[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 3401, H.R. 3954, and H.R. 3962
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND
FOREST HEALTH
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
April 10, 2002
__________
Serial No. 107-101
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-631 WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Greg Walden, Oregon Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Hilda L. Solis, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Brad Carson, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Betty McCollum, Minnesota
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Tim Stewart, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel/Deputy Chief of Staff
Steven T. Petersen, Deputy Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH
SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado, Chairman
JAY INSLEE, Washington, Ranking Democrat Member
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania, Tom Udall, New Mexico
Vice Chairman Mark Udall, Colorado
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Betty McCollum, Minnesota
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 10, 2002................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Acevedo-Vila, Hon. Anibal, a Delegate in Congress from Puerto
Rico....................................................... 59
Prepared statement on H.R. 3954.......................... 60
McInnis, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 2
Peterson, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania...................................... 34
Prepared statement on H.R. 3962.......................... 36
Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 2
Prepared statement on H.R. 3401.......................... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Bradley, Terry, Ed.D., Deputy Superintendent for
Administrative Services, Clovis Unified School District,
Clovis, California......................................... 8
Prepared statement on H.R. 3401.......................... 10
Estill, Elizabeth, Deputy Chief, Programs and Legislation,
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture............. 5
Prepared statement on H.R. 3401, H.R. 3962 and H.R. 3954. 7
McCurry, Craig, Elmore County Commissioner................... 38
Prepared statement on H.R. 3962.......................... 40
McDonald, Kristen, Associate Director, Wild and Scenic Rivers
Program for American Rivers................................ 62
Prepared statement on H.R. 3954.......................... 63
Additional materials supplied:
Alberswerth, David, Director, Bureau of Land Management
Program, The Wilderness Society, Letter submitted for the
record on H.R. 3962........................................ 50
Cope, Dr. R.E., Commissioner, District 1, Lemhi County,
Idaho, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 3962........ 56
Watson, Rebecca, Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals
Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Letter
submitted for the record on H.R. 3962...................... 66
Western Land Group, Inc., Denver, Colorado, Statement
submitted for the record on H.R. 3962...................... 52
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 3401, TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF
FOREST SERVICE FACILITIES AND LANDS COMPRISING THE FIVE MILE REGIONAL
LEARNING CENTER IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO THE CLOVIS UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, TO AUTHORIZE A NEW SPECIAL USE PERMIT REGARDING THE CONTINUED
USE OF UNCONVEYED LANDS COMPRISING THE CENTER, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES;
H.R. 3962, TO LIMIT THE AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO ACQUIRE
LAND FOR CERTAIN FEDERAL AGENCIES IN COUNTIES IN WHICH 50 PERCENT OR
MORE OF THE TOTAL ACREAGE IS OWNED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND UNDER
THE ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION OF SUCH AGENCIES; AND H.R. 3954, TO
DESIGNATE CERTAIN WATERWAYS IN THE CARIBBEAN NATIONAL FOREST IN THE
COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO AS COMPONENTS OF THE NATIONAL WILD AND
SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
----------
Wednesday, April 10, 2002
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Scott McInnis,
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT McINNIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. McInnis. The Committee will come to order. I ask
unanimous consent that Representative Radanovich have
permission to sit on the dais and participate in the hearing.
Congressman, you are welcome to join us.
The purpose of today's hearing is to hear testimony on
three bills: H.R. 3401, by the Chairman of the Subcommittee on
National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands, Mr. Radanovich,
to provide for conveyance of Forest Service facilities and
lands comprising the Five Mile Regional Learning Center in the
State of California to the Clovis Unified School District, and
to authorize a new special use permit for the continued use of
unconveyed lands used by the Center; H.R. 3962, introduced by
the Vice Chairman of this Subcommittee, Mr. Peterson, to limit
the authority of the Federal Government to acquire land in
counties in which 50 percent or more of the total acreage is
owned by the Federal Government; and finally, H.R. 3954,
offered by my colleague from Puerto Rico, to designate certain
waterways in the Caribbean National Forest in the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico as components of the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. There are no
opening remarks. They can be incorporated in the record,
obviously.
Mr. McInnis. OK. Let's go ahead and we will proceed with
the witnesses on the first panel, for H.R. 3401. I have already
introduced the Congressman. We have Elizabeth Estill, Deputy
Chief, Programs and Legislation, U.S. Forest Service; and Dr.
Terry Bradley, the Deputy Superintendent for Administrative
Services, Clovis Unified School District.
I am going to remind the witnesses that, under our
Committee rules, we have a 5-minute rule. You will see the
light there. To our witnesses, thank you very much for
attending the Committee hearing today. Obviously, your comments
will go onto the record. Don't be discouraged by the lack of
participation. We have got lots of conflicts this morning, and
they will be coming in and out as your testimony continues.
So you may proceed with your testimony. Do you have an
opening remark?
Mr. Radanovich. I do, if I can, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McInnis. Go ahead, Mr. Radanovich.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hearing this
bill. This bill transfers 27.1 acres of National Forest Service
property from the Stanislaus National Forest to the Clovis
Unified School District. And by so doing, this legislation will
permit the school district to continue to operate the Five Mile
Regional Learning Center on this National Forest land.
And more specifically, the bill would allow the school
district to fund necessary capital improvements to the Learning
Center facilities. Without this legislation, these improvements
and non-Federal expenditures are not permitted, and the
Learning Center could not continue, due to its current
disrepair.
The Five Mile Regional Learning Center is an outdoor
environmental educational school that benefits youth from all
over the State of California. The Regional Learning Center
serves 138 schools from approximately 60 school districts in
California, and approximately 14,000 students participated in
this educational program last year.
A variety of classes is offered, with an emphasis on
natural resource conservation. In addition to the environmental
education program, the school district offers course work on
character development, team building, and individualized
challenge activities such as high ropes. During the summer,
this site is used by a variety of groups. In addition, a number
of counties in conjunction with local and state agencies bring
at-risk kids to the program's Life's Alternatives Involving
Risks, or LAIR, Adventure Academy.
The 120-acre Five Mile Regional Learning Center has been
operated by the Clovis Unified School District since 1989. And
prior to that, the Fresno County Office of Education started in
1969 operating the project.
While the Five Mile Regional Learning Center is located on
National Forest land, the Federal Government plays no role in
the operation or maintenance of the facilities or in the
delivery of educational programs. The National Forest Service
merely permits the use of these facilities and public lands to
the Clovis Unified School District, and monitors the program to
ensure the district adheres to permit requirements.
The Forest Service has not funded or appropriated monies to
maintain or operate these buildings. According to Forest
Service documents, the Regional Learning Center facility has
outlived its life by years and, if it were not for the efforts
of the Clovis Unified School District, the buildings would be
in a state of disrepair, no longer usable.
The Clovis Unified School District has, on average, spent
more than $1 million per year over the last 12 years on
operation and maintenance. And without the transfer of
ownership, the Clovis Unified School District is prohibited by
law from spending its money on capital improvements to ensure
that these facilities do not fall into disrepair.
In addition to the ongoing commitment of spending more than
$1 million per year in operating costs, the Clovis Unified
School District is willing to invest $5 million over 5 years in
capital improvements and renovations to the existing
facilities.
I understand that there are concerns regarding the fair
market value of this property, but Clovis Unified is not a
private-sector, for-profit institution. It is a school
district, and the school district does not intend to use this
acreage for marketplace purposes. Instead, Clovis Unified is
committed to maintaining the public value in this land and
these facilities out of its own pocket.
Additionally, in the 106th Congress, H.R. 150 was signed
into law, which provides the Secretary of Agriculture the
authority to convey Forest Service land for educational
purposes. The Forest Service has yet to make any conveyances
under H.R. 150, and has yet to write regulations to implement
the Act, which is why H.R. 3401 is before us today.
In addition to the transfer, H.R. 3401 authorizes a new
special use permit that would continue to authorize Clovis
Unified's use of the adjacent 100 acres. There are no
structures in need of capital improvements on these 100 acres.
The Federal costs of this transfer are administrative only,
and are negligible to the amount that the school district will
be spending to increase the value of the property and run this
valuable educational program for the benefit of the children of
California.
In conclusion, this legislation is a positive effort in
effective local, state, and Federal Government cooperation.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today. And
thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing this bill to be heard.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]
Statement of The Honorable George P. Radanovich, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
Mr. Chairman, thank you for considering H.R. 3401 today, the
California Five Mile Regional Learning Center Transfer Act.
