Title III authorizes the  use of a portion of the payments for certain purposes related to wildland  fire and emergency services on federal lands. The Forest Service and BLM are responsible for carrying out certain parts  of the Secure Rural Schools Act. Both agencies calculate the amounts  that counties are to receive each year, and both agencies are required by  the act to review the counties’ certification of Title III expenditures as the  agencies determine to be appropriate. The act also requires the agencies  to issue regulations to implement the act, although it does not describe  what the regulations are to address or establish a deadline for issuing  them. Federal Agencies Had Provided Limited Oversight of County Spending at the Time of Our Report, and Some County Expenditures May Have Been Inconsistent with the Provisions of the Act

In our July 2012 report, we found that the Forest Service and BLM had  taken few actions to oversee county spending under Title III of the Secure  Rural Schools Act and that the guidance they provided was limited and, in  some cases, did not appear consistent with the act. We also found that  some expenditures by selected counties we contacted may have been  inconsistent with the act—which may have resulted in part from the  limited guidance available from the agencies—and that counties we  reviewed did not consistently follow Title III’s administrative requirements. Oversight by Federal Agencies

In July 2012, we reported that neither the Forest Service nor BLM had  issued regulations under the act and that the guidance the agencies had  issued was limited and sometimes unclear. We expressed particular  concern that the agencies had not developed regulations or clear  guidance because the act itself does not define key terms. For example,  the act authorizes counties to use Title III funds for “search and rescue  and other emergency services, including firefighting, that are performed  on federal land” but does not specify the types of activities covered by this  phrase.certain provisions open to varying interpretations, and available guidance  from the agencies had done little to clarify this language, counties had  generally been left to make their own interpretations about which types of  expenditures are allowable under Title III and which are not. However, because the agencies did not have a process to  ensure an accurate accounting of the amounts of Title III funds spent and  unspent, we concluded that it was unclear whether the amounts were  accurate and that it would be difficult to ensure that counties return to the  U.S. Treasury any funds that remain unobligated upon the act’s  expiration, as the act requires. Consistency of County Expenditures

We also found that expenditures by counties we contacted for our 2012  report did not in all cases appear consistent with the act. These counties  reported using Title III funds for projects that were generally aligned with  the three broad purposes of Title III—wildland fire preparedness,  emergency services on federal land, and community wildfire protection  planning— and some counties reported expenditures that were clearly  authorized by the act. Nevertheless, we identified various expenditures by  some counties that may not have been consistent with specific  requirements of the act, such as the following examples:
Wildland fire preparedness. In addition, some  counties reported that, to maintain access to federal lands, they used  Title III funds to help rebuild flood-damaged roads, and some reported  using funds to purchase equipment, such as radios and GPS  equipment, sonar equipment, watercraft, all-terrain vehicles,  snowmobiles, and trucks for patrols. Administrative Requirements

We also found that counties we reviewed did not consistently follow Title  III’s administrative requirements. Title III requires counties to certify  expenditures to the Forest Service or BLM annually and provide 45-day  notification to the public and any applicable resource advisory committee  before spending funds. Project initiation. The Forest Service and BLM Have Taken Action to Strengthen Oversight

In response to our recommendation that the agencies strengthen their  oversight by issuing regulations or clear guidance specifying the types of  allowable county uses of Title III funds, the Forest Service and BLM  provided additional guidance to counties, which clarifies the types of  allowable uses of county funds. In addition, the agencies reported that  they plan to update their expenditure reporting requirements for Title III  funds, so that counties report not only funds expended the previous year  but also amounts remaining unobligated. Regarding guidance, soon after our report was issued in July 2012,agencies updated their websites to provide substantial additional  information on allowable expenditures under the act.
Why GAO Did This Study

Under the Secure Rural Schools Act, counties with federal lands may elect to receive payments to help stabilize revenues lost because of declining federal timber sales. Under Title III of the act, counties are authorized to use these funds for certain projects related to wildland fire and emergency services on federal lands. The act provides oversight roles for the Forest Service and BLM, requiring them to review counties certification of their Title III expenditures as the agencies determine to be appropriate and to issue regulations to carry out the acts purposes. GAO reported to this committee in July 2012 that the agencies had provided limited oversight of county spending under Title III and that, although the projects for which counties reported using Title III funds were generally aligned with the broad purposes of Title III, county spending did not in all cases appear consistent with specific provisions of the act.
This testimony describes (1) key findings of GAOs July 2012 report on oversight and implementation of the act (GAO-12-775) and (2) actions the agencies have taken to strengthen oversight of county spending since the July 2012 report was issued. The testimony is based primarily on GAOs 2012 report and includes selected updates conducted in March 2013 on actions the agency has taken in response to that report.
GAO is making no recommendations in this testimony. In July 2012 GAO recommended that the agencies strengthen their oversight by issuing regulations or clear guidance. The agencies concurred, and took action to implement this recommendation.

What GAO Found

In July 2012 GAO reported that the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) had taken few actions to oversee county spending under Title III of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, and that the guidance they provided was limited and in some cases did not appear consistent with the act. GAO also reported that some expenditures by selected counties may have been inconsistent with the act--which may have resulted in part from the limited guidance available from the agencies--and that reviewed counties did not consistently follow Title III's administrative requirements. Specifically, GAO found the following:
Neither the Forest Service nor BLM had issued regulations under the act, and the guidance the agencies had issued was limited and sometimes unclear. Forest Service guidance, for example, did little to clarify language in the act, neither defining terms from the act nor specifying which types of expenditures were allowed under the act and which were not. The absence of clear guidance or regulations was of particular concern to GAO because the act itself does not define key terms. For example, the act authorizes counties to use Title III funds for "emergency services" but does not specify the types of activities covered by this term. Moreover, the agencies did not have assurance that they had an accurate accounting of the amounts of Title III funding spent and unspent by the counties, which is important because the act requires unobligated funds to be returned to the U.S. Treasury upon the act's expiration.
The counties GAO reviewed reported using Title III funds for projects that were generally aligned with the three broad purposes of Title III--wildland fire preparedness, emergency services on federal land, and community wildfire protection planning--but GAO identified certain expenditures by some counties that may not be consistent with specific requirements of the act. Such expenditures included funding for activities such as clearing vegetation along evacuation routes, updating 9-1-1 systems, and conducting routine law enforcement patrols on federal land. Some counties GAO reviewed reported using funds to purchase equipment, such as radios and GPS equipment, sonar equipment, watercraft, all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, and trucks for patrols.
Counties also did not consistently follow Title III's administrative requirements, which include annual certification of expenditures, 45-day notification periods to the public and others before spending funds, and deadlines for project initiation. For example, some counties did not submit a certification for certain years when they spent funds, some counties submitted their certifications late, and some counties did not consistently follow notification and project initiation requirements.
Since GAO's report was issued, the Forest Service and BLM have provided additional guidance to counties, which clarifies allowable uses of Title III funds. In addition, the agencies reported that they plan to change their requirements for annual reporting of expenditures to obtain additional information regarding the extent to which counties have obligated their Title III funds. The additional guidance addresses the recommendation in GAO's July 2012 report.