![](media/image1.png){width="4.386805555555555in"
height="1.7673611111111112in"}

Testimony of

Michael A. Francis

Director, National Forests Program

The Wilderness Society

On

S. 380 -- Secure Rural Schools and

Community Self Determination Reauthorization Act of 2007

Before the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests

March 1, 2007

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank you for
this opportunity to testify on S. 380 -- the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self Determination Reauthorization Act of 2007. PL 106-393 has
proven to be successful in stabilizing payments to rural school systems
and county governments and funding many environmentally beneficial
projects on national forests. We commend the members of this Committee
who helped to craft this law.

The Wilderness Society concurs with the conclusion of a study of PL
106-393 conducted by Boise State University that the legislation is
effectively meeting its stated purposes.  Payments have been stabilized,
investments in Federal lands have increased, and cooperative
relationships have improved since passage of the Act.   More than 85% of
the eligible counties have opted to participate in the guaranteed
payments program established under Title I.  Title II of the legislation
has funded hundreds of environmentally beneficial and non-controversial
resource projects on the National Forests.  Funding through Title III
has allowed many counties to begin developing community fire protection
plans as well as perform other important government services.  The Boise
State study found overwhelming support for renewal of the legislation
among Resource Advisory Committee members and county officials that
oversee use of the Title II and III funds. 

The Wilderness Society supports reauthorization of the county payments
law, provided that it is a clean bill, with no changes except for
housekeeping provisions that are clearly necessary to ensure the
continued success of the program. Section 2(d) of the bill apparently
removes the Secretary's current explicit role in reappointing members of
a Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) and removes the prohibition on
non-Agriculture Department employees serving more than six consecutive
years on an advisory committee. These proposed changes address a need
identified by conservationists and other members of the RACs to enable
them to continue their work.

The Wilderness Society's one major concern with S. 380, as introduced,
is the elimination of the merchantable materials contracting pilot
program in Title II. Under Section 204(e)(3) of PL 106-393 the Secretary
"shall" establish a pilot program for implementing Title II projects
involving the "sale" of merchantable trees. The pilot program required
that increasing proportions -- up to 50% by 2006 \-- of such projects,
on a national basis, be implemented using separate contracts for (a) the
harvesting, and (b) the sale, of such material, commonly known as
"separating the log from the logger."

Under the proposed language in section 2(e) of S. 380, the Secretary
"may" establish a pilot program in response to a request from a RAC to
establish such a program for the purpose of implementing a project
proposed by that RAC.

This change is problematic for three main reasons.

[First]{.underline}, it is premature to eliminate the pilot program: the
program has not had a chance to yield enough results to make an informed
judgment about the usefulness of separate contracts. In a written
response to Senator Bingaman's question in the February 8^th^, 2005
Subcommittee hearing, the Forest Service responded that the less than
seven percent of the 1300 projects under Title II had any merchantable
materials associated with them may indicate that the pilot program is
helping to deter federal land managers from using Title II funds to
conduct potentially controversial and inappropriate logging projects. If
so, this is a very salutary effect.

[Second]{.underline}, the new language eliminates the current
requirement in Sec. 204(e)(3)(B) that a certain percentage of
merchantable tree projects be conducted with separate contracts for
logging and selling the wood. The federal land management agency would
have full discretion to deny any request from a RAC.

[Third]{.underline}, giving RACs the added responsibility of requesting
a pilot program would inject new and needless controversy into the Title
II process. The current RAC decision-making process requires all three
subcommittees -- industry, environmental, and government \-- to approve
any projects. Under the proposed change, a request by the environmental
subcommittee members for use of separate contracts on a particular
project could be vetoed by either the industry or government
subcommittees. That, in turn, could compel the environmental members to
veto a project that they otherwise might have approved under the current
law.

[Title II]{.underline}

The Wilderness Society was originally skeptical of Title II when PL
106-393 was being written, believing it could promote unsustainable
development of national forests; however, based on our research, Title
II projects have been successful so far in achieving the resource
stewardship objectives established under the law.

We believe that the success of these Title II projects, along with the
lack of controversy about them, is due in part to the pilot program,
which creates incentives for the RACs to recommend projects with the
goals of conservation and restoration. Title II projects that The
Wilderness Society has reviewed implement stewardship-type practices
which benefit forests, as well as improve the overall health of the
land. For some examples of ecologically beneficial Title II projects,
please refer to our March 8, 2005 testimony before this Subcommittee.

