Citing dwindling county budgets, an absentee federal landlord and increasing wildfire risks, a House committee yesterday passed a bill along party lines that would significantly increase timber harvests and end a controversial county payment program.

By one estimate, H.R. 4019 from Natural Resources Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) would require federal agencies to increase timber harvests more than 15-fold over 2010 levels, providing revenue and jobs to local areas. But that level would decimate forests, streams, wildlife and recreation on public lands in the West, Democrats and environmental groups said.

The committee's 26-17 approval was the House's first step toward replacing the Secure Rural Schools program, which for the past decade has provided hundreds of millions of dollars annually to counties to help fund schools, roads and forest restoration as historic revenues from federal timber sales declined. Rep. Dan Boren (Okla.) was the lone Democrat to vote for the measure.

But the move sets up a clash with competing Senate and House bills that would extend the county payment plan. The bipartisan Senate proposal would extend SRS for an additional five years at gradually declining revenues.

Both the House Natural Resources legislation and the Senate bill would extend a similar program known as Payments in Lieu of Taxes for an additional five years. An amendment from Rep. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) to extend both SRS and PILT -- as called for in the Senate bill -- died on a 18-25 vote.

Notably, the House bill passed yesterday did not contain a bipartisan proposal that would have split roughly 2.4 million acres of Oregon forests under the Bureau of Land Management, known as O&C lands, into separate timber and conservation trusts. That proposal has worried some Oregon environmentalists, although some consider it better than the Hastings proposal.

In a joint statement, Reps. Peter DeFazio (R-Ore.), Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) and Greg Walden (R-Ore.) said they would continue seeking a way forward for their proposal on the O&C lands, and they released a discussion draft of their plan yesterday (see related story).

"We will continue to work in good faith with the committee to integrate our bipartisan O&C proposal into the committee's legislation as it moves through the legislative process," they said. "Time is running short for our rural counties, and they deserve a long-term solution."

With yesterday's passage, House Republicans have drawn a line in the sand against extending the SRS program, which National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) called "welfare to the West." He argued that taxpayers and Western counties would benefit from more jobs and revenue produced on national forests, rather than from Uncle Sam.

"Those of us trying to get education funding in Western states can't do it because of the paternalistic heavy hand of the government," said Bishop, a former high school teacher, in an emotional plea.

But Democrats and environmental groups warned the proposal is a message bill that would be dead on arrival in the Senate. The Forest Service has testified that the bill sets unrealistic harvest targets, and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has warned it would rekindle the timber wars in the West.

Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), a former high-ranking Interior Department official under the Clinton administration, said he is concerned the market for timber won't support the revenue mandates called for in the bill.

"What if the market does not deliver the necessary revenue, what then happens?" he asked Hastings, echoing a concern shared by many in the West.

Democrats also complained they were not given a copy of the completed legislation until 7:30 p.m. Tuesday and that yesterday's markup came as many Democrats prepared to defend amendments to a separate energy bill on the House floor.

"This is a bad bill made worse by a bad process," said Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the committee's ranking member. When it was first introduced last fall, the bill did not specify how much timber or revenues federal agencies would be required to provide (Greenwire, Sept. 22, 2011). "The ink is barely dry," Markey said.

Hastings said the bill is "critically timely" and comes months after Western counties saw their final payment under the now-expired SRS.

"Congress cannot wait any longer to act on Secure Rural Schools," he said. "This program expired last year and rural counties are in dire straits as a direct result of federal policies."

Advocacy groups weigh in

The National Association of Counties, which represents more than 3,000 counties nationwide, yesterday praised the proposed extension of PILT and said increased forest management would create a dependable, long-term source of revenue for rural counties that have long depended on SRS.

"NACo applauds the committee's commitment to addressing job creation and enhancement of rural forest economies by addressing the federal governments continued inability to effectively manage our federal lands," the group said in a letter to committee leaders.

"Pursuing management and restoration of the nation's forests will generate tremendous environmental and social benefits and create needed jobs and revenue for rural economies."

Groups including the California Farm Bureau Federation, American Loggers Council and American Land Rights Association also support the measure, according to committee Republicans.

But the bill was widely condemned by a coalition of local and national environmental groups that warned the legislation would mandate unsustainable levels of logging, grazing and oil and gas production to hit unrealistic revenue targets.

The mandates could impair clean water, wildlife and endangered species including salmon, in addition to outdoor businesses, hunting, hiking and fishing on public lands, they said.

"[It] would give local county commissioners unprecedented legal leverage to compel increased logging, mining, grazing, and oil and gas exploitation on federal forest lands -- including 2.2 million acres of Bureau of Land Management public forestlands in western Oregon -- irrespective of local environmental impacts or costs to taxpayers nationwide," said a letter to the committee signed by the Wilderness Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and 16 other groups.

"The Forest Service and BLM would be forced to spend whatever it takes to produce such targets, which would cost the taxpayers far more than just sending checks directly to the counties."

In addition, an assessment by the research firm Headwaters Economics found the Hastings bill would require a dramatic increase in timber harvests and would create "winners and losers" among states compared to current county payments under SRS.

"Based on 2010 timber prices, the timber cut required to meet the minimum revenue target as defined by the County Revenue Act is 33.2 billion board-feet, a 1,549 percent increase over the actual 2010 national timber cut and three times higher than the record-single year timber cut of 12.7 billion board-feet in 1987," said Mark Haggerty, of the Bozeman, Mont.-based group.

Details of the bill

Hastings' bill would require the Forest Service, beginning in 2014, to carry out "county, schools and revenue trust projects" that would achieve annual revenue requirements equal to 60 percent of an area's average annual gross receipts from 1980 to 2000.

Trust projects may include a timber sale, issuance of a grazing permit, issuance of a special use permit involving land use, mineral development, power generation, recreational use or projects implementing a community wildfire protection plan, according to the bill.

The bill also states that the costs to prepare an environmental report authorizing the project must cost less than one-third of the estimated value of receipts from the project. The language is apparently designed to address concerns that the Forest Service spends more to prepare a timber sale than it generates in revenue.

In addition, the bill would not allow judicial review of environmental reports and would exempt projects from requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act and other laws.

The bill would also provide $875 million in payments to counties over the next two fiscal years in order to transition out of Secure Rural Schools.