The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
June 6, 2023
Determination Act: Background and Issues
Katie Hoover
Under federal law, state and local governments receive payments through various programs due
Specialist in Natural
to the presence of federally owned land within their jurisdictions. Some of these payment
Resources Policy
programs are based on the revenue generated from specific land uses and activities. For example,

Congress has authorized payments to the counties containing national forests—managed by the
Forest Service—based on the revenue generated from those lands. In addition, Congress has

authorized the 18 counties in western Oregon containing the Oregon and California (O&C) lands
and Coos Bay Wagon Road (CBWR) lands—managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)—to also receive a
payment based on the revenue generated from those lands.
Revenue-generating activities include timber sales, recreation, grazing permits, and land use rentals, among other activities;
timber sales have been the largest historical source of revenue. Starting in the 1990s, however, federal timber sales began to
decline substantially, which led to substantially reduced payments to the counties. In response, Congress enacted the Secure
Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (SRS; P.L. 106-393) as a temporary, optional program of
payments, starting in FY2001. Congress extended the payments for every year—except FY2016—through FY2023. Counties
with eligible lands (national forests, O&C, and CBWR lands) may opt to receive either an SRS payment or a revenue-based
payment; most counties elected to receive the SRS payment. Because a larger subset of counties are eligible, the bulk of the
SRS payment goes to the lands managed by the Forest Service.
Each county’s SRS payment is determined by a formula based on historic revenues, area of eligible federal lands, and county
incomes. Because payments are based on historic revenue, fluctuations in current revenue streams from the specified lands do
not affect SRS payments. Congress has changed the SRS payment formula several times. For example, Congress amended
the formula so the payment declined by 10% annually from FY2008 through FY2011 and again amended the formula so the
payment declined by 5% annually from FY2012 to FY2020. More recently, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA;
P.L. 117-58) removed the annual decline and established a set annual payment amount. The program is funded through
mandatory spending, with funds coming first from agency receipts and then from the Treasury. SRS payments are disbursed
after the fiscal year ends, so the FY2023 SRS payment—the last authorized payment—is due to be made in FY2024.
The SRS payment is divided into three parts, each named after its respective title in the authorizing law and each with
different requirements for how the funds may be used. Title I payments are to be used in the same manner as the revenue-
based payment (restricted to roads and schools purposes for the Forest Service payment but available for a broader range of
governmental purposes for the BLM payment). Title II payments are retained by the relevant federal agency to be used for
projects on or to benefit the federal lands within the county. Title III payments are to be used for specified county purposes.
There are different requirements for how a county may allocate its payment among the three titles, and those requirements
vary depending on the total payment amount the county receives. The bulk of the payment is allocated to the Title I payment
(around 80%-85% of the payment for most counties). Prior to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58),
Congress had frozen the payment allocations chosen by each county for the FY2013 payment and continued that allocation
through the FY2020 payment.
When SRS payments temporarily expired for FY2016, county payments returned to the revenue-based system and were
significantly lower than the payments received under SRS. With the expiration of SRS after the FY2023 payments, county
payments would be set to return to the revenue-based system for FY2024. Congress may consider several options to address
county payments, including reauthorizing SRS (with or without modifications), implementing other legislative proposals to
address the county payments, and taking no action, among others. Congressional debates over reauthorization have
considered the basis, level, and distribution of payments and interaction with other compensation programs; the authorized
and required uses of the payments; the duration of any changes; and the source of funds. More generally, legislation with
mandatory spending—such as SRS—raises policy questions about congressional control of appropriations. In addition, as
with non-defense mandatory spending, SRS payments are generally subject to sequestration, though that has varied over the
years based on when payments were reauthorized.
The FY2022 SRS payment was distributed in spring 2023. The total, post-sequester FY2022 SRS payment (Titles I, II, and
III) was $267.0 million ($239.0 million FS; $27.9 million BLM). The total FY2022 SRS payment made to counties (Titles I
and III only) was $241.1 million ($215.5 million FS; $25.6 million BLM).
Congressional Research Service


link to page 6 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 13 link to page 14 link to page 15 link to page 18 link to page 19 link to page 23 link to page 23 link to page 24 link to page 25 link to page 26 link to page 26 link to page 26 link to page 29 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 13 link to page 15 link to page 22 link to page 27 link to page 29 link to page 10 link to page 12 link to page 16 link to page 19 link to page 20 link to page 28 Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

Contents
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Forest Service 25 Percent Payments ......................................................................................... 2
Bureau of Land Management O&C and CBWR Revenue-Based Payments ............................ 3
Revenue-Based Program Concerns and Issues ......................................................................... 4
Payment Stability ................................................................................................................ 4
Linkage ............................................................................................................................... 5
Declining Timber Receipts ................................................................................................. 5

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 ........................................ 6
SRS Payment Formula .............................................................................................................. 9
Payment Election .................................................................................................................... 10
Payment Allocations: Title I, Title II, and Title III ................................................................... 11
Resource Advisory Committees (RACs) .......................................................................... 14
Payment Data and Analysis ........................................................................................................... 15
FY2019 and FY2020 Payments .............................................................................................. 19
FY2021-FY2023 Payments ..................................................................................................... 19
Sequestration ........................................................................................................................... 20
Legislative Issues .......................................................................................................................... 21
Payment Formula .................................................................................................................... 22
Lands Covered ........................................................................................................................ 22
Geographic Distribution of SRS and PILT Payments ............................................................. 22
Source of Funds....................................................................................................................... 25
Authorized and Required Uses of the Payments ..................................................................... 26
Reauthorization and Duration of the Programs ....................................................................... 26


Figures
Figure 1. FS and BLM Total Secure Rural Schools (SRS) Payments ............................................. 9
Figure 2. FS and BLM Total Secure Rural Schools (SRS) Payments by Title ............................... 11
Figure 3. FS and BLM Payments, FY2001-FY2022 ..................................................................... 18
Figure 4. PILT, BLM, and FS Payments Made in FY2022 ........................................................... 23
Figure 5. Source and Distribution of Forest Service (FS) Payments ............................................. 25

Tables
Table 1. Secure Rural Schools (SRS) Legislative History .............................................................. 6
Table 2. FS and BLM Total Secure Rural Schools (SRS) Payments, FY2001-FY2022 ................. 8
Table 3. Secure Rural Schools (SRS) Title Allocations ................................................................. 12
Table 4. Forest Service (FS) Payments .......................................................................................... 15
Table 5. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Payments.............................................................. 16
Table 6. FS, BLM, and PILT Payments Made in FY2022, by State .............................................. 24

Congressional Research Service


link to page 32 link to page 35 link to page 37 Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

Appendixes
Appendix A. SRS Reauthorizations Through FY2017 .................................................................. 28
Appendix B. FY2013 Sequestration Issues ................................................................................... 31

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 33


Congressional Research Service

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

nder federal law, local governments receive federal funding through various programs
due to the presence of federal lands within their borders. This is in part because federally
U owned lands cannot be taxed, but may create demand for services from state or local
entities, such as fire protection, police cooperation, or longer roads to skirt the property. Many of
the compensation programs are based on revenue generated from specific land uses and activities
(referred to as revenue-based programs throughout this report).
Counties containing national forests managed by the Forest Service (FS) have historically
received a percentage of agency revenues. Similarly, counties containing the Oregon and
California (O&C) and Coos Bay Wagon Road (CBWR) lands, primarily managed by the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM), also have received a payment based on agency revenues. For many
decades, the primary source of revenue from those lands was the sale of timber.1 In the 1990s,
timber sales declined substantially from the historic levels in the 1980s—by more than 90% in
some areas—which led to substantially reduced payments to the counties. In response, Congress
enacted the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (SRS) to
provide a temporary, optional system to supplant the FS and BLM revenue-based programs.2 The
authorization for the SRS payments originally expired at the end of FY2006, but Congress
extended the payments an additional 16 years—through FY2023, with a one-year lapse in the
authorization for FY2016—through several reauthorizations.3 SRS is set to expire after the
FY2023 payments are made, after which county payments are to return to a revenue-based
system.
This report provides background information on FS and BLM revenue-based payments and a
brief overview of a related payment program—the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program.4
Because the revenue-based, SRS, and PILT payments interact with one another in varying ways,
proposals to amend the revenue-based programs or SRS have often included modifications to the
PILT program as well. This report then provides on overview of the SRS payments and a
discussion of some of the legislative issues facing Congress when considering these payment
programs.
Payment Terminology
The fol owing definitions reflect how the different payments are defined and referred to in this report (note that
other sources may use different terms or report the data differently). For the payments in which both Forest
Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands are applicable, the appropriate agency wil be specified
in the text.
BLM payment reflects the payments made to the counties containing the Oregon and California (O&C) and Coos
Bay Wagon Road (CBWR) lands as authorized for that year. For years prior to FY1993, this was the respective
revenue-based payment; starting in FY1993, this was the BLM safety-net payment. For years starting in FY2001,
however, this generally refers to the BLM Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (SRS)
Title I and Title II payments.
BLM total payment includes the BLM payment plus the SRS Title II payment retained by the agency.
FS 25 Percent Payments are the revenue-based payments authorized through the Act of May 23, 1908. Data for the
25 Percent Payments may also include the Special Act Payments as specified, such as the Payments to Minnesota

1 For more information on federal timber sales, see CRS Report R45688, Timber Harvesting on Federal Lands.
2 The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (SRS; P.L. 106-393), 16 U.S.C. §§7101-
7153.
3 SRS payments for FY2021-FY2023 were reauthorized in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-
58, §41202).
4 Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act of 1976 (PILT; P.L. 94-565 as amended, 31 U.S.C. §§6901-6907). For more
information, see CRS Report R46260, The Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Program: An Overview.
Congressional Research Service
1

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

Counties. For the years FY1993 through FY2000, the data for the 25 Percent Payments also include the FS safety-
net payments.
FS payment reflects the payments authorized to be made to eligible counties for that year. Prior to FY2001, this
includes the FS 25 Percent Payment and the FS safety-net payment. Starting in FY2001, this includes the FS
revenue-based payment plus the SRS Title I and Title II payments, except in FY2016, when SRS payments were not
authorized.
FS total payment includes the FS county payment plus the SRS Title II payment retained by the agency.
Revenue-based payment
for the FS comprises the 25 Percent Payments. For the BLM, this comprises the O&C and
CBWR payments.
Safety-net payment includes payments made from FY1993 to FY2000 to certain counties in Washington, Oregon,
and California for both FS and BLM (for Oregon, only BLM).
SRS Title I, II, or III payment reflects the payment made pursuant to one or more of the SRS titles, as specified in the
text.
SRS total payment includes the sum of the Title I, Title II, and Title III payments.
Background
Forest Service 25 Percent Payments
Congress has authorized several different revenue-based payments for the counties containing
lands managed by the FS.5 SRS affects one of those payments—the payments authorized under
the Act of May 23, 1908, referred to as the 25 Percent Payments in this report. The other
payments (e.g., Payments to Counties for the national grasslands and Special Act Payments) are
much narrower in scope and application and, consequently, much smaller.6 These payments are
sometimes included in FS revenue-based payment totals, but they are not affected by the SRS
payments.
Congress first directed the FS to begin revenue-based payments in appropriations laws for 1906
and 1907. For those years, the requirement was for the FS to pay 10% of its gross receipts per
year to states for use on roads and schools in the counties in which the national forests are
located. In 1908, Congress raised the payment to 25% of gross receipts and permanently
authorized the 25 Percent Payments as mandatory spending.7 The compensation rate remained at
25% of gross receipts annually for the next 100 years, until it was changed in 2008 to 25% of
average gross receipts over the previous 7 years—essentially a 7-year rolling average of receipts.8
Receipts come from eligible sales, leases, rentals, or other fees for using national forest lands or