[Merchantable Materials Pilot Program]{.underline}

There does not seem to be a clear and compelling rationale for changing
the pilot program, especially when considering The Wilderness Society's
findings, and a preliminary status report from the Government
Accountability Office (GAO).

The Wilderness Society's review of Title II projects and pilot program
projects in 2005 revealed significant support from the conservation
community where the pilot program projects we reviewed are located (all
of them in Oregon and California). It is crucial to recognize and value
the opinions of people involved in project implementation. RAC members
representing local, regional, or national environmental groups are in
strong support of keeping the pilot program as a requirement in the new
law. They believe that the program facilitates decision making between
the timber industry and environmentalists, especially on projects that
would have originally been difficult to approve (i.e. fuels reductions).
In addition, they feel that without the program there would be greater
emphasis on commercial values instead of conservation, making it more
complicated to achieve any outcomes authorized by Title II. For example,
the RACs may be presented with projects that would thin large natural
stands that are economically more attractive than the plantations of
smaller trees now being thinned. Conservationists strongly believe that
the current merchantable materials pilot program will be essential to
the continued success of Title II.

An interim status report from the GAO in 2003 on the merchantable
materials pilot program stated that out of the approximately 1,300
forest-related projects at the time, 13 were expected to generate
merchantable material, and six of those were to be conducted within the
pilot program. The report stated that none of those six projects had
been implemented at that time. However, our research in 2005 found that
one project had successfully been completed, and others were to be
completed by the end of the year. Please refer to our March 8, 2005
testimony before this Subcommittee for details about these projects.

Mr. Chairman, as a matter of principle The Wilderness Society is
concerned that the Forest Service has largely ignored the congressional
directive to establish and monitor a pilot program. Section 204(e)(3)
directs the Forest Service to establish a pilot program for the purpose
of assuring that, for Title II projects generating merchantable
material, a graduated percentage of such projects would be implemented
using separate contracts for (a) the harvesting, and (b) the selling, of
the material. The intent of the sponsors was to establish an important
safeguard insulating Title II ecological restoration projects from
economic incentives that could cause them to become ecologically
damaging. Using separate contracts removes the profit motive from the
design and placement of the project and helps retain the proper focus on
restoration.

The national office of the Forest Service simply never set up such a
pilot program, and has failed to assure compliance with the law's
separate contracting requirements. The agency's written response to
Senator Bingaman's query shows that of 88 Title II projects generating
"merchantable materials," [only six]{.underline} were implemented using
separate contracting. Further, the Forest Service seems not to have
institutionalized consistent criteria for the term "merchantable," thus
making it difficult to evaluate on a region-wide basis which projects
have generated only incidental "merchantable" materials, and which
generated saw-timber or other non-incidental materials, or in what
amounts. But even allowing for projects generating only incidental
materials, the agency seems to have fallen far short of implementing the
law.

[The role of separate contracts]{.underline}

When a project is implemented utilizing a single contractor for removal
and sale of merchantable trees, the economics of the project are tied to
the value of the trees on the stump. This situation---present in the
normal timber sale---inevitably militates towards pushing the project
into areas of higher commercial value and into potential conflict with
ecological values.

But with separate contracts, the harvester has no incentive to remove
materials of higher commercial value, since he will not be realizing any
of that value, and the project can thus focus on its proper restoration
mission. The existing law's percentage requirement is a brake, allowing
half of all such projects to be implemented with a single contract, but
preventing the program from lurching onto a largely commercial course.

[The achievement of the RACs should not be lost]{.underline}

By all accounts, the Resource Advisory Committee process has been very
successful in bringing together community members with divergent,
strongly held views; helping them interact with, understand and
accommodate each other's needs and approaches; and helping them work
together to achieve agreement on project proposals that benefit the
community as a whole. This is a very considerable achievement, and
should not be lost.

However, the proposed changes in the law removing the pilot program and
separate contracting percentage requirements threaten to sow dissension
in the RACs. Removing the brake of separate contracting is likely to be
perceived by some as a signal from Congress that it finds the
stewardship and restoration component of Title II to be less than
compelling. It is likely to increase proposals for projects generating
merchantable materials---that is, for projects whose community benefit
is more closely tied to cutting and selling saw-timber. And because of
their perceived economic benefits, such proposals will be strongly
supported by some RAC members and by some in local communities.