This bill transfers 27.1 acres of National Forest Service property
from the Stanislaus Forest to the Clovis Unified School District. By so
doing, this legislation will permit the school district to continue to
operate the Five Mile Regional Learning Center on this National Forest
land and, more specifically, the bill would allow the school district
to fund necessary capital improvements to the Learning Center
facilities. Without this legislation, these improvements and non-
federal expenditures would not be permitted and the Learning Center
could not continue due to dilapidation.
The Five Mile Regional Learning Center is an Outdoor Environmental
Education School that benefits youth from all over the state of
California. The Regional Learning Center serves 138 schools from
approximately 60 school districts in California. Approximately 14,000
students participated in this educational program last year. A variety
of classes are offered with an emphasis on natural resource
conservation. In addition to the environmental education program, the
school district offers course work on character development, team
building, and individualized challenge activities such as high ropes.
During the summer the site is used by a variety of groups. In addition,
a number of counties in conjunction with local and state agencies bring
``At risk kids'' to the program's Life's Alternatives Involving Risks
(LAIR) Adventure Academy.
The 120-acre Five Mile Regional Learning Center has been operated
by the Clovis Unified School District since 1989. Prior to that the
Fresno County Office of Education starting in 1969 operated the
project.
While the Five Mile Regional Learning Center is located on National
Forest Land, the Federal Government plays no role in the operation or
maintenance of the facilities used by the program or in delivery of the
educational program. The National Forest Service merely permits the use
of these facilities and public land to the Clovis Unified School
District, and monitors the program to ensure the District adheres to
permit requirements. The Forest Service has not funded or appropriated
monies to maintain or operate these buildings. According to Forest
Service documents the, ``Regional Learning Center facility has outlived
its life by years, and, if it were not for the efforts of the Clovis
Unified School District, the buildings would be in a state of disrepair
useable to no one.''
The Clovis Unified School District has--on average--spent more that
$1 million per year over the last 12 years on operation and
maintenance. Without transfer of ownership, the Clovis Unified School
District is prohibited by law from spending its money on capital
improvements to ensure that these facilities do not fall into
disrepair.
In addition to the ongoing commitment of spending more than $1
million per year in operation costs, the Clovis Unified School District
is willing to invest $5 million over 5 years in capital improvements
and renovations to the existing facilities.
I understand there are concerns regarding the fair market value of
this property. Clovis Unified is not a private sector, for-profit
institution. It is a school district. The school district does not
intend to use this acreage for marketplace purposes. Instead, Clovis
Unified is committed maintaining the public value in this land and
these facilities out of its own pocket.
Additionally, in the 106th Congress, H.R. 150 was signed into law.
It provides the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to convey Forest
Service Land for educational purposes. The Forest Service has yet to
make any conveyances under H.R. 150 and has yet to write regulations to
implement the Act, which is why H.R. 3401 is before us today.
In addition to the transfer, the H.R. 3401 authorizes a new Special
Use permit that would continue to authorize Clovis Unified's use of the
adjacent 100 acres. There are no structures in need of capital
improvement on the 100 acres.
The Federal costs of this transfer are administrative-only and
negligible to the amount that the school district will be spending to
increase the value of the property and run this valuable educational
program for the children of California.
In conclusion, this legislation is a positive effort in effective
local, state and Federal Government cooperation. I look forward to
hearing from the witnesses and addressing any issues that arise today.
Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing.
______
Mr. McInnis. All right, let's proceed. My understanding is
you have got some testimony for the other bills, as well, and
you wish to proffer all of that at this point?
Ms. Estill. I would like to do all three at once, if I
could.
Mr. McInnis. And then you will stay around for questioning?
Ms. Estill. Sure will.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH ESTILL, DEPUTY CHIEF, PROGRAMS AND
LEGISLATION, FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. Estill. Thank you very much for inviting us to
participate, and for this opportunity to appear before you
today. I am Elizabeth Estill, the Deputy Chief for Programs and
Legislation of the USDA Forest Service, and I am here to
provide the Department's views on three bills: H.R. 3962, the
Good Neighbor Act; H.R. 3401, the California Five Mile Regional
Learning Center Transfer Act; and H.R. 3954, the Caribbean
National Forest Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
The Department supports H.R. 3954, the Caribbean National
Forest Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, with some very minor
technical corrections. The Department would like to work with
the Committee to make a number of improvements to H.R. 3401,
the California Five Mile Regional Learning Center Transfer
Act--although I would say right now that we are certainly in
favor of the transfer--and H.R. 3962, the Good Neighbor Act,
before these bills move forward.
H.R. 3962, the Good Neighbor Act: It limits the ability of
the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of
Land Management, and the Forest Service, to acquire land within
counties already containing 50 percent Federally controlled
land. H.R. 3962 would require the agencies to dispose of land
equal to 97 percent of the value of the land to be acquired in
those counties.
In addition, the Act requires the agency to notify the
Governor, the chief executive of the county, and members of the
House and Senate, prior to the acquisition. It also requires
the agency to hold a hearing prior to the acquisition, within
the county in which the land is located. If the Federally owned
lands in the county exceed 66 percent, H.R. 3962 requires
approval of the Federal acquisition by the governing
legislative body of the county.
The Department recognizes and supports addressing the needs
of local citizens to participate in decisions regarding Federal
lands within their counties. However, we would like to work
with the Committee to modify, where necessary, some of the
limitations of H.R. 3962. For example, we should ensure that
H.R. 3962 is consistent with the existing and individual state
enabling acts that authorize and provide conditions on
approvals of Forest Service acquisitions as required by the
Weeks Act.
H.R. 3962 also requires the Federal agencies to dispose of
land equal in value to lands acquired, without providing a
related sales authority. The Forest Service does not have a
general sales authority to accomplish the bill's purposes.
And finally, we should work to ensure that H.R. 3962 would
not unnecessarily limit the ability of the Forest Service to
acquire lands to further the purposes of land management
mandates imposed under other statutes, such as the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act, the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield
Act, and the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning
Act, and the National Forest Management Act.
We agree that additional Federal acquisitions should, as a
rule, be discussed with local elected officials to communicate
both the public needs, and also have the Forest Service better
understand the communities' perspective on the impact. And we
are committed to work with the Committee to meet that
objective. We look forward to working with the Committee to
identify ways to better involve local citizens in land
acquisition decisions, while still retaining the authority of
the Federal Government to acquire those lands which are in the
broader public's interest.
H.R. 3401 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey
without consideration 27 acres of National Forest System lands
to the Clovis, California Unified School District. This
conveyance would also include the improvements that comprise
the Five Mile Regional Learning Center. In addition, the bill
directs the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into negotiations
on the terms of a special use permit with the school district,
to allow their use of an additional 100 acres of National
Forest System land.
This bill includes a reversionary clause in which the
property conveyed would revert to the United States if the
school district discontinues its operation of the Learning
Center.
The Department does not support the conveyance of land and
improvements without consideration. Rather, we would like to
work with the Committee to pursue this transaction in a manner
consistent with either the Sisk Act, Public Law 90-171, or the
Education Land Grant Act, Public Law 106-577, which both allow
conveyance of the National Forest System lands for educational
purposes.
Presently, personnel on the Stanislaus National Forest are
working with the school district to explore the conveyance of
this land under Public Law 106-577. In addition, we would like
to work with the Committee to ensure that a reversionary
interest in the land would limit the potential liability to the
Federal Government.
H.R. 3954, the Caribbean National Forest Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act, amends Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act, to designate three rivers in the Caribbean National Forest
in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as components of the
National Wild and Scenic River System.
The segments to be designated include 4.4 miles of the Rio
Mamayes, 2.1 miles of the Rio de la Mina, and 2.3 miles of the
Rio Icacos. H.R. 3954 would allow, subject to the Secretary's
discretion, installation and maintenance of data collection and
transmission facilities, construction and maintenance of
structures to allow monitoring of flora and fauna, and
construction and maintenance of trails for research facilities.
The Department supports H.R. 3954, with a very small number
of technical corrections, which have been discussed with your
staff.
This concludes my testimony, and I look forward to
answering any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Estill follows:]
Statement of Elizabeth Estill, Deputy Chief, Programs and Legislation,
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 3962, H.R.