5 Compensation programs related to energy and mineral development on national forest system lands are administered
by the Department of the Interior (DOI) and are not addressed in this report.
6 The Payments to Counties program requires payments of 25% of net receipts generated on the national grasslands to
be paid directly to the counties ($52.0 million for FY2021). Special Act Payments include various other revenue-based
payments authorized for specific purposes or limited to specific places, such as the Payments to Minnesota Counties
program, which provides payments to three counties in northern Minnesota based on the appraised value of certain
lands within the Superior National Forest ($5.7 million for FY2021). Special act payments also include payments for
quartz mined from the Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas and for revenue generated on the Quinault Special
Management Area in the Olympic National Forest in Washington (~$4,000 in FY2020 for both). Data from the Forest
Service (FS), FY2022 Budget Justification and FS’s Payments to Counties website at https://www.fs.usda.gov/working-
with-us/secure-rural-schools/bankhead-jones-payments. For more information on these programs and FS’s mandatory
appropriations generally, see CRS Report R46557, Forest Service Appropriations: Ten-Year Data and Trends
(FY2011-FY2020)
.
7 Act of May 23, 1908, 16 U.S.C. §500.
8 P.L. 110-343 §601.
Congressional Research Service
2

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

resources (e.g., timber sales, recreation fees, and communication site leases), although Congress
has designated some activities exempt from FS revenues for the purposes of revenue-sharing
payments.9 Because the payment amounts are calculated based on the average annual revenue
generated during a seven-year period, payments cannot be made until after the most recent fiscal
year in each period is completed (for example, payments reflecting the annual average for
FY2014-FY2020 were made in FY2021).
The 25 Percent Payments are sometimes referred to as the Payments to States program because
the FS first sends the payment to the states.10 The states have no discretion in assigning the funds
to the appropriate county, however. FS determines the amount of the total state payment to be
allocated to each county based on each county’s national forest acreage and provides that amount
to the state. The states cannot retain any of the funds; the funds must be passed through to local
governmental entities for use at the county level (but not necessarily to county governments
themselves).11 Each state must spend the funds on road and school programs, and state law sets
forth how the payments are to be allocated between road and school projects. The state laws differ
widely, generally ranging from 30% to 100% for school programs, with a few states providing
substantial local discretion on the split.
Bureau of Land Management O&C and CBWR Revenue-Based
Payments
Congress has also enacted revenue-based programs for BLM lands for various types of resource
use, including the Oregon and California payments and Coos Bay Wagon Road payments.12 The
O&C payments are made to the 18 counties in western Oregon containing the revested Oregon
and California grant lands, which are lands that were returned to federal ownership for failure of
the state to fulfill the terms of the grant. The O&C counties receive 50% of the receipts from
these lands, and the funds may be used for any local governmental purposes.13 The CBWR lands
are located in two of the same counties in western Oregon that also contain O&C lands. A portion
of the revenue generated from the CBWR lands also must be paid to the two counties, and those
funds may be used for schools, roads, bridges, and highways.14
The O&C and CBWR payments are mandatory payments that are paid directly to the counties.
The CBWR and O&C lands and payments are often grouped together, and in this report “O&C”
refers to both, unless otherwise specified.

9 For example, revenue generated through stewardship contracts is not counted toward the revenue-based requirement
(16 U.S.C. §6591c(e)(3)(A)). For more information on the authorized uses and revenue-generating activities on the
national forests, see CRS Report R43872, National Forest System Management: Overview, Appropriations, and Issues
for Congress
.
10 FS sometimes includes other payment programs within the Payments to States program, which is also the name of
the Treasury account from which the payments are made. This includes the Payments to Counties and Payments to
Minnesota Counties. SRS is included when authorized.
11 For example, funds may be allocated directly to a school district.
12 FS also manages a portion (19%) of the O&C lands. For more information, see CRS Report R42951, The Oregon
and California Railroad Lands (O&C Lands): Issues for Congress
. Compensation programs related to grazing, land
sales, and energy and mineral development are not addressed in this report.
13 43 U.S.C. §§2601 et seq.
14 Per statute (43 U.S.C. §§2621 et seq.), 75% of the gross receipts from Coos Bay Wagon Road (CBWR) lands are
deposited to a special fund and used to make tax-equivalency payments; any portion remaining in the fund after a 10-
year period is transferred to the General Fund of the Treasury.
Congressional Research Service
3

link to page 30 Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Program
In addition to the FS and BLM revenue-based programs, Congress has enacted other programs to compensate for
the presence of federal land. The most widely applicable program, administered by the Department of the Interior,
is the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Program (31 U.S.C. §§6901-6907). PILT payments to counties are
calculated in dol ars per acre of federal land and are based on eligible federal lands, as specified in statute (the total
payment amounts are restricted in counties with very low populations). The eligible lands include national forests
and O&C lands, among others, in each county. The PILT payments are reduced by the FS payments but not by the
O&C payments. This means that the PILT payment for counties containing national forests is affected by the FS
payment (either revenue-based or SRS), but the PILT payment for counties containing O&C lands is not similarly
affected. This also means that decreases in FS payments may increase a county’s payments under PILT in the
fol owing year (and vice versa), although the difference is rarely proportionate. Proposals to amend the revenue-
based programs or SRS have often included modifications to the PILT program.
PILT payments are reduced (to a minimum payment per acre) by other payment programs as specified in statute.
For more information, see CRS Report R46260, The Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Program: An Overview.
Revenue-Based Program Concerns and Issues
Prior to the enactment of SRS, three principal concerns about FS and O&C revenue-based
programs had been raised by Congress, counties containing FS and O&C lands, and other
observers:15 (1) payment stability and the annual uncertainty about payment amounts; (2) the
linkage between timber revenue and county payments; and (3) the decline in FS and O&C
receipts due to the decline in timber sales. SRS addresses some of these concerns, but they may
again be at issue if the authorization for SRS payments were to expire.
Payment Stability
One concern about the FS and O&C revenue-based payments was that payments would fluctuate
annually based on the revenue received in the previous year. Even in areas with modest declines
or increases in timber sales, payments have varied widely from year to year. For example, from
FY1985 to FY2000, the payments from each national forest fluctuated an average of nearly 30%
annually—that is, on average, a county’s payment in any year was likely to be nearly 30% higher
or lower than its payment the preceding year. This is in part due to fluctuations in timber sale
locations and market forces, among other factors. Such wide annual fluctuations imposed serious
budgeting uncertainties on the counties.
The concern over annual fluctuations led to Congress changing the compensation rate to a rolling
seven-year average of receipts in 2008.16 Thus, payments increase more slowly than in the past
when and where national forest receipts are rising but decline more slowly when and where
receipts are falling. The extent to which this provides more stability for the counties is not clear.
Since this change has been enacted, most counties have opted to receive an SRS payment instead
of the revenue-based payment, except for the one year when the SRS payments were not
authorized. Relatedly, however, the expiration and reauthorization of the SRS payments over the
past few years has introduced a different kind of budgeting uncertainty for the counties, discussed
further in the “Reauthorization and Duration of the Programs” section of this report.

15 Forest Counties Payments Committee, Recommendations for Making Payments to States and Counties: Report to
Congress
(Washington: GPO, 2003). Hereinafter referred to as Forest Counties Payments Committee Report, 2003.
The committee was established in Section 320 of the FY2001 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, P.L.
106-291.
16 P.L. 110-343 §601.
Congressional Research Service
4

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

Linkage
A longer-term concern is referred to as linkage. Some observers noted that because the counties
received a portion of receipts, they were financially rewarded for advocating receipt-generating
activities (principally timber sales) and for opposing management decisions that might reduce or
constrain such activities, thus reducing the direct financial benefits from receipts (e.g.,
designating wilderness areas). Some interests support retaining the linkage between county
compensation and agency receipts because such activities usually also provide local employment
and income, especially in rural areas where unemployment is often high. Others assert that ending
the linkage is important so that the direct financial incentive for maximizing receipts would be
removed as one of the factors for local officials to consider in their decisionmaking regarding use
of the lands for activities other than timber sales.17
Declining Timber Receipts
A primary concern about the FS 25 Percent Payments and O&C payments was the effect of
declining timber sale revenue on counties. National forest receipts (subject to the 25% sharing)
declined from their peak of $2.9 billion in FY1989 to $691.0 million in FY1999, in inflation-
adjusted constant FY2022 dollars.18 The decline was primarily due to declining receipts from
decreasing timber production. For example, FS harvested 12.0 billion board feet of timber in
FY1989 (at a value of $2.72 billion in constant dollars); in FY1999, FS harvested 2.9 billion
board feet (at a value of $525.8 million in constant dollars).19 The decline in timber sales began in
the Pacific Northwest but eventually was experienced nationwide, owing to a combination of
changing forest management policies and practices, increased planning and procedural
requirements, changing public preferences, economic and industry factors, and other
developments. BLM experienced a similar trend in receipts over the same time period.
Consequently, the revenue-based payments to counties also declined. For example, the FY1989
FS 25 Percent Payments totaled $722.3 million.20 By FY1993, the payment was $540.0 million.21
Similarly to the decline in timber receipts, the decline in the revenue-based payments also began
in the Pacific Northwest. For example, payments to the counties in Oregon containing national
forests decreased by 20% from FY1989 to FY1993, and payments to the counties containing the

17 Forest Counties Payments Committee Report, 2003, p. 24.
18 FS revenue data compiled from annual budget documents. In nominal dollars, the receipts in FY1989 were $1.44
billion and the receipts in FY1999 were $432.5 million. Figures adjusted to constant (estimated FY2022) dollars using
the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Chained Price Index (CPI) from the White House Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) Table 10.1, “Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables” at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historical-tables/.
19 FS timber data compiled from annual Cut & Sold reports available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/forestmanagement/
products/cut-sold/index.shtml. In nominal dollars, the value of the FY1989 timber sales was $1.31 billion, and the
value of the FY1999 timber sales was $342.3 million. Figures adjusted to constant (estimated FY2022) dollars using
the GDP-CPI from the White House OMB Table 10.1, “Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical
Tables” in Historical Tables. For more information on federal timber sales, see CRS Report R45688, Timber
Harvesting on Federal Lands
.
20 FS historical payment data provided by FS Legislative Affairs office, 2005. In nominal dollars, the FY1989 25
Percent Payment was $361.9 million and was adjusted to constant (estimated FY2022) dollars using the GDP-CPI from
the White House OMB Table 10.1, “Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables” in Historical
Tables
.
21 FS historical payment data provided by FS Legislative Affairs office, 2005. In nominal dollars, the FY1993 25
Percent Payment was $304.7 million and was adjusted to constant (estimated FY2022) dollars using the GDP-CPI from
the White House OMB Table 10.1, “Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables” in Historical
Tables
.
Congressional Research Service
5

link to page 10 link to page 32 Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

O&C lands decreased by 28%.22 In California, FS payments to counties decreased by 30% over
that same time frame, and in Washington, FS payments decreased by 35%. The extent of
declining revenues in individual counties within those states varied, ranging from minimal to
substantial (and often was a function of the amount of applicable federal land located within the
county).
In 1993, Congress authorized FS and BLM to make safety-net payments to several counties in the
Pacific Northwest, including in Oregon, California, and Washington.23 These payments were set
at a declining percentage of the average revenue-based payments made to those counties between
FY1986 and FY1990.24 As federal timber sales—and revenue-based payments—began to decline
nationwide, however, Congress replaced the regional safety-net payments with the nationwide
SRS program starting in FY2001.
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act of 2000
In 2000, Congress enacted the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act
(SRS) after extensive debates and several different bill versions.25 The act established an optional
alternative to the revenue-based payments for FS and O&C lands, starting with the FY2001
payment. Each county with FS or O&C land could choose to receive either the regular revenue-
based payments or the SRS payment.
SRS was originally enacted as a temporary program, expiring after payments were made for
FY2006. However, SRS was reauthorized and modified several times, and payments were
authorized annually through the FY2015 payment (see Table 1 and Appendix A). The
authorization lapsed for the FY2016 payment, but payments were reauthorized starting in
FY2017 and extended through FY2023.26 SRS payments—like the revenue-based payments—are
disbursed after the end of the fiscal year, so, barring any congressional action, payments are set to
expire after the FY2023 payment is made in FY2024.
Table 1. Secure Rural Schools (SRS) Legislative History
Statute (Date
Enacted)
Duration
Authorized Payment Level
Major Changes
P.L. 106-393
FY2001-FY2006 Determined by formula; average
Established program
(10/30/00)
annual payment was around $500
mil ion total
P.L. 110-28 §5401
FY2007
$525 mil ion
$425 mil ion was paid from
(05/25/07)
discretionary appropriations