On the other hand, such project proposals are likely to be even more
strongly opposed by RAC members for whom conservation is a more
important goal. As we discussed above, given the voting structure of the
RACs, wherein a majority of the members of each of the three recognized
categories of community interest is required for project approval, the
proposed change in the law could polarize RAC members, undermine the
law's most impressive accomplishment, and significantly hinder the
program from going forward.

The Wilderness Society recommends that S. 380 be amended to strike
Section 2(e) and replace it with the language of Section 204(e)(3) of PL
106-393. The goal of this amendment is to restart the Merchantable
Materials Pilot Program in Fiscal Year 2007 for the authorization period
covered by the bill in the same manner as contained in Public Law
106-393.

[Land Sales Proposal]{.underline}

For the second consecutive year, the President's Forest Service budget
includes a proposal to sell off up to \$800 million of National Forest
lands. A similar proposal announced last year met with strong and
widespread opposition from hunters, anglers, locally-elected officials,
businesses, governors, and both Democratic and Republican Members of
Congress.

The Administration has failed to listen to the American people and their
overwhelming opposition to selling off National Forest lands. It's a sad
commentary that the Administration would completely ignore the vehement
opposition that this misguided plan created last year, by releasing a
nearly identical proposal to sell the country's public lands to help
remedy their poor fiscal decisions.

The Administration's claim that many of these lands are isolated,
difficult to manage, or simply not important is misleading. In many ways
the lands proposed for sale are some of the most critical places to
protect, either because they provide hunters and anglers access to
larger pieces of land or for their proximity to watersheds and other
private development.

The Administration's FY 2008 budget has set its sights on selling over
270,000 acres of Forest Service land in 35 states and possibly as many
as 500,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management lands in the West. The
state hit hardest by the Administration's Forest Service proposal is
California, where they are targeting over 65,000 acres for possible
sale. National Forests in the Southeast (Forest Service Region 8), where
private forests are rapidly being lost to development, account for over
50,000 acres of the land sales.

The following information comes from media coverage from last year's
proposed land sales in some of the states that are represented on this
Subcommittee:

-   **North Carolina - 5,685 acres:** Sixth graders at a middle school
    that backs into the Croatan National Forest in North Carolina wrote
    letters to Mark Rey in opposition to last year's land sale
    proposal.  In reaction to the proposed sale of 900 acres in the
    middle school's own backyard, sixth grader Stephanie Rose asked Mark
    Rey, \"Wouldn\'t you rather be known for helping save our national
    natural beauty, instead of helping to destroy it?\"  Another sixth
    grader, Jamie Lewis, told Rey, \"I don\'t think that we should put
    it up for sale because not only are we losing beautiful land that is
    great for outdoor activities, but we are also losing part of North
    Carolina.\"  Another sixth grader, Will Holloway, said, \"The
    government has been saving this forest and if we sell it there is no
    way to get it back.\"  North Carolina's Governor,  Mike Easley,
    issued a formal protest against the Bush administration\'s plan to
    sell nearly 10,000 acres of national forest land in North Carolina
    last year, saying \"selling our valuable natural land is not the
    answer\" to the long-term challenge of financing rural schools.  He
    also wrote to Mark Rey, \"\[w\]ith all due respect, this proposal
    violates all the tenets of good public policy\... You are proposing
    to sell 9,828 acres in North Carolina, or nearly 9 percent of our
    total National Forest acreage.  This proposal comes at the very time
    when North Carolina is in the midst of a decade-long effort to
    conserve land and add to our system of public parks and forests.\"

-   **Oregon - 7,591 acres:** Kevin Gorman, a resident of Oregon, found
    fault with last year\'s proposed land sale.  \"The Forest Service\'s
    rationale for the sell-off is that these lands are \'disposable\'
    because they are isolated, inefficient and often right next to urban
    areas. As my family and I walked through the Balfour Klickitat area
    to the eagle-viewing site, it occurred to me that this particular
    Forest Service property also is isolated, certainly inefficient and
    adjacent to the town of Lyle. Under slightly different
    circumstances, it, too, could have been put on the list to sell.
    What are they thinking?\"

-   **Idaho - 26,021 acres:** Republican and Democratic leaders in the
    Idaho Senate joined to introduce a resolution opposing any sell-off
    of Idaho\'s federal lands, as proposed by the Bush administration in
    2006.  The Idaho legislature is considered the most Republican in
    the nation, yet it was critical of the White House on the issue of
    land sales.  \"There\'s not that much daylight between the
    Republicans and the Democrats on this issue,\" said Senate Majority
    Caucus Chairman Brad Little, R-Emmett. \"The Democrats obviously
    want to stir the pot a little bit, but there\'s pretty good
    agreement on both sides.\"  Senate Minority Leader Clint Stennett,
    D-Ketchum, added, \"This is of grave concern to a large number of
    people.\" Larry Craig was quoted as saying \"Heck No\" to the
    proposal.

