

Monitoring of both Title II and Title III has been inadequate and needs
to be improved.

A few RACs and counties took it upon themselves to monitor funded
projects, but even the best of them focused primarily on general project
reporting and implementation monitoring, not on outcome-based or project
effectiveness monitoring. To be fair, given the relatively short
duration of the legislation, effectiveness monitoring is difficult if
not impossible with many projects. P.L. 106-393 also did not specify an
entity responsible for monitoring. The Forest Counties Payments
Committee in its 2003 report identified this issue. Good monitoring
builds accountability, contributes to program learning and project
development, and ultimately improves resource management.

Title III lacks a coherent system of project recording and monitoring.
It proved difficult for the study team to locate reliable data on how
Title III money was spent, what projects were funded, and on project
success. Like Title II, there was no effectiveness monitoring, and in a
few cases there were only informal records of Title III use. Requiring a
review by the Secretary as SB 380 does places federal officials in an
awkward position of reviewing county expenditures.

**CONCLUSIONS AND SOME RECOMMENDATIONS**

Given the successful collaboration, learning, and on-the-ground project
accomplishments, P.L. 106-393 has exceeded expectations and accomplished
more than most thought possible. The work that counties and RACs have
accomplished during the first five years of the legislation has laid the
groundwork for continued and improved future collaboration and learning.
This work has accomplished valuable projects that are restoring health
to working, forested landscapes, as well as a variety of other important
work. This legislation has also significantly reduced gridlock that has
characterized resource management over the last two decades. Below are
some recommendations from our study about how to improve Secure Rural
School and Community Self-Determination Act legislation.

1\. RACs, the agencies, and possibly third parties need to do more
outreach and education to inform others about the work and lessons of
RACs and to encourage more project applications from non-agency groups.

2\. RAC interest categories should be changed to reflect changing
demographics and to enable them to respond more effectively to issues
facing forest communities across the country (bolded words are our
recommended changes to P.L. 106-393 RAC interest categories):

> A. (i) represent organized labor**, another labor organization, or
> non-timber forest product harvester groups,**
>
> \(iii\) represent energy and mineral development, **or commercial and
> recreational fishing,** interests
>
> \(v\) hold federal grazing permits, or other land use permits within
> the area for which the committee is organized, **or represent
> non-industrial private forest land owners.**
>
> B. (v) nationally or regionally recognized wild horse and burro
> interest groups, **wildlife organizations, or watershed
> associations**.

3\. Eliminate use of replacement members associated with the RAC
subgroups since there is no way to assure that one individual can "fit"
in all five vacated interest group positions. If they're retained,
replacements should not replace a RAC member unless the individual can
appropriately represent an interest group and receive Secretary
approval.

4\. The meaning of "project" in Title III needs to be made consistent
with Title II. More open, competitive, and transparent processes for
project solicitation, review, and approval by the counties are needed.

5\. A single organization or entity should have responsibility for
ensuring accurate and timely recording and possibly monitoring of Title
III projects. This entity could also provide training for counties to
improve project development, selection, and implementation.

**LOOKING TO THE FUTURE**

Findings from the Sierra Institute study strongly support continuing
P.L. 106-393, and Senate Bill 380 is a step in the right direction.

While it is widely recognized that fuels and forest management must
continue and even be expanded, and products can be produced that will
provide revenue, counties should not expect harvest totals and timber
revenues to return to levels of the 1980s. Similarly, counties should
not expect funding from the federal government based on the high
three-year harvest average to continue in perpetuity. This is brought
home by the current federal budget limitations and the challenges in
finding funding for re-authorization. Other revenue streams need to be
developed to support forest and watershed management and respond to the
federal commitment to rural communities and landscapes.

Re-authorization should be viewed as a "bridge" to a program that
combines deriving revenue from resource production with ecosystem
services. Revenue from both ecosystem products and services can and
should be part of sustainable funding of the legislation.

An ecosystems products and services approach can launched by identifying
ways to secure resources to support management that contributes to
improvements in water quality and quantity as well as generating wood
products. Services can be expanded to carbon credits and payment for
habitat, as these are quantified and equitable mechanisms are developed
to collect revenue. An ecosystem products and services approach will
result in the inclusion of other areas with national forests, like the
Northeast, the South, and the Midwest, that have not participated
because they lacked sufficient historic timber revenue.

We recommend building on RAC collaboration to develop this new
"ecosystem products and services" approach.

This leads to one final recommendation: should the legislation be
extended by five to seven years---and my study team believes it
should---where the combined total of Title II and Title III funding
exceeds \$200,000 yearly in a RAC area, there should be a requirement
that 3-5% of these funds be dedicated to projects examining how forest
products and ecosystem services can provide a future stream of revenues
to replace the current P.L. 106-393 funding mechanism.

Any period of re-authorization of the Secure Rural School and Community
Self-Determination Act should be used as a time to not only focus on the
work at hand, but to identify ways ecosystem products and services or
some other funding can be tapped to ensure program sustainability, and
expansion of the program into new geographic areas to expand a
powerfully successful program across the country.