22 Historical data on O&C receipts and payments from BLM Legislative Affairs office, 2011.
23 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, P.L. 103-66 §13982-3. These payments are also sometimes referred to
as the owl payments. The payments were originally authorized through FY2003 but were replaced by the SRS
payments starting in FY2001.
24 The payment amount began at 85% of the average FY1986-FY1990 payment, and declined by 3 percentage points
annually.
25 P.L. 106-393, 16 U.S.C. §§7101-7153.
26 SRS payments for FY2021-FY2023 were reauthorized in the IIJA (§41202).
Congressional Research Service
6

link to page 11 link to page 32 link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 32 Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

Statute (Date
Enacted)
Duration
Authorized Payment Level
Major Changes
P.L. 110-343 §601
FY2008-FY2011
$500 mil ion FY2008; FY2009-
Established an annual declining ful
(10/03/08)
FY2011, 90% of previous year
funding amount (-10%); modified
fundinga
payment calculation formula;
phased out transition payments;
modified payment title allocations;
25% payment based on rol ing
seven-year average
P.L. 112-141 §100101
FY2012
95% of FY2011 level ($344 mil ion) Modified the declining ful funding
(07/06/12)
amount to -5% annually
P.L. 113-40 §10
FY2013
95% of FY2012 level ($329 mil ion) None
(10/02/13)
P.L. 114-10 §524
FY2014-FY2015
95% of previous year funding
None
(04/16/15)
($312 mil ion for FY2014, $297
mil ion for FY2015)
P.L. 115-141 Division
FY2017-FY2018
95% of FY2015 level ($281 mil ion
Modified payment allocations
O, §401
for FY2017, 95% of the FY2017
level for FY2018 ($268 mil ion)
(03/23/18)
P.L. 116-94 Division
FY2019-FY2020
95% of the previous year funding
None
H, Title III
($254 mil ion for FY2019, ~$241
(12/20/19)
mil ion estimated for FY2020)
P.L. 117-58 Division
FY2021-FY2023
Equal to the payment made in
Established a set ful funding
D, Title XII (11/15/21)
FY2017 (~$282 mil ion)
amount and removed the annual
decline; reauthorized payment
elections and allocations; and
modified membership
requirements for Resource
Advisory Committees
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Notes: Except for the FY2007 payment, Congress authorized the payments as mandatory spending, with a
portion of the payment derived from agency revenue and the balance from the General Fund of the Treasury.
Duration reflects the fiscal years in which authorized payments were based, not the year the payments were
made. The payments were made in the fol owing fiscal year (e.g., the payment authorized for FY2018 was
disbursed in FY2019). For more information on the reauthorizations through FY2017, see Appendix A.
a. The transition payments for specific states authorized in P.L. 110-343 for FY2008-FY2010 resulted in the
total payment amount exceeding the full funding amount defined in the act.
The SRS payments are determined by a formula based on historic revenue generated on the
applicable federal lands. Originally, each county’s SRS payment was calculated as the average of
the three highest payments received by the county between FY1986 and FY1999. The formula
was later amended to include other factors as discussed in the “SRS Payment Formula” section.
Funds needed to achieve the full payment are mandatory spending and come first from agency
receipts (excluding deposits to special accounts and trust funds) and then from “any amounts in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.”27 The program is also authorized to receive
discretionary funding, although this has happened only one time (FY2007, see Appendix A for
more information).

27 16 U.S.C. §7112(b)(3).
Congressional Research Service
7

link to page 12 link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 13 Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

The SRS payment is divided into three parts, based on three of the titles in the authorizing law.
Each county can allocate the payment among the three titles, with different requirements
depending on the amount a county was set to receive.
• Title I payments are to be used in the same manner as the revenue-based payment
(for roads and schools purposes for the FS payment, or, for the BLM payment,
for any governmental purpose).28
• Title II payments are not made to the county but are retained by FS or BLM to be
used for projects on the relevant federal lands within the county.29
• Title III payments are made to the county, and the funds are to be used for
specified county projects.30
The bulk of the SRS payment (84% on average) is for counties containing the national forests
(see Table 2 and Figure 1). This is because the FS payment is more broadly applicable, whereas
the BLM payment is applicable only for the 18 counties in one state—Oregon—containing the
O&C lands. Because a portion of the SRS payment is retained by the agency, it is common to see
only the portion of the payment that was made to the county—the Title I and Title III payments—
provided in various reports.
Table 2. FS and BLM Total Secure Rural Schools (SRS) Payments, FY2001-FY2022
(nominal dollars in millions)
Receipt
TOTAL

Receipt
TOTAL
Yeara
FS
BLM
SRS
Yeara
FS
BLM
SRS
FY2001
$371.1
$109.7
$480.8

FY2012
$305.9
$38.0
$343.9
FY2002
373.9
110.6
484.5

FY2013
289.0
39.6
328.6
FY2003
388.8
111.9
500.7

FY2014
273.9
38.3
312.2
FY2004
393.9
113.3
507.2

FY2015
261.0
35.6
296.6
FY2005
404.9
115.9
520.9

FY2016b



FY2006
409.0
117.1
526.1

FY2017
249.3
32.2c
281.5
FY2007
408.1
116.9
525.0

FY2018
237.5
30.1
267.6
FY2008
517.9
105.4
623.3

FY2019
225.8
28.4
254.3
FY2009
467.6
94.9
562.4

FY2020
214.7
25.4
240.1
FY2010
415.8
85.5
501.3

FY2021
250.7
30.1
281.7
FY2011
321.9
40.0
361.9

FY2022
239.0
27.9
267.0
Sources: FS FY2001-FY2005, FY2007 data from FS legislative affairs office; FS FY2006, FY2008-FY2022 data
from annual FS report, All Service Receipts: Title I, II, and III Region Summary (ASR-18-3), available at
https://www.fs.usda.gov/working-with-us/secure-rural-schools/payments. BLM data from annual Official Payments
Made to Counties reports
, available at https://www.blm.gov/programs/natural-resources/forests-and-woodlands/oc-
lands.
Notes: FS = Forest Service; BLM = Bureau of Land Management. Some years may reflect sequestration. Totals
may not add due to rounding.

28 P.L. 106-393, Title I, Secure Payments for States and Counties Containing Federal Land (16 U.S.C. §§7111-7113).
29 P.L. 106-393, Title II, Special Projects on Federal Land (16 U.S.C. §§7121-7128).
30 P.L. 106-393, Title III, County Funds (16 U.S.C. §§7141-7144).
Congressional Research Service
8

link to page 32
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

Notes (continued):
a. Receipt Year reflects the fiscal year in which the payment is based, not the year the payments are made.
The payments are made in the fol owing fiscal year (e.g., the FY2018 payment was disbursed in FY2019).
b. SRS payments were not authorized for the FY2016 receipt year.
c. BLM does not include the $18.5 mil ion revenue-based payment made prior to the reauthorization of the
SRS payment for FY2017 as part of the total SRS payment for that year. Instead, BLM reports the FY2017
SRS payment to be $14.0 mil ion. This is a departure from how the FY2014 SRS payment was reported,
which was also reauthorized after the revenue-based payment had been disbursed. For this report,
however, the revenue-based payment is included in the Title I payment for consistency.
Figure 1. FS and BLM Total Secure Rural Schools (SRS) Payments
(FY2001-FY2022)

Sources: FS FY2001-FY2005, FY2007 data from FS legislative affairs office; and FS FY2006, FY2008-FY20221
data from annual FS report, All Service Receipts: Title I, II, and III Region Summary (ASR-18-3), available at
https://www.fs.usda.gov/working-with-us/secure-rural-schools/payments. BLM payment data are from the SRS
Official Payment reports, available at https://www.blm.gov/programs/natural-resources/forests-and-woodlands/
oc-lands.
Notes: FS = Forest Service; BLM = Bureau of Land Management. Some years may reflect sequestration. The
bars reflect nominal dol ars. The gray line reflects total SRS payments adjusted to constant (estimated FY2022)
dol ars using the GDP Chained Price Index from the White House Office of Management and Budget, Table 10.1,
“Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables—1940-2027,” in Historical Tables, at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/. SRS payments were not authorized for the FY2016 receipt
year. For FY2017, BLM’s revenue-based payment is reflected in the SRS payment for consistency. The x-axis is
the Receipt Year, which reflects the fiscal year in which the payment was based, not the year the payments were
made. The payments were made in the fol owing fiscal year (e.g., the FY2018 payment was disbursed in FY2019).
The following sections discuss the payment formula, payment allocations, and use of the funds in
more depth and provide payment data and analysis. Information on the most recent
reauthorization (authorizing payments for FY2021 through FY2023) is included in the payment
data section. Information on the prior reauthorizations is available in Appendix A.
SRS Payment Formula
The SRS payment formula has been modified several times. When SRS was first enacted, each
county’s payment was calculated as the average of the three highest revenue-based payments
received by the county between FY1986 and FY1999. The total authorized payment for FY2001-
Congressional Research Service
9

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

FY2006 was the sum of the payments calculated for each participating county for each year.
When the program was reauthorized in FY2008, Congress modified the program in several ways,
including by establishing a new payment formula and specifying the total authorized payment
level.
The payment formula is still based on each eligible county’s historic revenue-based payments, but
the changes incorporated the county’s share of federal land and relative income level into the
calculation.31 In essence, the new formula differed from the original SRS formula by basing half
the payment on relative historic revenue and half on relative proportion of FS and O&C land,
with an adjustment based on relative county income. This was done because the majority of
payments under the original SRS went to Oregon, Washington, and California (more than 65% of
payments in FY2006). Because of the altered allocation, several counties opted out of the
amended SRS system, and others opted in. Because payments are based on historic revenue,
fluctuations in current revenue streams from the specified lands do not affect SRS payments.
Under the modified formula, the total authorized SRS payment level—defined as full funding—
was set at $500 million for FY2008.32 From FY2008 through FY2020, this full funding amount
was set to decline annually (originally by 10%, later changed to 5%). The annual decline,
however, was removed starting with the FY2021 payment, with the full funding amount set to a
constant amount equal to the FY2017 payment.33 The full funding amount is allocated among all
counties that elect to receive an SRS payment in lieu of the revenue-based payment. Thus, the
fewer counties that participate (i.e., the more that opt for the revenue-based payment programs
rather than SRS), the more each eligible county receives.
FY2008-FY2010 Transition Payments
In lieu of the payments calculated using the formula described above, counties in eight states—California,
Louisiana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington—received transition
payments
for three fiscal years, FY2008 through FY2010 (16 U.S.C. §7113). These counties were included in the
calculations, but received payments of a fixed percentage of the FY2006 payments they received under SRS,
instead of their calculated payments. The schedule in the act specified FY2008 payments equaling 90% of FY2006
payments, FY2009 payments at 81% of FY2006 payments, and FY2010 payments at 73% of FY2006 payments.
Because the transition payments were higher than the calculated payments (using the multistep formula, above),
total payments exceeded the ful funding amount in those years. In FY2008, the actual SRS total payment was
$623.3 mil ion (ful funding was $500.0 mil ion); in FY2009, the actual payment was $562.4 mil ion (ful funding was
$450.0 mil ion); and in FY2010, the actual payment was $501.3 mil ion (ful funding was $405.0 mil ion).
Payment Election
Counties with eligible lands can elect to receive either the revenue-based payments or the SRS
payments. Most (90%) counties have elected to receive the SRS payment.
Initially, each county could elect to receive the revenue-based payment or the SRS payment and
could transmit that election to the respective Governor, who transmitted the elections to the
appropriate Secretary (for FS, the Secretary of Agriculture; for BLM, the Secretary of the