-   **Colorado - 21,699 acres:** The Colorado House stood in opposition
    to the ill-considered federal plan to sell off chunks of national
    forests and other public lands in response to last year\'s land sale
    proposal. Fully two-thirds of the state\'s representatives signed on
    as co-sponsors to a resolution opposing the land sale plan, and it
    passed without dissent. Sen. Ken Salazar has said that selling land
    as a one-time budget fix is short-sighted and not in the best public
    interest.

-   **Kentucky - 3,843 acres:** In an op-ed, U.S. Representative Ben
    Chandler found that Kentucky schools would lose a net total of
    \$257.9 million in federal education dollars for K-12 and vocational
    education programs over the next five years under the Bush budget.
    However, the President\'s proposal would set a dreadful precedent of
    trying to fund education by selling federal land instead of
    practicing fiscal responsibility. Fiscal responsibility and being
    good stewards of our land are two of the most important lessons we
    can pass on to future generations. This proposal stomps on both
    principles and begs the question \-- how is auctioning off our
    children\'s land investing in their future?

-   **Washington - 5,549 acres:** Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said in
    response to last year\'s proposal, \"Our state\'s forests are an
    important legacy. We shouldn\'t throw them away to make up for this
    administration\'s mixed-up priorities.\"

-   **South Carolina - 4,656 acres:** In South Carolina, the Charleston
    County Council adopted a resolution urging Bush and Congress not to
    sell off any parts of the National Forest.  The resolution was added
    to ones from Berkeley County and others who oppose plans to sell off
    some of the 250,000-acre forest that covers the northeastern parts
    of Charleston and Berkeley counties.

-   **South Dakota - 13,310 acres:** \"Funding our rural schools is very
    important, but it would be inappropriate to do so by selling parts
    of the Black Hills,\" said Sen. John Thune, R-S.D. \"The Senate is
    already working on an alternative proposal that would reauthorize
    the Secure Rural Schools law, and I will work to pass this viable
    option that does not include selling off our nation\'s public
    lands.\"

-   **Wyoming - 15,498 acres:** In response to last year\'s proposal,
    Sen. Michael Enzi, R-WY., called the land sales proposal a
    \"ridiculous idea.\" He added, \"There are towns that are hurting,
    there are ways we ought to take care of them, but selling off the
    public lands isn\'t one of them.\" Rep. Barbara Cubin, R-WY., said
    in a statement that she\'s \"not convinced\" federal land sales are
    the best way to fund the rural schools act and will watch the
    process. Sen. Craig Thomas, R-WY., questioned Rey at the hearing
    about the need for land sales. After the hearing, Thomas said he
    remains concerned that people have enough time to examine the
    proposal and added that while some lands need to be sold, others
    shouldn\'t. \"About all they did (at the hearing) was say that
    they\'re going to have lots of opportunity for people to see what
    lands they\'re talking about, have some local input, so I really
    think they do understand that it\'s going to be very important to do
    that,\" Thomas said.

Mr. Chairman, millions of Americans who rely on their National Forests
and other public lands and for clean water, recreation, and hunting and
fishing opportunities will not tolerate the selling of these lands.
Instead of such an unpopular proposal, we should be looking to assist
rural schools and counties through alternative funding sources that do
not include selling off America's natural heritage.

[Conclusion]{.underline}

The Wilderness Society strongly supports reauthorization of Public Law
106-393, including the current merchantable materials pilot program.
Congress should expeditiously debate and pass a solution that supports
rural schools and communities while protecting our public lands for
their enjoyment and use by all Americans.

In closing, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, The Wilderness
Society stands ready to work with the Subcommittee on our strong
concerns about certain provisions of S.380 in order to reauthorize the
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act (PL 106-393)
this year.