The following information is provided for historical context only.  The legislation authorizing county payments expired and has not been replaced.

When county payments legislation was introduced, it was going to require counties which receive federal forest revenues to forfeit 15% of those revenues to the federal land management agency (either the Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management).   The Conservation Leaders Network worked with counties across the country in support of the County Choice Amendment, which would allow counties to choose whether they wanted to give up 15% of their revenues or whether they wanted to save them for needed county services.  The Amendment morphed into Title III of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act.

Title III, which was added to the bill through the negotiations between Senators Baucus and Wyden, allows counties to spend that 15% for six different uses, including some legitimate county services.  Unlike Title II forest management projects, selection of Title III projects will be made entirely by county officials.

The six choices for Title III projects are:

• Search, Rescue and Emergency Services
• Community Service Work Camps
• Easement Purchases
• Forest Related Educational Opportunities
• Fire Prevention and County Planning
• Community Forestry.

Three of the six are legitimate county services:  Search, Rescue and Emergency Services, Community Service Work Camps, and Fire Prevention and County Planning.

Search, Rescue and Emergency Services

Title III, Sec. 302 (b) (1) says:  “An eligible county or applicable sheriff’s department may use these funds as reimbursement for search and rescue and other emergency services, including fire fighting, performed on Federal lands and paid for by the county.”  This means that counties will no longer have to absorb the costs of searching for lost hikers or rescuing whitewater rafters on federal lands.

Community Service Work Camps

Title III, Sec. 302 (b) (2) says:  “An eligible county may use these funds as reimbursement for all or part of the costs incurred by the county to pay the salaries and benefits of county employees who supervise adults or juveniles performing mandatory community service on Federal lands.”  You can expect proposals from your juvenile department and adult corrections to increase community service opportunities.

Fire Prevention and County Planning

Title III, Sec. 302 (b) (5) says:  “A county may use these funds for—

(A) efforts to educate homeowners in fire-sensitive ecosystems about the consequences of wildfires and techniques in home siting, home construction, and home landscaping that can increase the protection of people and property from wildfires; and

(B) planning efforts to reduce or mitigate the impact of development on adjacent Federal lands and to increase the protection of people and property from wildfires.”

This means that your county planning department can be much more pro-active in terms of educating potential home owners in an effort to reduce loss in the event of a forest fire.

The three remaining uses of these funds are less clearly typical county services.  However, easement purchases might be useful to increase nonmotorized access to a county park or a favorite fishing hole; conservation easement purchases could be used to protect fish habitat, drinking water sources or the scenic view from a favorite county park.  Forest related educational opportunities are described in the bill as “forest-related after school programs.”  So if a county wanted to take on the responsibility of providing care for school-age children, if it is forest-related, they could use these funds to do so.  Unfortunately, we have seen a lot of misuse of forest-related school program funds.  Counties have used these funds to lobby  Congress, to produce timber industry propaganda and to pressure other counties to allocate funds for Title II projects.  Community forestry funds may be used for “non-Federal cost-share provisions of section 9 of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act (Public Law 95-313).”  This Act deals with urban forests; the purpose is “to plant, protect, and maintain, and utilize wood from, trees in open spaces, greenbelts, roadside screens, parks, woodlands, curb areas, and residential developments in urban areas.”  The Act provides grants which require a 50% match.  Funds from Title III of S. 1608 can be used for that local match.

And finally, counties can choose to spend the 15% on forest management projects under Title II if they wish to do so. But county officials will have virtually no say in the selection of Title II projects; that is entirely up the Resource Advisory Committees and local Forest Service or BLM officials.

So while the Choice Amendment never came to a vote, counties do have a choice.  Do they want to spend 15% on forest management projects?  If not, do they want to spend it on any of the six items allowed until Title III?  Also, counties can split the 15% between Title II and Title III projects.  Counties actually have more discretion under Title III than they would have had with the Choice Amendment.

When counties choose to spend the 15% for Title III projects, as long as they are used for one of the six authorized purposes, all the counties need to do is (1) publish project descriptions in the local paper, (2) send them to the appropriate Resource Advisory Committee (RAC), and (3) wait until the end of the 45-day public comment period.  The RACs have no approval authority over Title III projects, so counties won't have to negotiate with them or worry about delays, disagreements, etc.

While you will have a RAC covering your county, the role of the RAC will depend on whether the county decides to put the 15% into Title II or Title III projects.  The Title II projects must be approved by the RAC and then recommended to the appropriate Secretary.   Title III projects are simply approved by the county after giving notice to the RAC.  While the counties have a limited role in deciding how Title II funds are used, you should be cognizant of the risks that Title II projects can become mired in controversy and never completed, thus making county officials vulnerable to criticism for “wasting” county money.

The more than 125 county officials who signed on to the County Choice Amendment support letter in the spring of 2000 and those who lobbied in Washington, DC, deserve the appreciation of all the counties across the country who will benefit from the choices offered by Title III of S. 1608.  With the opposition to the County Choice Amendment by the National Association of Counties and various powerful lobbying efforts, it was an uphill battle all the way.  But the support of these county officials across the country made the difference for counties everywhere.  S. 1608 is now Public Law 106-393.

The Conservation Leaders Network worked in support of County Choice in conjunction with county officials and the Wilderness Society.