31 Eligible counties are those that choose to receive payments under this program; counties that choose to continue to
receive payments under the original revenue-based programs are excluded from these calculations. Relative income is
calculated using an income adjustment based on the per capita personal income in each county relative to the median
per capita personal income in all eligible counties. Income data is calculated using the most recent data available from
the Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis. For a step-by-step guide on calculating payments, see
FS’s SRS website at https://www.fs.usda.gov/working-with-us/secure-rural-schools/payments.
32 16 U.S.C. §7102(11).
33 IIJA, P.L. 117-58, §41202.
Congressional Research Service
10

link to page 15 link to page 16 link to page 16
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

Interior).34 Although the election was good for two years, a county could opt to receive an SRS
payment one year and the revenue-based payment the following year. The authority to make such
an election had expired at the end of FY2013 and an extension had not been included in the
following three reauthorizations. Essentially, Congress had frozen the payment elections each
county made for the FY2013 payment and continued that election through the FY2020 payment.
Those counties that opted to receive an SRS payment in FY2013 continued to receive an SRS
payment (for those years that payments were authorized); counties that opted to receive a
revenue-based payment in FY2013 continued to receive the revenue-based payment and did not
have the opportunity to opt in to SRS.
The FY2021 reauthorization ended the freeze on payment elections. Initially, the freeze on
payment elections was set to end for the FY2023 payment, but Congress enacted legislation
removing the sunset date on the payment freeze.35
Payment Allocations: Title I, Title II, and Title III
The SRS payment is divided into three parts, based on three of the titles in the SRS statute (see
Figure 2 and Table 3). There are different requirements for how the payment is allocated among
the three titles, depending on the payment amount a county is set to receive (see Table 3 for
descriptions). Since the original authorization, Congress has modified the required allocations as
well as the authorized uses of Title II and Title III funds.
Figure 2. FS and BLM Total Secure Rural Schools (SRS) Payments by Title
(FY2001-FY2022)

Sources: FS payment data are from the annual FS report, All Service Receipts: Final Payment Summary Report PNF
(ASR-10-01),
available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/working-with-us/secure-rural-schools/payments. BLM payment
data are from the SRS Official Payment reports, available at https://www.blm.gov/programs/natural-resources/
forests-and-woodlands/oc-lands.

34 16 U.S.C. §§7112(b)(1)-(2). Election submissions must be submitted to the respective Secretary by August every two
years. If no election is made, counties receive an SRS payment.
35 The timing of the reauthorization of SRS payments as enacted in IIJA in November 2022 was after the August
deadline specified in statute for making payment elections for the following two years. P.L. 117-102, however, allowed
for a payment election to be made for FY2021.
Congressional Research Service
11

link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 17 link to page 30 link to page 30 Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

Notes: FS = Forest Service; BLM = Bureau of Land Management. Some years reflect sequestration.
The bars reflect nominal dol ars. The gray line reflects total SRS payments adjusted to constant (estimated
FY2022) dol ars using the GDP Chained Price Index from the White House Office of Management and Budget,
Table 10.1, “Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables” in Historical Tables. No SRS
payment was authorized for FY2016. For FY2017, BLM’s revenue-based payment is reflected in the Title I
payment for consistency. The x-axis is the Receipt Year, which reflects the fiscal year in which the payment was
based, not the year the payments were made. The payments were made in the fol owing fiscal year (e.g., the
FY2018 payment was disbursed in FY2019).
Regardless of the allocation, the bulk of each county’s payment is allocated to Title I payments,
and those funds are to be used in the same manner as the revenue-based payment (for roads and
schools purposes for the FS payment; schools, roads, bridges, and highways for the CBWR lands;
or any governmental purpose for the O&C lands). The Title II payment is not made to the county,
but is retained by the relevant federal agency to be used for projects on the federal lands within
the county and supported by local Resource Advisory Committees (RACs; see “Resource
Advisory Committees (RACs)”
for further information). The Title III payment is made to the
county, and the funds are to be used for specified county projects, such as community wildfire
preparedness planning and to reimburse county expenditures for emergency services related to the
federal lands.36
The authority to initiate projects under Title II or Title III expires on September 30, 2025; project
funds not obligated by September 30, 2026, are to be returned to the Treasury.37
Table 3. Secure Rural Schools (SRS) Title Allocations
SRS Payment
Use of Funds
Allocation Requirements
Title I
Same as specified in the revenue-based laws; for roads and
80%-85%, except counties
Secure Payments
school purposes for counties containing national forests, or
with minor distributions
for any governmental purpose for O&C lands. (16 U.S.C.
(less than $100,000) may

§7112d(1)(A))
allocate up to 100%


Title II
Funds may be used on projects on or to benefit the federal
0%-20%
Special Projects on
land within the county as suggested or approved by
Federal Lands
Resource Advisory Committees (RACs). At least 50% of the
funds should be for projects primarily dedicated to road

maintenance or decommissioning or stream and watershed
restoration. Up to 10% of the funds may be used to cover
administrative expenses for RAC operations.a
The authority to initiate projects expires at the end of
FY2025; the authority to obligate funds expires at the end of
FY2026. (16 U.S.C. §§7121-7128)

36 A 2012 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found inconsistencies among agency (FS and BLM)
oversight and county use of SRS Title III funds. For more information, see GAO, Payments to Counties: More Clarity
Could Help Ensure County Expenditures Are Consistent with Key Parts of the Secure Rural Schools Act
, GAO-12-755,
July 16, 2012, at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-775. For more information, see the “Authorized and Required
Uses of the Payments”
section.
37 16 U.S.C. §7128, §7144.
Congressional Research Service
12

link to page 17 link to page 17 Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

SRS Payment
Use of Funds
Allocation Requirements
Title III
Funds may be used for community wildfire preparedness
0%-7% for counties with
County Funds
planning and related activities; to reimburse county
major distributions (more
expenditures for emergency services, such as firefighting, law than $350,000)c

enforcement, and search and rescue on federal lands; to
0%-20% for all other
provide or expand technology and connectivity for
counties
educational purposes; and for related training and equipment
costs for those emergency services. Funds may not be used
for lobbying activities.b
The authority to initiate projects expires at the end of
FY2025; the authority to obligate funds expires at the end of
FY2026. (16 U.S.C. §§7141-7144)

Source: CRS, compiled from 16 U.S.C. §§7101-7153.
Notes: The authorized uses and allocation requirements are as of the FY2019 reauthorization (P.L. 116-94,
Division H, Title III). The allocation requirements are codified at 16 U.S.C. §7112d(1). Counties may also allocate
up to 20% of the payment to be returned to the Treasury (16 U.S.C. §§7112(d)(1)(B)(i i), 7112(d)(1)C(i i)).
a. Prior to FY2017, a portion of the Title II funds was also to be used for a program piloting the use of
separate contracts for the harvesting and sale of merchantable material. This requirement was removed in
the FY2017 reauthorization (P.L. 115-141, Division O, §401(b)(1)).
b. Prior to FY2008, Title III funds were not available for training and equipment costs or law enforcement
patrols but could have been used for other activities, such as for reimbursing costs associated with
community service work centers, acquiring conservation or access easements, or conducting forestry
education programs. The authorized uses and prohibitions were subsequently amended in several of the
reauthorizations, starting in FY2008 (P.L. 110-343, §601) and most recently in the FY2021 reauthorization
(P.L. 117-58, Division D, §41202).
c. Prior to FY2008, all counties had the option to allocate up to 20% of their payment to Title III. This
requirement was added in the FY2008 reauthorization (P.L. 110-343, §601).
In the original SRS authorization, counties with minor distributions (less than $100,000 in annual
payments) could allocate 100% of the payment to Title I purposes. Counties receiving more than
$100,000 in annual payments could allocate only 80%-85% of their payment to Title I. The
remaining 15%-20% of the payment could be allocated to Title II or Title III purposes, or the
funds could be returned to the Treasury.
The allocation requirements were changed in the FY2008 reauthorization.38 Starting in FY2008,
counties with modest distributions (annual payments between $100,000 and $350,000) could
continue to allocate any portion of the remaining 15%-20% to Title II or Title III, as previously
authorized. Counties with distributions above $350,000 were limited to allocating up to 7% of the
payment to Title III. (Counties with minor distributions could continue to allocate 100% of the
payment to Title I.) The legislative text was also changed in the FY2017 reauthorization by
defining counties with major distributions (payments more than $350,000 annually), but this did
not result in any substantive changes to the allocation system.39
The authority to make changes to a county’s payment allocations was frozen from FY2013
through the FY2020 payment similarly to how the payment election decisions were frozen. The
FY2021 reauthorization ended the freeze on payment allocations.40

38 P.L. 110-343, §601.
39 P.L. 115-161, Division O, §401(a)(3)(C).
40 Initially, the reauthorization enacted in IIJA would have set the payment allocations for the FY2021 payment at the
default allocation (80% to Title I; 20% to Title II). Similar to the issue with payment elections, this was a function of
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
13

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

Resource Advisory Committees (RACs)
SRS authorized both FS and BLM to establish RACs to improve collaborative relationships and
to provide recommendations for Title II projects.41 Both agencies had established advisory
committees for various purposes prior to the enactment of SRS. For instance, BLM’s preexisting
advisory councils in Oregon are charged with administering the duties of the RACs as established
by SRS.42 RACs also must operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act.43 Pursuant to SRS, each unit of eligible federal land has access to a RAC,
although the Secretary concerned may combine RACs as needed. For example, a single RAC may
cover multiple national forests, or a single RAC may cover part of a national forest while other
RACs cover the rest.44
RACs generally must consist of 15 members appointed by the respective Secretary and
representing a broad and balanced range of specified community interests (i.e., 5 members each
from user interests, environmental interests, and the general public). A majority of the members
must be present for a meeting to achieve a quorum, and a majority of the members representing
each community interest must agree for a project to be approved and for project funds to be
obligated.
Because many of the RACs have been unable to meet the membership or project agreement
requirements, they have been unable to approve projects. In some cases, the funds were returned
to the Treasury because they were not obligated before the authority to obligate funds expired or
was reauthorized. For example, over $9 million of Title II funds were returned to the Treasury at
the end of FY2014.45
To address this issue, Congress has enacted several changes to the RAC membership
requirements. The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (the 2018 farm bill) authorized the
Secretary concerned to reduce the membership requirement to nine members if there are not
enough qualified candidates.46 The 2018 farm bill also established a pilot program in Montana
and Arizona to allow the Secretary concerned to name a designee to appoint RAC members
through FY2023 (rather than requiring the Secretary to make the appointments).47 The FY2021
reauthorization renamed the farm bill pilot as the Regional Pilot Program (RPP) and established a
separate National Pilot Program (NPP) available for all other states (other than Montana and
Arizona) through FY2023.48 The NPP allows the FS Chief or BLM Director to nominate RAC
members, with automatic approval after 30 days if the applicable Secretary does not act on the
nomination.