3401, and H.R. 3954
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I am Elizabeth Estill, Deputy
Chief for Programs and Legislation, USDA Forest Service. I am here
today to provide the Department's views on three bills: H.R. 3962 Good
Neighbor Act, H.R. 3401 California Five Mile Regional Learning Center
Transfer Act, and H.R. 3954 Caribbean National Forest Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act.
The Department supports H.R. 3954 Caribbean National Forest Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act with some technical corrections. The Department
would like to work with the Committee to make a number of improvements
to H.R. 3401 California Five Mile Regional Learning Center Transfer Act
and H.R. 3962 Good Neighbor Act before these bills move forward.
H.R. 3962 Good Neighbor Act
H.R. 3962 Good Neighbor Act limits the ability of the National Park
Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the
Forest Service to acquire land within counties already containing 50
percent Federally controlled land. H.R. 3962 would require the agencies
to dispose of land equal to 97 percent of the value of the land to be
acquired in those counties. In addition, H.R. 3962 requires the Agency
to notify the Governor, chief executive of the county, and Members of
the House and Senate prior to the acquisition. H.R. 3962 also requires
the Agency to hold a hearing, prior to the acquisition, within the
county in which the land is located. If the Federally controlled land
within the county exceeds 66 percent of the land area of the county,
H.R. 3962 requires approval of the Federal acquisition by the governing
legislative body of the county.
The Department recognizes and supports addressing the needs of
local citizens to participate in decisions regarding Federal lands
within their counties. However, we would like to work with the
Committee to modify where necessary limitations imposed on Federal
acquisitions by H.R. 3962.
For example, we should ensure that H.R. 3962 is consistent with
existing individual state enabling acts that authorize and provide
conditions on approvals of Forest Service acquisitions as required by
the Weeks Act (P.L. 61-435).
H.R. 3962 also requires the Federal agencies to dispose of land
equal in value to lands acquired without providing a related sales
authority. The Forest Service does not have a general sales authority
to accomplish the bill's purpose.
Finally, we should work to ensure that H.R. 3962 would not
unnecessarily limit the ability of the Forest Service to acquire lands
to further the purposes of land management mandates imposed under other
statutes, such as the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the
Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
Resources Planning Act, and the National Forest Management Act.
We agree that additional Federal acquisitions should, as a rule, be
discussed with local elected officials to communicate the needs as well
as understand the impacts on communities and are committed to work with
the Committee to meet that objective. We look forward to working with
the Committee to identify ways to better involve local citizens in land
acquisition decisions while still retaining authority of the Federal
Government to acquire those lands which are in the broader public's
interest.
H.R. 3401 California Five Mile Regional Learning Center Transfer Act
H.R. 3401 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey without
consideration 27 acres of National Forest System lands to the Clovis,
California Unified School District. The conveyance would also include
the improvements that comprise the Five Mile Regional Learning Center.
In addition, the bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to enter
into negotiations on the terms of a special use permit with the school
district to allow their use of an additional 100 acres of National
Forest System land. The bill includes a reversionary clause in which
the property conveyed would revert to the United States if the school
district discontinues its operation of the Learning Center.
The Department does not support the conveyance of land and
improvements without consideration. Rather, the Department would like
to work with the Committee to pursue this transaction in a manner
consistent with either the Sisk Act, P.L. 90-171 or the Education Land
Grant Act, P.L. 106-577, which both allow conveyance of National Forest
System lands for educational purposes. Presently, personnel on the
Stanislaus National Forest are working with the school district to
explore conveyance of this land under P.L. 106-577. In addition, we
would like to work with the Committee to ensure that a reversionary
interest in the land would limit potential liabilities to the
Government.
H.R. 3954 Caribbean National Forest Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
H.R. 3954 Caribbean National Forest Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
amends Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C.
1274(a)) to designate three rivers in the Caribbean National Forest in
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as components of the National Wild and
Scenic River System. The segments to be designated by H.R. 3954 include
4.4 miles of the Rio Mameyes, 2.1 miles of the Rio de la Mina, and 2.3
miles of the Rio Icacos. H.R. 3954 would allow, subject to the
Secretary's discretion, installation and maintenance of data collection
and transmission facilities, construction and maintenance of structures
to allow monitoring of threatened and endangered species, and
construction and maintenance of trails for research facilities.
The Department supports H.R. 3954 with a small number of technical
corrections. We recommend that subsection 2(c) be eliminated as the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act includes direction for establishing a river
corridor boundary, submitting the resulting map and legal description
to Congress, and providing for public inspection of the map and legal
description (16 U.S.C. 1274 (b) and (c)). This matter has been
discussed with your staff, as well as other minor technical
corrections.
Conclusion:
This concludes my testimony. I look forward to answering any
questions you may have.
______
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Ms. Estill.
You may proceed, Dr. Bradley.
STATEMENT OF TERRY BRADLEY, Ed.D., DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, CLOVIS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Mr. Bradley. Chairman McInnis and members of the House
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, thank you for the
opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 3401, the California
Five Mile Regional Learning Center Transfer Act. My name is
Terry Bradley, Deputy Superintend for Administrative Services
for the Clovis Unified School District. And it is my honor to
represent our district at today's hearing in support of H.R.
3401, as introduced by the Honorable George Radanovich in the
House of Representatives on December 4, 2001. As part of my
testimony, there are several exhibits that I ask be
incorporated as part of the record.
The Clovis Unified School District is located in Fresno
County, in the middle of the great Central Valley in
California. Clovis Unified serves approximately 33,500 students
in grades K through 12. Clovis students live in the Cities of
Clovis and Fresno, plus parts of the County of Fresno. And I
have been a staff member of Clovis Unified since 1976.
Clovis Unified has leased the Five Mile Regional Learning
Center from the Forest Service under a special use permit since
1989. During this time period, we have established an excellent
working relationship with the Forest Service. We fully expect
that this cooperative relationship between the district and the
Forest Service will continue if title to the Regional Learning
Center conveys to our school district.
The Regional Learning Center is located on approximately
27.1 acres in the Stanislaus National Forest, at approximately
4,100 feet in elevation. The nearest city to the Regional
Learning Center is the city of Sonora. The 27.1-acre site was
initially developed during the early 1960's by the Forest
Service, and consists of several barracks, a cafeteria/kitchen
building, classrooms, gymnasium, and shop buildings. In 1999,
Clovis Unified and the Forest Service amended the special use
permit to add approximately 93-plus acres adjacent to the
Regional Learning Center for use for outdoor educational
purposes.
The center is used as an outdoor educational environmental
school for students in fourth through twelfth grades. During
the 2000-2001 school year, the center served more than 14,000
students, from 140 schools and 60 school districts from
throughout the State of California. Since our district assumed
management of the center, more than 160,000 students have
benefited from the center's program.
Classes range from forest to raptor studies, with an
emphasis on national resource conservation. In addition to our
environmental education program, classes are also offered on
character development, team building, and individual challenges
such as high-rope climbing. A more thorough description of our
educational programs offered to students at the center is
included in our written testimony as an exhibit.
In addition, the Regional Learning Center is also used for
conferences, workshops, and athletic camps for both youths and
adults. A sample of the activities hosted by the center during
the past year include a technology conference for teachers, the
California Department of Forestry Academy, several summer
basketball camps, and retreats for both youths and adults.
The buildings and structures of the center have been in
existence since the early 1960's. Because of financial
shortfalls, the Forest Service has not been able to maintain or
operate these buildings. Since taking over the operation of
this center in 1989, Clovis Unified has spent more than $1
million each year operating the center. During the last fiscal
year, our operating expenses exceeded $1.2 million. We have
invested more than $14 million in the operations of the
Learning Center since 1989.
In addition to the operating costs, Clovis Unified is
prepared to invest funds necessary to modernize and improve the
Regional Learning Center's facilities. However, because Clovis
Unified does not own the land or buildings, we are prohibited
from spending district of state money for capital facility
improvements or renovations at the center. Capital investments
must be made now to continue the Regional Learning Center. With
title to the center's lands and buildings, Clovis Unified can
use district and state funds to make the necessary facility
improvements.
H.R. 3401 will transfer ownership of the center to Clovis
Unified. Approval of H.R. 3401 is necessary so that the capital
renovations and improvements vital to the continued use of the
center can and will be completed.
