An Analysis of the Implementation of PL 106-393

Environmental Science and Policy Research Institute (ESPRI) Report Outline

An Analysis of the Implementation of PL 106-393

  1. History & Explanation of Title I, II, and III funds - Explanation of RACs
    1. Purpose and content of PL 106-393 Laws Affecting Payments to Counties
      1. 25% for schools and roads (1908)
      2. 75% of revenues paid to counties (1937, ?)
      3. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (1993)
      4. Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (2000)
    2. Purpose
      1. improve cooperative relationships between citizens and federal agencies recommend projects on federal lands
      2. Formation of RACs
        1. appointment process
        2. length of appointment
        3. vacancies
        4. balanced representation
        5. geographic distribution
  2. Purpose One, stabilize payments to counties
    1. Fall 2001 - more than 700 counties decided on payment scheme, most accepted stable payments (display information from Forest Service)
    2. Summarize factors affecting county decisions to accept stable payment
    3. Summarize geographic differences
    4. Fall 2003 - second chance for counties to accept stable payments (will require getting information from Michael Morton USFS in late fall); discuss additional counties that are now on board
    5. General conclusions about meeting this purpose of the act
  3. Purpose Two, Invest in Federal Lands
    1. Discuss how Title II and/or III meet this purpose of the act. Include leg history on Title III and conclude whether it detracts from purpose or is another way to meet the act (county-controlled public service projects that have some impact on federal land resources).
    2. Investment in Federal lands is a multi-step process. First a county must opt in to stable payment, have more than $100,000 to allocate between Title II and III, or if receiving less than $100,000 at discretion put in some funds to Title II or III. RACs must be formed to recommend projects; Forest must approve project
    3. Analyze county investments in Title II v. III (from collected financial data). Why have some counties decided to place all of their money into Title III instead of Title II? Specifically refer to counties that have at least $100,000 in Title III but no money in Title II.
    4. Why are some counties putting money into Title II at a greater rate in succeeding years?
    5. Analyze formation of RACs, differences in funds, geographic size, population
    6. Analyze RAC projects; amount of Title II funds invested (e.g., rate of spending v. county allocation), contributions from Forest Sec 207, contributions from third parties Sec 203. Use data tables from FS, as updated in fall/winter 2003
    7. General conclusions on this purpose of the act.
  4. Purpose three, improved cooperative relationships between RAC members, county officials, and Federal land management agency officials.
    1. The following research questions will be answered throuh surveys of RAC members and Federal officials and personal interviews with RAC members, Federal officials, and county officials.
      1. Is there general support for the continuation of stable payments to counties through the renewal of PL 106-393?
      2. Have resource advisory committees improved cooperative relationships between RAC members, county officials, and Federal land management agency officials?
      3. What effect, if any, does the size of the RAC (in terms of dollars allocated) have on its ability to function (in relation to all other variables)?
      4. Why have some counties decided to put all of their money into Title II instead of Title III? Why are some counties putting money into Title II at a greater rate in succeeding years? (Questions C, D from part III).
    2. Report on survey of and interviews with RAC members.
    3. Report on survey of and interviews with Federal land management agency officials.
    4. Report on interviews with county officials.
    5. General conclusions on the purpose of the act.

This page last reviewed April 2004