the timing of IIJA’s enactment relative to a statutory deadline for transmitting payment allocations. P.L. 117-102,
however, allowed for counties to make payment elections for FY2021.
41 16 U.S.C. §7125(a)(2).
42 43 U.S.C. §1739. For more information on BLM’s Resource Advisory Councils (RACs), see https://www.blm.gov/
get-involved/resource-advisory-council.
43 5 U.S.C., App. 2. For more information, see CRS Report R44253, Federal Advisory Committees: An Introduction
and Overview
.
44 For more information on FS RACs, see https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/pts/specialprojects/racs.
45 U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General, Forest Service Secure Rural Schools Program, Audit
Report 08601-006-41, August 2017. Hereinafter referred to as USDA OIG 2017.
46 P.L. 115-334, Title VIII, §8702.
47 P.L. 115-334, Title VIII, §8702.
48 P.L. 117-58, Division D, §41202.
Congressional Research Service
14

link to page 19 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 20 Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

Payment Data and Analysis49
In any given year, a combination of different FS and BLM payments may be authorized and
made. Some of these payments are made entirely to counties (e.g., the FS 25 Percent Payments),
whereas the agencies retain a portion of the SRS payment. Because the agency, type of payment,
and payment recipient vary by year, it may sometimes be unclear which data are being reported.
This is particularly an issue for the FS payment because even when SRS payments are authorized,
some counties may still receive a 25 Percent Payment. This is less of an issue for the BLM
payment, however, because all 18 eligible counties have elected to receive the SRS payment.
Table 4 and Table 5 provide data on FS and BLM payments, respectively, since the first SRS
payments were made in FY2001.
Payments made to counties under SRS are substantial and significantly greater than the revenue-
based payments. For example, in FY2000, counties received an FS payment of $193.4 million (all
figures in the text are in nominal dollars unless otherwise specified).50 In FY2001, the first year
SRS payments were made, counties received an FS payment of $361.8 million.51 For the initial
six years SRS was authorized, the counties received $359.1 million annually on average for FS
SRS Title I and III payments. That was more than 55% above what the counties received annually
on average for the six years prior to the enactment of SRS ($231.4 million).52 Over the life of the
program, the FS SRS Title I and III payments have averaged $303.6 million annually, and the
BLM SRS Title I and III payments have averaged $63.7 million per year.
Table 4. Forest Service (FS) Payments
(nominal dollars in millions)
Secure Rural Schools (SRS)
Total FS
Payment
Receipt
25%
SRS
FS Total
(to
Yeara
Paymentsb
Title I
Title II
Title III
Total
Paymentc
Counties)d
FY2001
$15.6
$311.7
$24.9
$34.5
$371.1
$386.7
$361.8
FY2002
17.7
313.7
30.4
29.8
373.9
391.6
361.2
FY2003
11.2
326.6
32.6
29.5
388.8
400.0
367.3
FY2004
11.0
330.4
33.0
30.4
393.9
404.8
371.8
FY2005
8.8
340.0
33.6
31.3
404.9
413.7
380.0
FY2006
8.6
343.2
32.3
33.5
409.0
417.6
385.3
FY2007
8.1
345.0
26.5
36.6
408.1
416.2
389.7

49 Unless otherwise specified, FS data are from various reports available from https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/pts/
securepayments/projectedpayments and BLM data from annual Official Payments Made to Counties reports, available
from http://www.blm.gov/or/rac/ctypaypayments.php.
50 This figure includes the FS revenue-based payments as well as the safety-net payments, which were made only to
certain counties in California, Oregon, and Washington.
51 This figure reflects an FS SRS Title I and III payment ($346.2 million) plus the FS revenue-based payment ($15.6
million). Including the SRS Title II payment ($24.9 million, retained by the agency), the FS SRS total payment in
FY2001 was $371.1 million and the FS total payment was $386.7 million. Revenue-based data provided by FS
Legislative Affairs office, 2005. FS SRS data from annual Forest Service report, All Service Receipts: Title I, II, and III
Region Summary (ASR-18-3),
available from http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/pts/home.
52 Including SRS Title II, the average SRS total payment for FS over the first six years the program was authorized
(FY2001 through FY2007) was $392.8 million annually. The FS payments for the six years prior to the authorization of
SRS (FY1995-FY2000) include the revenue-based payments plus the safety-net payments.
Congressional Research Service
15

link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 21 Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

Secure Rural Schools (SRS)
Total FS
Payment
Receipt
25%
SRS
FS Total
(to
Yeara
Paymentsb
Title I
Title II
Title III
Total
Paymentc
Counties)d
FY2008
11.8
439.8
51.8
26.3
517.9
529.7
477.9
FY2009
15.9
397.5
45.1
25.0
467.6
483.5
438.4
FY2010
15.9
353.4
42.0
20.4
415.8
431.7
389.7
FY2011
16.4
276.3
30.7
15.0
321.9
338.3
307.7
FY2012
17.4
259.9
31.9
14.1
305.9
323.3
291.4
FY2013
17.2
245.8
29.9
13.2
289.0
306.2
276.3
FY2014
17.2
233.0
28.3
12.6
273.9
291.0
262.7
FY2015
17.4
222.1
26.8
12.1
261.0
278.4
251.6
FY2016
64.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
64.4
64.4
FY2017
18.4
212.2
25.5
11.5
249.3
267.7
242.1
FY2018
18.3
202.2
24.4
11.0
237.5
255.8
231.5
FY2019
18.8
192.3
23.2
10.4
225.8
244.6
221.4
FY2020
18.6
182.7
22.0
9.9
214.7
233.3
211.2
FY2021
19.6
213.4
25.8
11.5
250.7
270.2
244.5
FY2022
19.0
202.6
23.6
12.9
239.0
258.1
234.5
Sources: FS FY2001-FY2005, FY2007 data from FS legislative affairs office; and FS FY2006, FY2008-FY2022 data
from annual FS reports, All Service Receipts: Final Payment Summary Report (ASR-1-0-01) and All Service Receipts: Title
I, II, and III Region Summary (ASR-18-3),
available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/working-with-us/secure-rural-schools/
payments.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Some years reflect sequestration.
a. Receipt Year reflects the fiscal year in which the payment is based, not the year the payments are made.
The payments are made in the fol owing fiscal year (e.g., the FY2019 payment was disbursed in FY2020).
b. The 25% Payments column also includes revenue-based payments made under various special acts, such as
the Payments to Minnesota Counties. These payments ranged from around $2 mil ion annually in the early
FY2000s to around $6 mil ion starting in FY2010.
c. The FS Total Payment column reflects the total of the 25% payments and the SRS total payments.
d. The Total FS Payment (to Counties) column reflects the total payment received by the states (and then
passed to the counties) for the year, which is the combined total of the 25% payments, SRS Title I, and SRS
Title III. (SRS Title II funds are retained by the agency.)
Table 5. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Payments
(nominal dollars in millions)
Secure Rural Schools (SRS)
O&C and
Total BLM
Receipt
CBWR
Payment (to
Title I
Title II
Title III
SRS
Yeara
Paymentsb
Total
Counties)c
FY2001
$—
$93.2
$7.7
$8.8
$109.7
$102.0
FY2002

94.0
8.3
8.3
110.6
102.3
FY2003

95.1
8.6
8.2
111.9
103.3
FY2004

96.3
8.8
8.2
113.3
104.5
Congressional Research Service
16

link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 21 Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

Secure Rural Schools (SRS)
O&C and
Total BLM
Receipt
CBWR
SRS
Payment (to
Year
Title I
Title II
Title III
a
Paymentsb
Total
Counties)c
FY2005

98.6
8.9
8.5
115.9
107.1
FY2006

99.5
8.3
9.3
117.1
108.9
FY2007

99.3
5.0
12.5
116.9
111.9
FY2008

89.6
8.7
7.1
105.4
96.7
FY2009

80.6
7.7
6.5
94.9
87.2
FY2010

72.7
7.5
5.4
85.5
78.0
FY2011

34.0
3.7
2.3
40.0
36.3
FY2012

32.3
3.7
2.0
38.0
34.3
FY2013

33.7
3.3
2.6
39.6
36.3
FY2014

32.5
3.2
2.5
38.3
35.1
FY2015

30.2
3.0
2.3
35.6
32.6
FY2016
20.5d
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.5
FY2017
18.5e
11.9e
1.2
0.9
14.0e
31.3
FY2018

25.6
2.5
2.0
30.1
27.6
FY2019

24.2
2.4
1.9
28.4
26.0
FY2020

22.8
2.3
1.8
26.9
24.6
FY2021

26.4
2.6
2.0
31.0
28.4
FY2022

23.8
2.3
1.9
27.9
27.9
Sources: CRS, compiled from the BLM SRS Official Payment reports and the Timber Receipt payment reports
available at https://www.blm.gov/programs/natural-resources/forests-and-woodlands/oc-lands.
Notes: Totals may not add due to independent rounding. Some years reflect sequestration.
O&C = Oregon and California; CBWR = Coos Bay Wagon Road.
a. Receipt Year reflects the fiscal year in which the payment is based, not the year the payments are made.
The payments are made in the fol owing fiscal year (e.g., the FY2018 payment was disbursed in FY2019).
b. The O&C Payments are made to 18 counties in Oregon containing the Oregon and California Railroad
Grant lands, and the CBWR Payments are made to 2 of those same counties, which contain the Coos Bay
Wagon Road lands. These payments are not made in the years for which SRS is authorized because all of
the eligible counties have opted to receive the SRS payments.
c. The Total BLM Payment (to Counties) column reflects the total payment received by the counties for the
year, which is the combined total of the O&C and CBWR payments, and SRS Title I and SRS Title III. (SRS
Title II funds are retained by the agency.)
d. This figure reflects $1.4 mil ion paid in FY2018 as a “pop-up” payment repaying funds that were initially
withheld due to sequestration.
e. The O&C and CBWR payments were made prior to the reauthorization of the SRS payment for FY2017.
The SRS reauthorization specified that the FY2017 SRS payment was to be offset by the already distributed
payments. BLM reports the FY2017 SRS payment to be $14.0 mil ion, which is the total payment after
accounting for the $18.5 mil ion O&C and CBWR payment. This is a departure from how BLM reported the
FY2014 SRS payment, which was also reauthorized after the revenue-based payment had been disbursed.
For that year, BLM included the O&C and CBWR payment as part of the SRS Title I payment. Throughout
most of this report, the O&C and CBWR payment is included in the SRS Title I payment for consistency ,
bringing the Title I total to $30.4 mil ion and the SRS total to $32.5 mil ion.
Congressional Research Service
17

link to page 22
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

Initially, SRS payments were higher than estimates of what the payments would have been had
SRS not been enacted. To illustrate, FS receipts (for revenue-based purposes) in FY2001 totaled
$271.3 million.53 Without SRS or the safety-net payments, the FS 25 Percent payment would have
been around $67.8 million for that year. With SRS, the FS payment in FY2001 totaled $361.8
million.54 Similarly, BLM receipts from the O&C lands totaled approximately $16.4 million in
FY2001.55 Without SRS or the safety-net payments, the 50% revenue-based payment would have
been approximately $8.2 million in FY2001, compared with the $102.0 million payment under
SRS (Title I and Title III).
Under the original payment formula, the first SRS Title I and Title III payments were $448.2
million (FS and BLM combined) for FY2001 and increased to $493.5 million for FY2007 (see
Figure 3). The SRS Title I and Title III payments increased and peaked for FY2008 ($562.8
million) when the payment formula was modified. The SRS payments declined steeply over the
next few years in part based on the annual 10% decline in the full funding level, but also because
certain states were no longer receiving the higher transition payments. The annual decline was
changed to 5% starting in FY2012. With the exception of FY2016, when SRS payments were not
authorized, the payments have continued to decline by 5% annually.
Figure 3. FS and BLM Payments, FY2001-FY2022

Source: Forest Service (FS) payment data are from the annual FS report, All Service Receipts: Final Payment
Summary Report PNF (ASR-10-01),
available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/working-with-us/secure-rural-schools/
payments. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) payment data are from the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) Official
Payment reports and the Timber Receipt payment reports, available at https://www.blm.gov/programs/natural-
resources/forests-and-woodlands/oc-lands.