According to a Forest Service representative, the Regional
Learning Center facility has outlived its life by years, and if
it were not for the efforts of the district, the buildings
would be in a state of disrepair, usable to no one. In a letter
to our district dated June 5, 2000, by the Stanislaus National
Forest Supervisor, it stated, ``We have considered your request
and believe that your acquisition of the Learning Center would
be in the interest of the public and the Forest Service.''
Clovis Unified is committed to invest $5 million over 5
years in capital renovations and improvements, if H.R. 3401 is
approved. This investment is in addition to our $1.2 million
annual expenditure provided for operation and routine
maintenance.
H.R. 3401 would also authorize a new special use permit to
continue the authorization.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Bradley, could you wrap it up, please?
Mr. Bradley. Oh, I am sorry. Well, I will just finish up,
then.
In closing, we urge your support and approval for this
legislation that should be considered non-controversial and a
wonderful example of effective local, state, and Federal
Government cooperation. The Federal costs of this transfer are
administrative only, and negligible compared to the investment
our district is willing to make and the improved and continuing
educational services provided students throughout our state.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, for
the opportunity to testify today. We look forward to working
with the Committee and the Forest Service on this legislation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bradley follows:]
Statement of Terry Bradley, Ed.D., Deputy Superintendent for
Administrative Services, Clovis Unified School District, City of
Clovis, County of Fresno, State of California, on H.R. 3401
Chairman McInnis and Members of the House Subcommittee on Forests
and Forest Health, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support
of H.R. 3401, the California Five Mile Regional Learning Center
Transfer Act.
My name is Terry Bradley; Deputy Superintendent for Administrative
Services for the Clovis Unified School District and it is my honor to
represent our school district at today's hearing in support of H.R.
3401, the ``California Five Mile Regional Learning Center Transfer
Act'' introduced by the Honorable George Radanovich in the House of
Representatives on December 4, 2001. As part of my testimony, there are
several exhibits that I ask be incorporated as part of the record.
The Clovis Unified School District is located in Fresno County,
which is the heart of the great Central Valley in California. Clovis
Unified serves approximately 33,500 students in grades K-12. Clovis
students live in the cities of Clovis and Fresno plus parts of the
County of Fresno. I have been on the staff of Clovis Unified since
1976.
Clovis Unified has leased the Five Mile Regional Learning Center
from the Forest Service under a Special Use Permit since 1989. During
this time period, we have established an excellent working relationship
with the Forest Service. We fully expect that this cooperative
relationship between the Clovis Unified School District and the Forest
Service will continue if title to the Five Mile Regional Learning
Center conveys to our school district.
The Regional Learning Center is located on approximately 27.1 acres
in the Miwok Ranger District of the Stanislaus National Forest at
approximately 4,100 feet in elevation. The nearest city to the Regional
Learning Center is the City of Sonora. The 27.1-acre site was initially
developed during the early 1960's by the Forest Service and consists of
several barracks, a cafeteria/kitchen building, classrooms, and
gymnasium and shop buildings. In 1999 Clovis Unified and the Forest
Service amended the Special Use Permit to add approximately 93 acres
adjacent to the Regional Learning Center for use for outdoor
educational purposes.
The Regional Learning Center is used as an Outdoor Environmental
Educational School for students in fourth through twelfth grade. During
the 2000-01 school year, the Regional Learning Center served more than
14,000 students from 140 schools and 60 school districts from
throughout the State of California. Since CUSD assumed management of
the Center, more than 160,000 students have benefited from the Center's
programs. Classes range from forest to raptor studies with an emphasis
on natural resource conservation. In addition to our environmental
education program, classes are also offered on character development,
team building and individual challenge activities such as high rope
climbing. A more thorough description of educational programs offered
to students at the Regional Learning Center is included in our written
testimony as an exhibit.
The Regional Learning Center is also used for conferences,
workshops and athletic camps for both our youth and adults. A sample of
the activities hosted by the Center during the past year include a
technology conference for educators, the California Department of
Forestry Academy, several summer basketball camps and retreats for both
youth and adults.
The buildings and structures at the Regional Learning Center have
been in existence since the early 1960's. Because of financial
shortfalls, the Forest Service has not been able to maintain or operate
these buildings. Since taking over the operation of the Regional
Learning Center in 1989, Clovis Unified School District has spent more
than $1 million each year operating the Center. During the last fiscal
year, our operating expenses exceeded $1.2 million. Clovis has invested
more than $14 million in the operations of the Learning Center.
In addition to the operating costs, Clovis is prepared to invest
the funds necessary to modernize and improve the Regional Learning
Center's facilities. However, because Clovis Unified does not own the
land or buildings, we are prohibited from spending District or State
money for capital facility renovations or improvements at the Regional
Learning Center. Capital investments must be made now to continue the
Regional Learning Center. With title to the Center's land and buildings
Clovis can use District and State funds to make the necessary facility
improvements.
H.R. 3401 will transfer ownership of the Regional Learning Center
to the Clovis Unified School District. Approval of H.R. 3401 is
necessary so that capital renovations and improvements vital to the
continued use of the Regional Learning Center can and will be
completed. Otherwise the condition of the Center's buildings and
infrastructure will result in the discontinuation of the Regional
Center's operation.
According to a Forest Service representative, the Regional Learning
Center facility has outlived its life by years and if it were not for
the efforts of the Clovis Unified School District, the buildings would
be in a state of disrepair useable to no one. In a letter to our
District dated June 5, 2000, Ben Del Villar, the Stanislaus National
Forest Supervisor, stated that, ``We have considered your request and
believe that your acquisition of the Learning Center would be in the
interest of the public and the Forest Service.''
Clovis Unified is committed to invest $5 million over 5 years in
capital renovations and improvements to the Regional Learning Center if
H.R. 3401 is approved. This investment is in addition to the $1.2
million annual expenditure provided by CUSD for operations and routine
maintenance. Also, we are committed to continuing to expand and enhance
our outdoor educational curriculum to provide students from throughout
California with the best experience possible during their stay at our
facility.
H.R. 3401 would also authorize a new Special Use permit to continue
the authorization for our school district to use the adjacent 93+ acres
as presently used for environmental program activities. H.R. 3401
provides that title to the real property conveyed under the Act would
revert if the Clovis Unified School District discontinues its operation
of the Five Mile Regional Learning Center.
Included with our written testimony is a full description of the
educational program offered at the Regional Learning Center along with
maps that identify the location of the Regional Learning Center and
adjacent property that is affected by H.R. 3401. Also, we have attached
as exhibits several letters sent to members of the California
Congressional delegation from schools throughout the State of
California. These letters are from school districts that have utilized
the Regional Learning Center and express support for the proposed
legislation.
In closing, we urge your support and approval for this legislation
that should be considered non-controversial and a wonderful example of
effective local, state and Federal Government cooperation. The Federal
costs of this transfer are administrative only and negligible compared
to the investment Clovis Unified is willing to make in both operational
expenditures and capital facility improvements. The result will be the
continuation and enhancement of this valuable outdoor educational
program and the continuation of Outdoor Environmental programs utilized
and appreciated by school and community groups throughout California.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee for the
opportunity to testify and for your consideration of H.R. 3401. We look
forward to working with the Committee and the Forest Service on this
legislation.
______
[Attachments to Mr. Bradley's statement follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.019
Mr. McInnis. All right. We will open it up for questions on
the witnesses. Our primary focus here is Mr. Radanovich's bill,
so that is where I would like to restrict the questions to,
specifically to that bill. After we have those questions, then
we will move on to the next bill. Are there any questions?
Mr. Radanovich. If I may, Mr. Chairman, just a couple of
questions?
Mr. McInnis. Yes.
Mr. Radanovich. Elizabeth, thank you for being here to
testify. And I notice in your testimony that you mentioned
support of the bill. But there are some circumstances regarding
the bill, and one of the issues mentioned was the issue of
liability.
I am familiar with some of these issues, when you had
mentioned some of your public law. And I am not sure how they
match up against H.R. 150, which was the law that allowed
Forest Service transfer to educational groups. I am aware that
this is the first law to be implemented by that, and there are
no regulations that have been set up by the Department. And
sometimes the first bill implementing a bill previously passed
is sometimes laborious. But you had mentioned a liability issue
that I am not quite familiar with.
Ms. Estill. Pretty unlikely, considering the use of this
facility. However, we would like to protect ourselves so that
the Secretary could not take the land back if it should be
contaminated with whatever contamination might exist out there.