53 Data provided by the Forest Service Legislative Affairs Office, February 21, 2013.
54 This figure reflects an SRS Title I and III payment of $346.2 million plus $15.6 million revenue-based payment.
Including the SRS Title II payment ($24.9 million, retained by the agency), the FS SRS total payment in FY2001 was
$371.1 million and the FS total payment was $386.7 million.
55 Historical data on O&C receipts and payments from BLM Legislative Affairs office, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
18

link to page 12 link to page 19 link to page 20 link to page 32 Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

Notes: SRS payments were not authorized for FY2016, so the payments made that year were the revenue-
based payments. That is the only year reflected on this graph in which the BLM payment was based on revenue-
based payments. The bars reflect nominal data. The gray line reflects total FS and BLM payments adjusted to
constant (estimated FY2023) dol ars using the GDP Chained Price Index from the White House Office of
Management and Budget, Table 10.1, “Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables” in
Historical Tables. The x-axis is the Receipt Year, which reflects the fiscal year in which the payment was based,
although payments were made in the fol owing fiscal year (e.g., the FY2018 payment was disbursed in FY2019).
Some years reflect sequestration.
Because SRS payments were not authorized for FY2016, the counties received a revenue-based
payment of $84.9 million ($64.4 million for FS; $20.5 million for BLM).56 Had SRS been
authorized, the SRS payment would have been $254.7 million (95% of the FY2015 payment).
When SRS payments were reauthorized for FY2017, the full funding amount was set at 95% of
the FY2015 payment amount.
FY2019 and FY2020 Payments57
SRS payments were reauthorized for FY2019 and FY2020 in the Further Consolidated
Appropriations Act, FY2020 (P.L. 116-94, Division H, Title III). The reauthorization also
extended the deadlines for the authority to initiate projects under Title II or Title III but did not
include any other changes to the program or the payments.58 Those counties that opted to receive
an SRS payment for FY2013 automatically received the FY2019 payment, and the payment was
allocated among the titles based on the allocations made by each county in FY2013.
Unlike earlier reauthorizations, this reauthorization was enacted before the revenue-based
payments had been disbursed. For FY2019, the SRS total payment for FS and BLM combined
was $254.3 million and the combined SRS payment made to counties (Title I and Title III) was
$228.7 million. The FS SRS total payment was $225.8 million for FY2019 and the FS SRS
payment made to counties (Title I and Title III) was $202.6 million. The BLM SRS total payment
was $28.4 million for FY2019, and the BLM SRS payment made to counties (Title I and Title III)
was $26.0 million. See also Table 2, Table 4, and Table 5.
For FY2020, the SRS total payment for FS and BLM combined was $241.5 million and the
combined SRS payment made to counties (Title I and Title III) was $217.2 million. The FS SRS
total payment was $214.7 million for FY2020, and the FS SRS payment made to counties (Title I
and Title III) was $192.6 million. The BLM SRS total payment was $26.8 million for FY2020,
and the BLM SRS payment made to counties (Title I and Title III) was $25.6 million.
FY2021-FY2023 Payments
SRS payments were reauthorized for FY2021, FY2022, and FY2023 in the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58, Division D, Title XII). The reauthorization set the
payment level (full funding amount) as equal to the payment made in FY2017, removing the
annual decline in payment levels. The payments received by counties for FY2021-FY2023 will
not necessarily equal the payment that county received in FY2017. This is because the payment
formula is based on the total number of counties that receive an SRS payment, meaning each

56 The revenue-based payment initially disbursed by BLM was $19.1 million, because BLM withheld 6.9% of the
payment pursuant to the sequestration order for FY2016 nonexempt, nondefense mandatory spending. BLM later
reversed this decision, and issued a payment of $1.4 million in FY2018 to account for the difference. Although the
payment was not made until FY2018, the $1.4 million is included in the FY2016 payment in this report for consistency.
57 For information on payments from earlier authorizations, see Appendix A.
58 16 U.S.C. §7128, §7144.
Congressional Research Service
19

link to page 12 link to page 19 link to page 20 link to page 35 Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

county’s payment may vary based on the number of participating counties, but also because
counties may alter their payment allocations, and subsequently, the amount they receive. IIJA,
and subsequent legislation enacted by the 117th Congress, ended the freeze on payment elections
and allocations and modified RAC membership requirements.59
For FY2021, the SRS total payment for FS and BLM combined was $281.7 million and the
combined SRS payment made to counties (Title I and Title III) was $253.3 million. The FS SRS
total payment was $250.7 million for FY2021 and the FS SRS payment made to counties (Title I
and Title III) was $224.9 million. The BLM SRS total payment was $31.0 million for FY2021,
and the BLM SRS payment made to counties (Title I and Title III) was $28.4 million. See also
Table 2, Table 4, and Table 5.
For FY2022, the SRS total payment for FS and BLM combined was $267.0 million and the
combined SRS payment made to counties (Title I and Title III) was $241.1 million. The FS SRS
total payment was $239.0 million and the FS SRS payment made to counties (Title I and Title III)
was $215.5 million. The BLM SRS total payment was $27.9 million and the BLM SRS payment
made to counties (Title I and Title III) was $25.6 million.
The difference in payments between FY2021 and FY2022 is due to sequestration, as discussed
below.
Sequestration
As nonexempt, nondefense mandatory spending, the revenue-based payments and the SRS
payments may be subject to an annual sequestration of budgetary authority through FY2029
pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011.60 The extent that the payments are subject to
sequestration has been controversial, starting with the sequestration order issued for FY2013.61
Generally, whether the revenue-based payments and the SRS payments were subject to annual
sequestration depended on the timing of the enactment of the SRS reauthorization in relation to
the calculation and publication of the sequestration order for the applicable year.62 Because the
FY2014-FY2015 and FY2017-FY2018 reauthorizations were enacted after the sequestration
orders were issued for those years, both FS and BLM—eventually—interpreted that the payments
were not subject to sequestration for those fiscal years. At different times during those years,
however, both FS and BLM withheld funds for sequestration and later reversed their decisions
and remitted the funds. For example, FS initially withheld 6.2% of the FY2018 SRS payment for
sequestration and then reversed the decision and issued those funds later in the year. Similarly,
BLM initially interpreted the revenue-based payment for FY2016 as being subject to
sequestration but later reversed the decision and issued a “pop-up” payment to cover the
difference a couple of years later.

59 Although IIJA ended the freeze on payment elections and allocation decisions, the law was enacted after the due
dates established in statute, meaning the authority to implement those changes would have been delayed. P.L. 117-102,
however, allowed for counties to make payment election and allocation decisions for FY2021.
60 P.L. 112-25. For more information, see CRS Report R42972, Sequestration as a Budget Enforcement Process:
Frequently Asked Questions
or CRS Report R45941, The Annual Sequester of Mandatory Spending through FY2029.
61 For more information on the FY2013 sequestration issues, see Appendix B.
62 The sequestration reports are available from https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sequestration-reports-
orders/.
Congressional Research Service
20

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

The FY2021 payments were not subject to sequestration, but the FY2022 payments were subject
to sequestration (5.7%).63
Legislative Issues
Congress may consider a range of options to address the expiration of the SRS payments. These
include reauthorizing SRS, with or without modifications, implementing other legislative
proposals to address FS or BLM payments, or taking no action (thus continuing the revenue-
based system that took effect upon the program’s expiration). Several issues have been raised
about payment programs generally and SRS specifically, including the
• payment formula,
• lands covered,
• geographic distribution of the payments,
• source of funds,
• authorized and required uses of the payments,
• lack of implementing regulations, and
• duration of the payments.
Each of these issues is discussed in the following sections.
If Congress were to reauthorize SRS, modify it, or both (or the FS and BLM payment programs
generally), there would be a range of potential fiscal impacts. If the legislative option were to
include any new mandatory spending, then it could be subject to congressional pay-as-you-go
(PAYGO) or other budgetary rules. If the new mandatory spending were to result in an increase in
the deficit (in excess of the baseline), these rules would require budgetary offsets through
increasing revenue or decreasing other spending.64 Alternatively, Congress may choose to waive
or set aside these rules. Congress has at times provided such a waiver by including a specific type
of provision, called a reserve fund, for SRS in the annual budget resolution. Several SRS
reauthorizations, however, have been included in large legislative packages and as such have been
offset by unrelated programs. Further, Congress might consider funding the program through the
regular annual discretionary appropriations process (the program was funded through
discretionary appropriations once, for FY2007). This would provide less certainty of funding
from year to year, as funding for the program would compete with other congressional priorities
within overall budget constraints.
In general, any legislative option that results in a higher authorized payment (whether through
SRS or another payment program) would either require a larger offset or would increase the
federal deficit. Depending on the specific changes, many or most of the counties would receive
higher payments. Modifications that result in a lower authorized payment would have the
opposite potential fiscal impact to the Treasury but would also likely result in lower payments to
the counties.

63 FS, SRS Sequestration in Previous Years, https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/sequestration-chart-2019-
2023.pdf.
64 For an overview of federal budget procedures, see CRS Report 98-721, Introduction to the Federal Budget Process,
or CRS Report R45789, Long-Term Budgeting within the Congressional Budget Process: In Brief.
Congressional Research Service
21

link to page 27 link to page 28 Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

Payment Formula
The original SRS formula was based entirely on the revenue generated historically by the eligible
lands. The total authorized payment was the sum of the payments calculated for each
participating county and fluctuated annually based on participation. Congress amended the
formula to also take into account each county’s share of federal land and relative income level.
For several years, the formula declined annually; this was changed starting with the FY2021
payment. The payment level is set at a constant rate, though the formula does not include any
adjustment for inflation.
Congress may consider modifying the SRS payment formula in a variety of ways. These include
changes such as reapplying an annual decline so that the payments continue to decrease annually
but at a different rate, or so that payments increase annually. Another modification could be
adding an inflation adjustment to the formula. Alternatively, Congress may consider more
comprehensive modifications, such as using a different historical revenue range, or adjusting the
formula by other factors (e.g., population). In addition, some have proposed combining SRS,
PILT, and other revenue-based payment programs.65
Lands Covered
SRS provides payments to the counties containing national forests (managed by the FS) and the
O&C lands (managed by BLM). Federal lands managed by other agencies, as well as other lands
managed by FS or BLM, were not included in SRS. For example, national forests and national
grasslands are both part of the National Forest System managed by the FS, although the laws
authorizing their establishment differ. Both are subject to a revenue-based requirement with the
counties containing those lands—although the counties containing national grasslands receive
25% of net receipts—and were excluded from SRS. The counties containing national forests
receive 25% of gross receipts averaged over the previous seven years and were included in SRS.
It is unclear why the national grassland payments were not included in SRS; it is also unclear why
the national grasslands payments are based on net receipts, and the national forests payments are
based on gross receipts.
Counties containing other types of federal lands may receive little or no compensation. PILT
provides compensation to counties containing a broad array of federal lands, but many lands—
inactive military bases, Indian trust lands, and certain wildlife refuge lands, for example—are
excluded from PILT. The counties containing the national forests and O&C lands, however, get
PILT payments in addition to the SRS or revenue-based payments. Congress could consider
several options related to extending a compensation program to all tax-exempt federal lands and
trust lands, although determining the basis of compensation likely would generate significant
debate.66
Geographic Distribution of SRS and PILT Payments
Another issue for Congress is the geographic allocation of federal land payment programs
generally, and specifically the distribution of the SRS and PILT payments (see Figure 4). Table 6

65 Mark Haggerty, “Rethinking the Fiscal Relationship Between Public Lands and Public Land Counties: County
Payments 4.0,” Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, vol. 1, no. 40 (2018), pp. 116-136.
66 For more discussion, see CRS Report R42439, Compensating State and Local Governments for the Tax-Exempt
Status of Federal Lands: What Is Fair and Consistent?
.
Congressional Research Service
22

link to page 28
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

shows the payments that each state received in FY2022.67 The BLM SRS payment is made to one
state—Oregon—for the O&C lands, and Oregon received the largest FS SRS payment. In total,
Oregon received nearly 30% of the total SRS payments made in FY2022. The next-largest SRS
payments were in California and Idaho, which both received 11% and 9% of the SRS payment
that year, respectively. PILT payments are more evenly distributed, with California receiving the
largest share (11%) in FY2022. Oregon received the highest combined SRS and PILT payment in
FY2022 (12%), followed by California (11%) and Idaho (7%).
The preponderance of payments going to western states is in large part reflective of the large
percentage of federal lands located within those states.68
Figure 4. PILT, BLM, and FS Payments Made in FY2022
(sum total of all payments per state)

Source: Prepared by CRS from data reported in Table 6.
Notes: The data reflect payments made in FY2022. This includes the FY2022 Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT)
payment, and the FY2021 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service (FS) payments made in FY2022.
The FS payments include the revenue-based payment and FS SRS Title I and Title III payments. The BLM payment
consists of the SRS Title I and Title III payments, which are paid to the Oregon and California (O&C) counties in
Oregon only.

67 This includes the FY2021 SRS payment and the FY2022 PILT payment.
68 For more information on the federal estate, see CRS Report R42346, Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data.
Congressional Research Service
23

link to page 28 Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

Table 6. FS, BLM, and PILT Payments Made in FY2022, by State
(in thousands of nominal dollars)
FS and
FS and
BLM
BLM

Payments
PILT


Payments
PILT
Alabama
$1,670.0
$1,635.8
Nebraska
$170.0
$1,313.2
Alaska
10,837.0
33,486.1
Nevada
3,495.0
29,146.7
Arizona
10,256.0
41,186.8
New Hampshire
433.0
2,177.3
Arkansas
6,531.0
8,022.9
New Jersey
0.0
121.0
California
29,942.0
58,778.2
New Mexico
9,800.0
43,629.7
Colorado
12,607.0
44,194.6
New York
18.0
184.3
Connecticut
0.0
35.6
North Carolina
1,583.0
5,014.1
Delaware
0.0
25.1
North Dakota
0.4
1,900.1
Florida
2,448.0
6,505.6
Ohio
226.0
883.3
Georgia
1,345.0
3,190.4
Oklahoma
950.0
3,782.3
Hawaii
0.0
425.3
Oregon
76,373.3
25,975.9
Idaho
23,429.0
35,794.3
Pennsylvania
2,885.0
1,344.1
Il inois
216.8
1,471.3
Rhode Island
0.0
0.0
Indiana
239.0
736.4
South Carolina
1,549.0
1,473.1
Iowa
0.0
562.3
South Dakota
1,373.0
7,608.2
Kansas
0.0
736.4
Tennessee
1,071.0
2,975.4
Kentucky
1,374.0
562.3
Texas
2,141.0
6,087.2
Louisiana
1,663.0
1,514.5
Utah
8,206.0
43,452.5
Maine
65.0
762.7
Vermont
285.0
1,104.1
Maryland
0.0
130.3
Virginia
1,484.0
6,071.9
Massachusetts
0.0
126.7
Washington
16,022.0
26,312.4
Michigan
3,148.0
5,656.7
West Virginia
1,615.0
3,618.0
Minnesota
8,332.0
5,290.8
Wisconsin
1,506.0
3,910.9
Mississippi
4,788.0
2,622.0
Wyoming
5,012.0
31,521.8
Missouri
3,207.0
4,744.4
Othera
190.0
148.9
Montana
14,382.0
38,238.8
Total
275,465.2
549,416.6
Sources: Forest Service (FS) data from FS, “All Service Receipts (ASR), Final Payment Summary Report PNF
(ASR-10-01),” at https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/Final-2021-10-1-Report.pdf. Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) data from U.S. Dept. of the Interior (DOI), BLM, FY2021 Secure Rural Schools Act Payments, at
https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2023-03/orwa-srs-2021-payments.pdf. Payments in Lieu of Taxes
(PILT) data from DOI, Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Payments by State, at https://www.nbc.gov/pilt/states-
payments.cfm.
Notes: The data reflect payments made in FY2022. This includes the FY2022 PILT payment and the FY2021
BLM and FS payments made in FY2022. The FS payments include the revenue-based payment and FS SRS Title I
and Title III payments. The BLM payment consists of the SRS Title I and Title III payments, which are paid to the
Oregon and California (O&C) counties in Oregon only.
a. “Other” includes the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
Congressional Research Service
24

link to page 29
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

Source of Funds
As noted above, the FS 25 Percent Payments and BLM’s O&C payments are permanently
appropriated mandatory spending, with the funds coming from eligible agency receipts. Congress
specified that the SRS payments are to first come from discretionary appropriations, then agency
receipts, and if agency receipts are not sufficient to cover the entire payment, the remainder of the
payment comes from the General Fund of the Treasury.69 Congress has funded SRS through
discretionary appropriations only one time (FY2007).70 Agency receipts have never been
sufficient to cover the entire SRS payment, so a portion has been derived from the Treasury every
year SRS payments have been authorized (see Figure 5).71 The amount of funding that came from
the Treasury declined for several years, corresponding to the declining payment level but also due
to fluctuations in the level offset by receipts.
Critics of SRS are concerned about the continued availability of Treasury funds, given the desire
of some Members to reduce government spending or spend money on other priorities. On the
other hand, proponents of SRS argue that continuing Treasury funding is fair compensation for
the presence of the national forests or O&C lands in their jurisdictions.
Figure 5. Source and Distribution of Forest Service (FS) Payments
(FY2009-FY2021)

Sources: CRS. Compiled from data provided to CRS by FS legislative affairs and from FS, FY2010-FY2024 Budget
Justifications
, available at http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/.
Notes: Figures reflect the proportion of the payment that is derived from either receipts or the Treasury. The
x-axis is the Payment Year, which reflects fiscal year in which the payment was made, although the payment is
based on and named for the previous year (e.g., the FY2009 data reflect the FY2008 payment that was made in
FY2009). Because SRS payments were not authorized for FY2016, the only payment made that year was the 25%
payment derived from receipts. The figures do not directly correspond to other FS reports on their payments,

69 16 U.S.C. §7112(b)(3).
70 P.L. 110-28, §5401.
71 For more information, see the “Revenue, Receipts, and Transfers” table provided in the FS’s annual budget
justifications, for example, on p. 30a-15 of the FY2024 Budget Justification.
Congressional Research Service
25

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

and CRS was unable to reconcile the differences. For example, the FS budget justification reported that the FS
total payment made in FY2009 was $527.6 mil ion (reflected above), $2.1 mil ion less than the $529.7 mil ion
total payment reported in FS reports on Secure Rural School (SRS) payments (e.g., the All Service Receipts reports
(ASR-10-01, ASR-18-03), which are the source for the SRS data throughout this report). The discrepancies range
from less than $1 mil ion to up to $20 mil ion. Thus, precise figures are not provided, and the bars should be
considered an il ustrative, but not definitive, breakdown of payment sources.
Authorized and Required Uses of the Payments
Under the revenue-based programs, the O&C payments are available for any local governmental
purpose; the CBWR payments are available for schools, roads, highways, and bridges; and the FS
payments are to be used for the benefit of roads and schools. Compared to the revenue-based
programs, SRS modified how the counties could use the payments by requiring (for counties with
at least $100,000 in annual payments) that 15%-20% of the payments be used for other specified
purposes: certain local governmental costs (Title III) or federal land projects (Title II).
Some have supported the use of the Title II funds as “reinvesting” agency receipts in federal land
management, but opponents argue that this reduces funding for local schools and roads or other
governmental purposes. Further, some of those funds have been forfeited back to the Treasury
due to issues with the RAC membership requirements. These Title II projects were also intended
to provide local employment opportunities, and it is not clear whether that objective has been
achieved.72
The authorized uses for Title III funds have changed several times since SRS was first authorized,
potentially causing confusion on what is an appropriate use for those funds. Counties are
supposed to certify their Title III expenditures annually, and the agencies are supposed to review
the certifications for compliance. A 2012 report from the Government Accountability Office
(GAO), however, found inconsistent compliance with those requirements, resulting in issues with
agency oversight and county use of SRS Title III funds.73
The U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General (OIG) also examined and
reported issues with the distribution and use of Title II and Title III funds.74 To address these
issues, both GAO and OIG have recommended FS and BLM issue regulations implementing the
program, as directed by the original authorization enacted in 2000.75 Neither FS nor BLM have
done so, with FS citing the impermanent nature of the program and subsequent reauthorizations
as prohibiting its commitment of resources.76
Reauthorization and Duration of the Programs
Other policy questions that arise from the SRS payments are related to the reauthorization and
duration of the program. SRS was originally enacted as a 6-year program that expired on
September 30, 2006, but was extended an additional 16 years through 8 separate reauthorizations.
As noted earlier, SRS payments are set to expire on September 30, 2023, with the final payment
made in FY2024. In contrast, the 25 Percent, O&C, and CBWR payment programs are
permanently authorized.

72 Forest Counties Payments Committee Report, 2003.
73 GAO, Payments to Counties: More Clarity Could Help Ensure County Expenditures Are Consistent with Key Parts
of the Secure Rural Schools Act
, GAO-12-775, July 2012, at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-775.
74 USDA OIG 2017.
75 16 U.S.C. §7151.
76 USDA OIG 2017, pp. 4-7.
Congressional Research Service
26

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

The uncertainty about the continuation of the SRS program, and the annual changes in the
authorized funding level, may concern those interested in providing a consistent and predictable
payment for local governments. On the other hand, the opportunity to revisit the SRS
reauthorization at more frequent intervals may be of interest to those wanting to review federal
spending more broadly, among other potential reasons.

Congressional Research Service
27

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

Appendix A. SRS Reauthorizations Through FY2017
The following sections briefly describe each SRS reauthorization through FY2018. SRS
payments were not authorized for FY2016, though payments were reauthorized in FY2017.
FY2007 Reauthorization
SRS expired at the end of FY2006, with final payments made in FY2007. Legislation to extend
the program was considered in the 110th Congress; various bills would have extended the program
for one or seven years. An initial version of an emergency supplemental appropriations bill for
FY2007 would have extended SRS for one year, but the bill was vetoed by President George W.
Bush.77 Congress then passed and the President signed a new version of the emergency
supplemental appropriations act for FY2007, which included a one-year extension of SRS
payments.78 The extension authorized payments of $100 million from receipts and $425 million
from discretionary appropriations to “be made, to the maximum extent practicable, in the same
amounts, for the same purposes, and in the same manner as were made to States and counties in
2006 under that Act.”79 Thus, preliminary FY2007 payments were made at the end of September
2007, with final payments made at the end of December 2007. This is the only time SRS
payments have been made using discretionary appropriations.
Four-Year Extension Through FY2011
In October 2008, Congress passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (P.L. 110-343),
which extended SRS payments for four years (through FY2011) and made several changes to the
program.80 Changes included providing full funding that declined over four years; altering the
basis for calculating payments; providing transition payments for certain states; and modifying
the use of SRS funds for Title II and Title III activities.81 In addition, Section 601(b) modified the
original FS 25 Percent Payment program by basing the payment on the average revenue generated
over the preceding seven years.
One-Year Extension Through FY2012
SRS was set to expire at the end of FY2011, with final payments made at the end of December
2012 (FY2012). Legislation to extend the program for five years was considered in the 112th
Congress but not enacted.82 However, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act
(MAP-21) contained a one-year extension for SRS.83 MAP-21 authorized an FY2012 SRS