Mr. Radanovich. The area of liability that you are
concerned with, then, is basically environmental clean-up
possibilities?
Ms. Estill. Exactly.
Mr. Radanovich. Those kinds of things?
Ms. Estill. Exactly.
Mr. Radanovich. OK.
Ms. Estill. The real issue, if I might, that we have is
that the Education Land Grant Act really will suffice. And it
does require a nominal fee of $10 an acre.
Mr. Radanovich. They are more than willing to pay that $10.
Ms. Estill. And we think we can do it, just under that
authority.
Mr. Radanovich. OK. Good. I am not sure there are any other
questions that I have. Well, Mr. Bradley, let me ask a couple
of quick questions. Do you plan to harvest trees on this
property?
Mr. Bradley. No. No.
Mr. Radanovich. No? OK. And do you have any plans to
restrict public access to any of the roads there?
Mr. Bradley. No. We would like as many people to enjoy the
facility as possible.
Mr. Radanovich. All right. OK. Those are all the questions
that I have, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much, Mr. Bradley for being here.
Mr. Bradley. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. And thank you, Elizabeth.
Mr. McInnis. Are there any further questions in regards to
this bill? Go ahead.
Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Yes, good morning. To Mr. Bradley, you
quote in your testimony a Forest Service reply to your request,
and I quote, ``We have considered your request and believe that
the acquisition of the Learning Center would be in the public
interest.'' Are we still talking about a purchase? That was the
original request, to buy the land? Or what is your position
right now with regard to that?
Mr. Bradley. That was a letter that we received from the
Forest Service supervisor when we started discussions about the
purchase of the property under the old Sisk Act, in the late
1990's. And we were not aware of the issue related to fair
market value. We thought because of the educational values that
our district is bringing to the full state, along with the
Forest Service, by the use of that property, there would not be
a fair market value issue; especially with the commitment the
district was willing to make and capital facility improvements.
Subsequent to that, when we had some meetings with the
Forest supervisor, that issue came up not only for the 27.1
acres where the center is located, that certainly has a lot of
trees on it, that that fair market value would include the
value of the trees for logging purposes, for which we would
have really no private interest in doing that.
You know, we are a public educational agency, not in the
business--although some of our taxpayers don't think so--but
not in the business of making money.
Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Thank you.
Mr. Holt. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. McInnis. Go ahead, Mr. Holt.
Mr. Holt. Thank you. With regard to the Five Mile Regional
Learning Center, Ms. Estill, what is the fair market value of
this parcel that taxpayers would be conveying?
Ms. Estill. The last time that it was actually valued was
in '94, I believe, and that was about $1 million. We think it
is probably worth about $2 million now.
Mr. Holt. Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. Any further questions?
[No response.]
Mr. McInnis. If there are no further questions, I would
like to thank the witnesses. Ms. Estill, if you will stay here,
obviously, for the other bills?
Mr. Bradley, thank you for your attendance in front of the
Committee.
Mr. Bradley. Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. Your exhibits will be incorporated into the
record.
Mr. Bradley. Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Acevedo-Vila, we were going to take you
next in order, but Mr. Peterson's witness has arrived, so we
will stick with our schedule, if there is no objection.
Our next panel would be Mr. Craig McCurry, the Elmore
County Commissioner. And I think, Mr. Peterson, that is your
only witness; is that correct?
Mr. Peterson. Yes.
Mr. McInnis. OK. Mr. Peterson, we are on your bill, H.R.
3962. Do you have an opening statement?
Mr. Peterson. Yes.
Mr. McInnis. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Peterson. I would like to thank the Chairman for
scheduling this hearing and allowing this bill to be heard. The
Good Neighbor Act of 2002, H.R. 3962, is exactly that: a bill
to make sure the Federal Government is a good neighbor in
communities where they own the majority of the land in a
county. A good neighbor is a part of the community, and
supports the community through taxes from the land base. A good
neighbor does not take away more acreage from the tax base,
unless there is agreement within the county that it is in the
best interests of the agency and the county.
Let me simply explain how the bill works. If 50 percent or
more of a county's land base is owned in total by the Bureau of
Land Management, the National Park Service, the Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service, before an agency can
acquire more land the agency must first sell land of equal
value. Also, the agency can do land exchanges of equal value.
In counties in which these agencies own 50 to 66 percent of
the land, the agency can still acquire land, by giving notice
to county, state, and Federal elected officials; holding a
hearing; and getting the Governor to approve. When total agency
ownership is above 66 percent, the elected county officials
must approve purchases as well. So you would have the Governor
approve and the county approve. And in all cases, the 40-acre
inholdings can be purchased by giving notice.
In large measure, counties with high percentages of Federal
lands are in less populated, rural areas with small ownerships
adjacent to, or interdispersed among, the Federal owner. These
areas are characteristically strapped for cash and struggling
to fund the basic infrastructure crucial to the quality of
life.
The bill is about fairness: making it fair for counties
that have large Federal land holdings to maintain a tax roll to
provide basic services just like other counties throughout the
United States.
I, personally, do not oppose all land acquisitions by the
Federal Government; and neither does H.R. 3962. I fully
understand that there are many cases in which land acquisition
by the Federal Government is appropriate. I just want counties
to have the option to maintain their tax base.
I am advocating for the Federal Government to take greater
responsibility for land acquisition decisions, to work with
their neighbors on these decisions, and make more efficient use
of these funds. I am promoting greater accountability to
Congress and to local and state governments when the Federal
Government buys land.
My position and the intent of this bill is to leave land on
the local property tax rolls and promote cooperative alliances.
The Federal Government needs to be a better neighbor when it
comes to Federal land acquisitions. The Good Neighbor Act
specifically has been designed to only affect counties who have
a major encroachment, while leaving a small regulatory
footprint. The bill only affects 171 counties at the 50-percent
factor, out of 3,066. This is less than 6 percent of all
counties. There would be no harness placed on the Federal land
purchased in the remaining 2,895 counties.
Currently, a hole exists in regulation and statute which
allows the Federal Government to buy land without notice or
comment provided to local people. A broad cooperation and
coordination obligation is specified under the law. This
obligation is toothless. When the acquisition happens outside a
management plan, no regulation exists that specifies the
Federal Government must give state and local governments notice
and comment. The Forest Service does not routinely conduct
environmental assessments on land acquisitions that would allow
for local input.
I acknowledge that some local land managers work well with
their communities coordinating land acquisitions.
Unfortunately, others do not meaningfully consult with local
governments; leaving them powerless with such important
decisions affecting their tax rolls. Unless the law is amended,
a patchwork will persist, with a few bright squares of
coordination existing with far too many areas where counties
are locked out of the process.
Now, the President articulated his policy on the Federal
land acquisition in his budget this year, and he speaks of: To
make the most efficient use of these funds; to promote
cooperative alliances; and to leave land on the state tax
rolls. And the request emphasizes innovative alternatives to
fee title purchases, such as conservation easements and land
exchanges. We think our bill works right along with those
priorities of the President.
The Good Neighbor Act makes the most efficient use of funds
by keeping the tax rolls stable--in other words, if you buy,
you sell--allowing the Federal Government to use funds to take
care of their land, while keeping PILT acres stable in those
counties.
H.R. 3962 promotes cooperative alliances by plugging the
existing hole in the law and requiring land management agencies
to seek for local input. I think that most counties and states
will be more than willing to work with the Federal agencies in
meeting agency goals through land acquisitions in their county.
Most importantly, the bill is in complete harmony with the
President's policy to leave land on the tax rolls. The land
management agencies can still acquire land by exchange or
purchase, after selling the needed land acreage to maintain the
tax base.
The bill also provides for an exception where the Federal
Government limits its power by allowing for state and local
governments' approval of land acquisition. This places the
approval with local lawmakers who know the most about the needs
of their communities. They live there; they have been elected,
and must meet payrolls, provide services, and fund local
initiatives on a potentially decreasing tax base. But more
importantly, the bill provides for a process where dialog is
needed, and where decisions are weighted with input.
Finally, the bill promotes innovative alternatives to fee
title purchases by promoting land exchanges. The Administration
has taken responsible steps, and I look forward to working with
them.
When the Federal Government owns over half of a county, it
can deal a crushing blow to local communities who rely on a
solid tax base. Compounding the Federal presence is the fact
that the Government does not pay its fair share of taxes; the
agencies have not been able to provide revenue from timber,
minerals, and grazing; and PILT payments continue to be under-
funded.