77 110th Congress, H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability
Appropriations Act, 2007.
78 P.L. 110-28, H.R. 2206, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability
Appropriations Act, 2007.
79 P.L. 110-28, Title V, Chapter 4, Section 5401.
80 P.L. 110-343, Section 601(a).
81 The authorized uses for Title III funds include reimbursing the participating county for search, rescue, and
emergency services performed on federal land and fire prevention and county planning activities, such as developing
community wildfire protection plans or activities under the Firewise Communities program (16 U.S.C. §7142(a)).
82 The County Payments Reauthorization Act of 2011 (S. 1692 and H.R. 3599) would have extended SRS through
FY2016 and included provisions to slow the decline of the full funding levels to 95% of the preceding fiscal year.
Neither the Senate nor the House version was reported out of committee.
83 P.L. 112-141, §100101.
Congressional Research Service
28

link to page 35 Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

payment set at 95% of the FY2011 level ($344 million) and included requirements for the
counties to select their payment option in a timely manner.
One-Year Extension Through FY2013
SRS was again set to expire at the end of FY2012, with final payments made in February 2013
(FY2013). In the first session of the 113th Congress, Congress enacted the Helium Stewardship
Act of 2013, which included a one-year extension of SRS through FY2013 at 95% of the FY2012
SRS payment ($329 million).84 The payments were disbursed in early 2014.
The 113th Congress also conducted oversight on the SRS program, particularly regarding the
sequestration of the FY2012 SRS payment (see Appendix B).85
Two-Year Extension Through FY2015
SRS expired after the FY2013 payments were made in early 2014. Although the 113th Congress
considered options for reauthorizing or modifying SRS for FY2014,86 the program was not
reauthorized prior to adjournment.
In April 2015, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Medicare Access and CHIP
Reauthorization Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-10), which included a two-year reauthorization of
mandatory spending for SRS payments in Section 524. Payment amounts were to continue at
95% of the funding level for the preceding fiscal year. P.L. 114-10 provided that counties that
elected to receive an SRS payment for FY2013 would automatically receive SRS payments for
FY2014 and FY2015. The FY2014 payment was to be made within 45 days of enactment and
take into account the revenue-based payment already disbursed to the counties.
After the FY2015 payments were made, the 114th Congress considered, but did not enact, several
additional options to extend or modify the expired SRS program, so no payments were made for
FY2016.
Two-Year Extension Through FY2018
SRS payments were reauthorized for FY2017 and FY2018 in the Stephen Sepp Wildfire
Suppression Funding and Forest Management Activities Act, enacted as Division O of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141, commonly referred to as the FY2018

84 P.L. 113-40.
85 House Natural Resources Committee, press release, November 5, 2013, at http://naturalresources.house.gov/news/
documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=360388http://naturalresources.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?
DocumentID=360388.
86 The House passed the Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act (113th Congress, H.R. 1526), which
would have directed FS and BLM to distribute a payment to eligible counties in February 2015, essentially an FY2014
SRS payment. The payment amount would have been equal to the FY2010 payment for the counties receiving FS
payments. For the O&C counties, the payment amount would have been $27 million less than the FY2010 payment.
After that payment had been made, county payments would have returned to a revenue-based system. The bill would
have established Forest Resource Revenue Areas within at least half of the National Forest System and created a
fiduciary responsibility to generate revenue by removing forest products for the beneficiary counties. The bill also
would have changed the calculation for the FS revenue-based payment. It would have changed the payment from 25%
of average gross receipts over the past seven years back to the original calculation of 25% of current-year gross
receipts. The Senate did not take up the measure.
Congressional Research Service
29

link to page 32 Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

omnibus).87 The reauthorization was signed into law on March 23, 2018, after the FS and BLM
had distributed the FY2017 revenue-based payments to the states and counties.
Because the revenue-based payment had already been distributed for the year, the reauthorization
included provisions for a “make-up” FY2017 SRS payment.88 This make-up payment was set at
95% of the FY2015 SRS payment level, since there had been no payment for FY2016 on which
to base or calculate the annual decline. The counties received a payment that was the difference
between the revenue-based payment they already received and their authorized SRS payment. In
effect, the counties received their FY2017 SRS payment in two installments.
The FS SRS payment (Titles I and III) was $223.7 million for FY2017, and the payment was
$213.2 million for FY2018. BLM does not officially include the $18.5 million revenue-based
payment made prior to the reauthorization of the SRS payment for FY2017 as part of the total
SRS payment for that year. Instead, BLM reports the FY2017 SRS total payment to be $14.0
million.89 This is a departure from how the FY2014 SRS payment was reported, which was also
reauthorized after the revenue-based payment had been disbursed. For consistency in this report,
the revenue-based payment was included in the Title I payment. Thus, the BLM SRS payment
was $31.3 million for FY2017 and was $27.6 million for FY2018. Combined, the FS and BLM
SRS payment was $255.0 million in FY2017 and $240.8 million in FY2018.


87 The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6), amended the FY2018 omnibus and renamed the title of
Division O.
88 Similarly, SRS payments were reauthorized for FY2014 after the revenue-based payment had been distributed, and
the reauthorization specified that the SRS payment would be offset by the amounts already received by the counties
pursuant to the revenue-based payment. For more information, see Appendix A.
89 $11.9 million Title I, $1.2 million Title II, $0.92 million Title III.
Congressional Research Service
30

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

Appendix B. FY2013 Sequestration Issues
Section 302 of the Budget Control Act (BCA)90 required the President to sequester, or cancel,
budgetary resources for FY2013, if Congress did not enact a specified deficit reduction by
January 15, 2012.91 Congress did not enact such deficit reduction by that date, and on March 1,
2013, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined the amount of the total
sequestration for FY2013 to be approximately $85 billion.92
Under the BCA, half of the total reduction for FY2013 was allocated to defense spending, and the
other half to nondefense spending.93 Within each half, the reductions were further allocated
between discretionary appropriations and direct spending.94 Discretionary appropriations are
defined in the BCA as budgetary resources provided in annual appropriations acts.95 In contrast,
direct spending was defined to include budget authority provided by laws other than
appropriations acts.96 The BCA further required OMB to calculate a uniform percentage reduction
to be applied to each program, project, or activity within the direct spending category.97 For the
direct spending category, OMB determined this percentage to be 5.1% for FY2013.
Section 102(d)(3)(e) of SRS directed that payments for a fiscal year were to be made to the state
as soon as practicable after the end of that fiscal year, meaning that the FY2012 payment was
made in FY2013.98 Because the authority to make these payments is not provided in an annual
appropriations act, such payments are not discretionary spending for purposes of the BCA. These
payments were classified as nondefense, direct spending for purposes of sequestration.99 The
BCA exempts a number of programs from sequestration; however, the payments under SRS were
not identified in the legislation as exempt.100 Consequently, these payments were subject to
sequestration as nondefense, direct spending. However, BLM and FS managed the sequestration
of the FY2013 payments in different ways.
BLM Sequestration of SRS Funds
BLM issues SRS payments only for the O&C lands in Oregon. In February 2013, BLM
distributed $36 million to the 18 O&C counties in Oregon for FY2012 SRS payments. However,
the Department of the Interior (DOI) had held back 10% of the scheduled payments across all
three titles in anticipation of the possibility of sequestration. The reduction to DOI’s SRS program

90 P.L. 112-25, as amended by P.L. 112-240.
91 2 U.S.C. §901A. The sequester was originally supposed to be ordered on January 2, 2013, but was delayed by the
American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, P.L. 112-240, until March 1, 2013. For more information on sequestration
issues, see CRS Report R42972, Sequestration as a Budget Enforcement Process: Frequently Asked Questions, by
Megan S. Lynch.
92 This amount was identified based on a formula set forth in Section 302 of the BCA.
93 2 U.S.C. §901A(4).
94 2 U.S.C. §901A(6).
95 2 U.S.C. §900(7).
96 2 U.S.C. §900(8). Budget authority is further defined as “the authority provided by Federal law to incur financial
obligations.” 2 U.S.C. §622.
97 Although not relevant here, additional restrictions are placed on the degree by which Medicare payments in the direct
spending category may be reduced. 2 U.S.C. §901a(8).
98 16 U.S.C. §7112(e).
99 2 U.S.C. §900(8).
100 2 U.S.C. §905.
Congressional Research Service
31

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues

required by sequestration was 5.1% of the total payment, or $2.0 million.101 Since the sequestered
amount was less than the amount withheld, DOI-BLM owed an additional SRS payment for the
difference. In May 2013, BLM distributed the remaining 4.9% of the payment, resulting in a total
of $38 million for the SRS payment to the O&C counties for FY2012.102
Forest Service Sequestration of SRS Funds
The Forest Service distributed the full FY2012 SRS payments in January and February 2013,
without withholding any amount in preparation for the potential sequester order. On March 19,
2013, the Forest Service announced it would seek to recover from the states the 5.1% of the
payments that were subject to sequestration.103 In letters sent to each affected governor, the Forest
Service outlined two repayment options and asked for the states to respond by April 19, 2013,
with how they planned to repay. Invoices for repayment were not included. In addition to
repaying the 5.1%, the FS offered the states the option of having the full sequestered amount
taken out of Title II funds (for those states with enough Title II money). Three states—Alaska,
Washington, and Wyoming—publicly indicated their intention not to repay the SRS funds.104 In
an April 16, 2013, hearing before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the FS
indicated that invoices for the repayment would be sent in late April 2013.
On August 5, 2013, the Forest Service sent additional letters which included invoices for the
repayment to the governors of the 18 states with insufficient Title II money to cover the
sequestered amount.105 The invoices outlined three options for the affected states to take within 30
days: pay the debt in full; agree to a payment plan; or petition for administrative review of the
debt. The invoices also included a Notice of Indebtedness to the U.S. Forest Service and Intent to
Collect by Administrative Offset, which describes the basis of the indebtedness and the Forest
Service’s intent to offset future payments—without assessing penalties—from future Forest
Service and Department of Agriculture state payments. As of May 21, 2014, two states had
remitted an SRS sequester-related payment—New Hampshire paid $27,884.17 and Maine paid
$3,648—and no collection efforts have been initiated by the Forest Service or Department of the
Treasury in the remaining 16 states.106 On August 20, 2013, the Forest Service sent additional
letters to the governors of the 22 states that had sufficient Title II money to cover the sequestered
amount.107 The letters informed the governors that the Title II allocations were reduced by the
sequestered amount.

101 Testimony of DOI Deputy Assistant Secretary Pamela K. Haze, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, Keeping the Commitment to Rural Communities, hearing, 113th Cong., 1st sess., March 19, 2013.
102 Personal communication with BLM Legislative Affairs office, June 19, 2013.
103 Testimony of Forest Service Chief Thomas Tidwell, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, Keeping the Commitment to Rural Communities, hearing, 113th Cong., 1st sess., March 19, 2013. SRS
payments are made from the Forest Service to the states, which then distribute the payment to the eligible counties.
104 Phil Taylor, “Hastings probes Forest Service’s withholding of timber payments,” E&E News, May 21, 2013.
105 The following states did not have sufficient Title II funds to cover the sequester and received invoices: AL, AR, GA,
IL, IN, ME, MN, MO, NC, ND, NE, NH, NY, OH, PA, PR, TN, VT, and VA. WA received a letter and invoice to
collect money from a special act payment, but the letter also indicated the total SRS Title II reduction.
106 WA paid $317.15 to reimburse for the sequester-related overpayment of a special act payment. Personal
communication with Katherine Armstrong, Legislative Affairs Specialist, Forest Service, November 13, 2013.
107 The following states had the sequester withheld entirely from their Title II funds: AK, AZ, CA, CO, FL, ID, KY,
LA, MI, MS, MT, NM, NV, OK, OR, SC, SD, TX, UT, WI, WV, and WY.
Congressional Research Service
32

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act: Background and Issues


Author Information

Katie Hoover

Specialist in Natural Resources Policy


Acknowledgments
Ross Gorte, retired CRS Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, contributed to earlier versions of this
report.

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R41303 · VERSION 40 · UPDATED
33