It is an embarrassment that we pay our arrearages to the
United Nations, but we do not pay our arrearages to our own
people. From 1996 to the year 2000, the U.S. Government is
approximately $650 million in arrearages to its own citizens
who live adjacent to public lands. In other words, we have not
paid the authorized amount for PILT.
Historically, we, the Federal Government, paid less than a
quarter per acre. Last year we increased the amount to 33 cents
an acre, if you include all Federal ownership. Yet if that acre
were left on the local tax roll, it would value between $1.25
to $3 an acre. BLM did a study on their land, and came up with
a nationwide average, if land were left on the tax rolls, of
$1.48 for the same land that they pay 33 cents for.
A good neighbor does not move into your house and take
over, especially when they are not invited. County
commissioners have been forced to increase local millage rates
to compensate for the lack of Federal funds. In some states,
increases in the millage rate is not allowed, and they are
forced to cut programs.
An example is found in the statement of a county
administrator for Marshall County, Mississippi, who recently
appeared before a Forest Counties Payments Committee public
listening session. He said, ``We have approximately 45,000
acres of public land, and 30,000 of those are national forest,
and the balance is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers down the
Tallahatchie River toward the reservoir area. No personal
property taxes are collected on these lands, and it is left as
a burden to the taxpayers to make up the difference in the form
of a millage rate.''
While Federal land plays an important role in preserving
our national heritage and our rich environment, the land
acquisition process should not occur at the expense of local
communities. I ask this Committee, as a person concerned for
rural America: Let us work together and try to have the Federal
Government be a good neighbor.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]
Statement of The Honorable John Peterson, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Pennsylvania
Mr. Chairmen.
The Good Neighbor Act of 2002, H.R. 3962, is exactly that--a bill
to make sure the Federal Government is a good neighbor in communities
where they own the majority of land in a county. A good neighbor is a
part of the community and supports the community through taxes from the
land base. A good neighbor does not take away more acreage from the tax
base, unless there is agreement within the county that is the best for
the Agency and for the county.
Let me simply explain how this bill works. If 50% or more of a
county's land base is owned, in total, by BLM, NPS, F&WS, and FS,
before an agency can acquire more land, the agency must first sell land
of equal value. Also, the agency can do land exchanges of equal value.
In counties in which these agencies own 50-66% of the land, the agency
can still acquire land by giving notice to county, state, and Federal
elected officials, hold a hearing, and get governor approval. When
total agency ownership is above 66%, the elected county officials must
approve purchases as well. In all cases, 40-acre inholdings can be
purchased by giving notice.
In large measure, counties with high percent of Federal land are in
less populated, rural areas with small ownerships adjacent to or
interdispersed among the larger Federal owner. These areas are
characteristically strapped for cash and struggling to fund the basic
infrastructure crucial to quality of life. This bill is about
fairness--making it fair for counties that have large Federal land
holdings to maintain a tax roll to provide basic services just like
other counties throughout the US. I, personally, do not oppose all land
acquisition by the Federal Government and neither does H.R. 3962. I
fully understand that there are many cases in which land acquisition by
the Federal Government is appropriate. I just want the counties to have
the option to maintain (not even asking they increase, just maintain)
their tax roll base.
I am advocating for the Federal Government to take greater
responsibility for the land acquisition decisions, to work with their
neighbors on these decisions, and make more efficient use of those
funds! I am promoting greater accountability to congress and to local
and state governments when the Federal Government buys land! My
position and the intent of this bill is to leave land on the local
property tax rolls and promote cooperative alliances! The Federal
Government needs to be a better neighbor when it comes to Federal land
acquisitions. The good neighbor act specifically has been designed to
only affect counties who have a major Federal encroachment while
leaving a small regulatory footprint. The bill only affects 171
counties out of a total of 3066, this is less then 6% of all counties.
There would be no harness placed on the Federal land purchases in the
remaining 2895 counties.
Currently, a hole exists in regulation and statute that allows the
Federal Government to buy land without notice or comment provided to
local people. A broad cooperation and coordination obligation is
specified under current law. This obligation is toothless. When the
acquisition happens outside a management plan, no regulation exists
that specifies the Federal Government must give state and local
governments notice and comment. The Forest Service does not routinely
conduct environmental assessments on land acquisitions that would allow
for local input. I acknowledge that some local land managers work well
with their communities coordinating land acquisitions. Unfortunately,
others do not meaningfully consult with local government, leaving them
powerless with such important decisions affecting their tax rolls.
Unless, the law is amended, a patchwork will persist with a few bright
squares of coordination co-existing with far to many dull patches where
counties are locked out of the process.
The President articulated his policy on Federal land acquisition in
The Fiscal Year 2003, The Interior Budget in Brief. The bill follows
tenets of the President's vision for Federal land acquisition programs
as outlined in The Budget Brief. The vision is summarized as follows:
I. To make the most efficient use of these funds
II. Promote cooperative alliances and
III. Leave land on state tax rolls
IV. The request emphasizes innovative alternatives to fee title
purchases such as conservation easements and land exchanges
Let me take each of these policy standards and apply provisions of
the good neighbor act.
LThe good neighbor act makes the most efficient use of
funds by keeping the tax rolls stable allowing the Federal Government
to use funds to take care of their land while keeping pilt acres stable
in those counties.
LH.R. 3962 promotes cooperative alliances by plugging the
existing hole in the law and requiring land management agencies to
allow for local input. I think most counties and states will be more
than willing to work with Federal agencies in meeting agency goals
through land acquisitions in their county.
LMost importantly the bill is in complete harmony with the
President's policy to leave land on the local tax rolls. The land
management agencies can still acquire land by exchange or purchase
after selling the needed land acreage to maintain the tax base. The
bill also provides for an exception where the Federal Government limits
its' power by allowing for state and local governments approval of land
acquisition. This places the approval with local lawmakers who know the
most about the needs of their communities. They live there, have been
elected, and must meet payrolls, provide services, and fund local
initiatives on a potentially decreasing tax base. But more importantly,
the bill provides for a process where dialogue is needed, and where
decisions are weighted with more input.
LFinally, the bill promotes innovative alternatives to fee
title purchases by promoting land exchanges. The administration is
taking responsible steps and I look forward to working with them on
this approach.
When the Federal Government owns over half the county it can deal a
crushing blow to local communities who rely on a solid tax base.
Compounding the Federal presence is the fact that the government does
not pay it's fair share of taxes, the agencies have not been able to
provide revenue from timber, minerals, and grazing, and pilt payments
continue to be under funded. It is an embarrassment that we pay our
arrearages to the United Nations but we do not pay our arrearages to
our own people! From 1996 to 2000 the United States Government is
approximately 650 million dollars in arrearages to our own citizens who
live adjacent to public lands. Historically, ``we'' the Federal
Government paid less then a quarter per acre. Last year we increased
the amount to 33 cents an acre yet if that acre were left on the local
tax roll it would valued between $1.25 and 3.00 dollars an acre. BLM
did a study and came up with a nation wide average if land were left on
the tax roll of $1.48 for the same land that we pay 33 cents. A good
neighbor does not move into your house and take over, especially when
they are not invited.
County commissioners have been forced to increase local millage
rates to compensate for the lack of Federal funds. In some states
increases in the millage rate is not allowed and they are forced to cut
vital programs. An example is found in the statement of a county
administrator for Marshall County, Mississippi who recently appeared
before a Forest Counties Payments Committee public listening session.
He said, ``we have approximately 45,000 acres of public land, and
30,000 of those are national forest land and the balance is U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers land down in the Tallahatchie River towards the
reservoir area. No personal property taxes are collected on these
lands, and it is left as a burden to the taxpayers to make up the
difference in the form of a millage rate.'' While Federal lands play an
important role in preserving our national heritage and our rich
environment, the land acquisition process should not occur at the
expense of local communities.
I asked you, as a person concerned for rural America, let us work
together to be a good neighbor!
______
Mr. McInnis. Mr. McCurry, you may proceed. You have 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF CRAIG McCURRY, COUNTY COMMISSIONER, ELMORE COUNTY,
IDAHO
Mr. McCurry. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to voice my support
for H.R. 3962. My name is Craig McCurry, and I am the Chairman
of the Elmore County Board of Commissioners in Elmore County,
Idaho. I am here on behalf of the citizens of my county, and
the Idaho Association of Counties.
Elmore County is home to 30,000 people and Mountain Home
Air Force Base. Elmore County and IAC applaud the efforts of
Congress to address the fundamental issue of land acquisition
by the Federal Government, and ask your overwhelming support of
H.R. 3962. H.R. 3962 presents an excellent opportunity to
minimize the impact of land acquisition on the 44 counties in
Idaho and countless counties around the Nation affected by
Federal land in their counties.
We appreciate the actions of Idaho's congressional
delegation to begin a much needed discussion of land
acquisition by the Federal Government. The position of the
Idaho Association of Counties, of which Elmore County is a
member, has always been that Federal and state real property
holdings should be maintained at a minimum level. Acquisition
of new land by Federal or state agencies should be subject to
the agreement of the county within which the property is
located. If additional acquisitions are necessary and agreed
to, local political subdivisions should be compensated for
lands or facilities so acquired.
The Federal Government currently owns 62 percent of Idaho,
placing us third in the Nation for Federal land ownership.
Elmore County is 67 percent Federally owned. Federal lands,
although positive in some aspects, do negatively impact the
gateway communities surrounding the Federal land. The
acquisition of Federal land causes a property tax shift to our
citizens, who are already facing difficult economic times.
In addition to providing services to the residents within
the confines of a tight budget, counties must also bear the
additional costs of providing services to the non-residents
recreating on Federal land, whether it be road upkeep or search
and rescue, all without full funding of PILT.
In the last fiscal year, Idaho received only 59 percent of
what Congress is authorized to appropriate for PILT. Elmore
County received a little over $1 million in PILT for fiscal
year 2001, more than $760,000 less than authorized. This
payment of $1 million--a tax payment for 67 percent of our
county--amounts to only 10 percent of our current budget. That
tax shift that this represents to the citizens is obvious.
Let me add that even if Congress did fund PILT at the full
authorization level, it would still be less than what could be
generated if the lands were on the private tax rolls.
Additionally, if private citizens owned these lands, they would
have no choice but to pay their taxes.
Congress should meet their tax obligations prior to
engaging in discretionary spending. It is the fundamental
belief of Elmore County and the Idaho Association of Counties
that the Federal Government should not acquire more land until
it fulfills its responsibility to the land it already owns by
fully funding PILT and using proper management techniques to
ensure the health of the Federal land.
A great number of Elmore County residents make their living
off the land, and wish these lands preserved for generations to
come. The Federal Government has a responsibility to protect
the land it currently owns, prior to taking more off the tax
rolls.
Let me take a moment to thank those of you that have
supported PILT payments in the past. And we hope you would
continue to do so in the future.
One example of the impact of Federal land on a county
budget is the amount of time and resources that are spent to
cover search and rescue and law enforcement needs on public
lands. In a slow year, the Elmore County sheriff's department
spends $15,000 on search and rescue services, and is usually
rebuffed by Federal agencies when asking for assistance,
whether it be the use of a helicopter or financial
reimbursement.
The Forest Service pays the sheriff's department $16,000 a
year to patrol the Forest Service lands within my county. That
comes nowhere close to full reimbursement for services
provided. The county sheriff also helps maintain and patrol the
waterways in our county.
Our citizens appreciate the opportunity to recreate close
to home, but are tired of carrying the financial burden for all
of the non-residents traveling to Elmore County to enjoy all we
have to offer.
H.R. 3962 is not perfect; nor does it solve all of our
problems. But it does offer opportunities to improve upon the
current system. H.R. 3962 limits the acquisition of land by the
Federal Government in counties in which the Federal Government
owns 50 percent or more of the acreage within that county, by
requiring an almost equal land trade.
In closing, I would like to cover one of the last aspects
that we feel is important. Local government officials are
closest to the people and to the communities they serve, and
should be an integral part of any discussion of Federal land
acquisitions. Local government officials are currently treated
as stakeholders, and not as elected officials with the
statutory responsibility to provide for the health, safety, and
welfare of the citizens within our boundaries.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and thank
you for your exemplary service.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McCurry follows:]
Statement of Craig McCurry, Elmore County Commissioner
Honorable Chairman and Committee Members:
Thank you for the opportunity to voice my support for H.R. 3962. My
name is Craig McCurry and I am a County Commissioner representing
Elmore County, Idaho. I am here on behalf of the Elmore County Board of
County Commissioners and the Idaho Association of Counties (IAC).
Elmore County is home to almost 30,000 people and Mountain Home Air
Force Base.
Elmore County and IAC applaud the efforts of Congress to address
the fundamental issue of land acquisition by the Federal Government and
ask for your overwhelming support of H.R. 3962. H.R. 3962, the ``Good
Neighbor Act of 2002'', presents an excellent opportunity to minimize
the impacts of land acquisition on the forty-four counties in Idaho and
the countless counties around the nation affected by the Federal land
in their county. We appreciate the actions of Idaho's Congressional
Delegation, especially Congressman Otter, to begin a much-needed
discussion of land acquisition by the Federal Government.
The position of the Idaho Association of Counties, of which Elmore
County is a member, has always been that:
``Federal and state real property holdings should be maintained at
a minimum level. Acquisition of new land by a Federal or state agency
should be subject to...the agreement of the county within which the
property is located. If additional...acquisitions are necessary, and
agreed to, local political subdivisions should be compensated for lands
and/or facilities so acquired'' (Idaho Association of Counties Public
Lands Book 2001).
The Federal Government currently owns sixty-two percent (62%) of
Idaho, placing us third in the nation for Federal land ownership.
Elmore County is sixty-seven percent (67%) Federally owned. Federal
lands, although positive in some aspects, do negatively impact the
gateway communities surrounding the Federal land. The acquisition of
Federal lands causes a property tax shift to our citizens, who are
already facing difficult economic times.
Tourism is not the panacea some think it might be. In addition to
providing services to their residents within the confines of a tight
budget--Idaho counties are subject to budget limitations--counties must
also bear the additional costs of providing services to the non-
residents recreating on Federal land, whether it be road upkeep or
search and rescue, all without full funding of Payment in Lieu of Taxes
(PILT). In the last fiscal year, Idaho received only 59% of what
Congress is authorized to appropriate for PILT. Elmore County received
a little over $1 million in PILT for fiscal year 2001, more than
$760,000 less than authorized. This payment of $1 million, a tax
payment for 67% of the county is only 10% of our current budget. The
tax shift that represents to the citizens is obvious. Let me say that
even if Congress did fund PILT at the full authorization level, it
would still be less than what could be generated if the lands were on
the tax rolls. Additionally, if private citizens owned these lands,
they would have no choice but to pay their taxes. Congress should meet
their tax obligation prior to engaging in ``discretionary spending.''
To add insult to injury, after recommending cutting the PILT budget
by $45 million, the President's proposal calls for approximately $531
million for land acquisition. It is the fundamental belief of Elmore
County and the Idaho Association of Counties that the Federal
Government should not acquire more lands until it fulfills its
responsibility to the land it already owns, by fully-funding PILT and
using proper management techniques to ensure the health of that Federal
land. A great number of Elmore County residents make their living off
the land and wish these lands preserved for generations to come. The
Federal Government has a responsibility to protect the lands currently
under its jurisdiction prior to taking more off the tax rolls.
Let me take a moment to thank you to those of you that have
supported PILT increases in the past and we hope that you would
continue to do so in the future. One example of the impact of Federal
lands on a county budget is apparent in how much time and resources is
needed to cover the search and rescue and law enforcement needs of
those public lands. In a slow year, Elmore County's Sheriff Department
spends at least $15,000 each year on search and rescue services and is
usually rebuffed by the Federal agencies when asking for assistance,
whether it be the use of a helicopter or some financial reimbursement.
The Forest Service pays the Sheriff's Department $16,000 a year to
patrol the forest service lands within my county. That comes nowhere
close to full reimbursement for services provided. The County Sheriff
also helps maintain and patrol the waterways within our county. Not
only do the Federal agencies not offer labor or resources to perform
those services, the Federal agencies charge campground fees and the
county never sees any of those revenues. Our citizens appreciate the
opportunity to recreate close to home but are tired of carrying the
financial burden for the non-residents traveling to Elmore County to
enjoy all we have to offer.
H.R. 3962 is not perfect, nor does it solve all of our problems,
but it does offer opportunities to improve upon the current system.
H.R. 3962 limits the acquisition of land by the Federal Government in
counties in which the Federal Government owns 50% or more of the
acreage within that county by requiring an almost equal land trade. Of
the forty-four counties in Idaho, 22 are more than 50% Federal lands.
This legislation also prevents the Federal Government from acquiring
land, without the permission of local decision-makers, within counties
that are currently 66% or more Federally owned. Twelve counties in
Idaho are more than 66% Federal ownership.
One of the crucial aspects of this legislation is the cooperation
and consultation with local governments. Local government officials are
closest to the people and to the community they serve and should be an
integral part of the discussion of any action by the Federal Government
affecting their county. Local government officials are currently
treated as stakeholders and not as elected officials with the statutory
responsibility to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the
citizens within their boundaries. It is essential that we are part of
the discussion process when decisions are made affecting our
constituents.
Thank you for the opportunity to voice our support for H.R. 3962.
It is our desire that the Federal Government work toward becoming a
good neighbor by taking this opportunity to right a wrong. The passage
of H.R. 3962 would represent an auspicious occasion for the counties in
America with Federal lands within their borders. Thank you for your
exemplary service to this great nation.
______
Mr. McInnis. As a courtesy, I am going to yield my question
time to either of the gentleman from Idaho. Mr. Simpson? I said
either of the gentlemen.
Mr. Simpson. I will go, then. I appreciate it. I appreciate
the bill that you have introduced, Mr. Peterson, and I support
it.
Elizabeth, I would like to ask you a couple of questions. I
know the Administration is concerned about the acquisition of
private land, and becoming more and more Federal land. But in
many of the western states, as testimony has indicated--67
percent of Elmore County. At Challis County it is 96 percent
Federal land. That means 4 percent of the property is paying
the taxes there.
And many of us, with the Carroll legislation and things
that have many good provisions in them that we would like to
see enacted, our biggest problem is the funding of the Federal
Land and Water Conservation Fund that takes $450 million
annually, and the acquisition of land without really any
provision that it does not impact these counties in an adverse
way.
Mr. Peterson here has introduced a bill, I think, that
tries to address that. You mentioned that we should look at
this. In your testimony you said we should look at this to make
sure that it would not unnecessarily limit the ability of the
Forest Service to acquire lands to further purposes of land
management mandates imposed under statutes such as the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act, the Multiple-Use Sustained
Yield Act, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
Planning Act, and the National Forest Management Act.
Those are all acts dealing with Federal land, not with
private land. And what we are talking about here is the
acquisition of private land. How does the Forest Service
acquire private land to further the purposes of a statute meant
to deal with Federal lands?
Ms. Estill. A number of ways. But typically, we are talking
about lands that are within the designated boundary of a
national forest. So that it is within the boundary. It has been
studied. And in some way--either through an earmark by
Congress, through LWCF--it has been viewed to be in the
public's interest to acquire that.
It might be for example an inholding in a wilderness area
that we have all agreed we need to try to acquire to further
the purposes of the public lands. So that would be an example
of acquiring private land in the public interest.
Mr. Simpson. If you already own half of the land in the
county, or two-thirds of the land in the county, and you
decided to acquire an inholding, there are no other lands
within that county which we can give up for private use?
Ms. Estill. Well, there certainly could be. And our typical
process, actually, we don't have an authority to dispose of
lands, just a general authority to dispose of lands. We can do
it through an exchange, which requires evaluation and
environmental review and so forth. But our disposal authority
is really quite limited.
Mr. Simpson. Is that the only way you can dispose of it, is
through exchange?
Ms. Estill. We can dispose of it. No, there are about five
different ways that we can dispose if it. The Schools Act, that
we talked about previously, is one. The Sisk Act. Each of those
has a limitation on the numbers of acres and the purposes for
which we could dispose of it.
So, yes, there are some authorities. We don't have a
general authority. It is usually a very time consuming process.
And what is problematic about going through a very lengthy
process--finding the appropriate vehicle, if there is one, and
then going through a lengthy process--is the opportunity to
acquire that. For example, inholding is open for a very short
window, and then it is closed. So the opportunity sometimes
dissipates.
Mr. Simpson. Could you tell me what the Administration has
requested in PILT funding this year?
Ms. Estill. I am sorry, I don't have that information. We
can certainly get it for you.
Mr. Simpson. OK. I appreciate that. Would the Forest
Service, just out of curiosity, consider waiving its sovereign
immunity for new land purchases and paying property taxes at
the level compared to those paid by private properties?
Ms. Estill. I would not be ready to answer that question
for the Administration today. I can get back with you on that.
Mr. Simpson. OK. I appreciate that. And I am just talking
about the addition of the new acquisitions of land.
Ms. Estill. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Simpson. And you know that there are a lot of private
organizations out there that work on that assumption, such as
the Nature Conservancy, that acquires lands but doesn't take it
off of the tax rolls.
Ms. Estill. Right.
Mr. Simpson. My time is just about up, but I want to thank
you, Commissioner McCurry, for coming. It is good to see you
again.
This is a county in my district, and he is doing a great
job making sure that we try and protect the property owners and
the budgets of those counties that are severely impacted by
Federal lands. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Inslee?
Mr. Inslee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just would like to ask Ms. Estill, how would this impact
any land exchange programs that the Service had? What would be
the impact on that program?
Ms. Estill. It would be a pretty dominant impact on those
land exchange programs; in that we would certainly have to go
back through consideration. I mean, currently it is policy,
even if it is not always done, that the forest supervisors and
the rangers and the staff at each local level consult with
county officials. And certainly, under the Sisk Act we are
required to have state approval for any land transactions
within a state, according to state law.
This could be pretty burdensome on the Federal process,
particularly if we go through hearings, for example. I have
heard not only from the Forest Service that it could be quite a
difficult situation, but from some private land owners, that
they really don't want their affairs subjected to a hearing and
their ability to sell the land scrutinized and decided by the
county government.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. Mr. McCurry, I appreciate your
making the trip here. And I am empathetic with your county's
financial situation of limited tax base. And you talked about
the services you have to provide associated with some of these
Federal lands, and I can understand that.
Do you think the best approach to this is a financial one,
to help your county deal with it; for instance, by increasing
PILT payments to help you financially weather this storm? Or is
it better just to have an absolute limitation of Federal
ownership in a particular county, as this bill would propose?
And I guess what I am really asking is, do you have a
philosophical objection to the Federal Government owning over a
certain percentage in any county? Or is it more just that this
imposes a financial burden on you, and if we fix this financial
burden, there shouldn't be any sort of ideological objection to
having a certain percentage in Federal ownership?
Mr. McCurry. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, I would probably
answer that two ways. The financial impact, in my current
elected capacity, is my primary concern; although as a private
citizen, philosophically, I believe that the Federal Government
should be careful about owning too much land.
As Congressman Simpson mentioned, we have a couple of
counties in our state that are over 95 percent Federally owned,
and that creates some additional problems. So as a citizen, I
philosophically am opposed to higher land ownership by the
Federal Government. But my primary concern here is the
financial impact on rural counties in Idaho.
Mr. Inslee. So let me ask you, if you had a choice between
increasing PILT payments to counties such as yours, or giving a
tax cut to the Enron Corporation of $254 million, what do you
think would be a more important policy in the United States?
Mr. McCurry. I think the Federal Government should pay its
fair share of taxes, Congressman.
Mr. Inslee. Well, let me just come back to my question. If
you had a choice to urge Congress to increase PILT payments or,
instead of doing that, to give Enron a $254 million tax cut,
what do you think would be more important, in your view?
Mr. McCurry. I believe that fully funding PILT is more
important to the local counties.
Mr. Inslee. I agree with you. We, you and I, are in the
minority on this issue. I will just give you that bad news in
that regard.
But it is a serious issue. Because I think you sit, like a
lot of counties do, with extreme financial problems associated
with this. And I agree with you, that we ought to increase
these payments. I tend to think that is a better approach than
an absolute limitation, some numerical limitation, associated
with Federal ownership, at least in my view. And I thank you,
and thank Mr. Chair.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Chairman, could I just ask, I am curious:
Is life truly a zero-sum game?
Mr. McInnis. Now, now, now, now, now. We are going to move
on.
Mr. Inslee. No, but the Federal budget is.
Mr. McInnis. Let's see, Mr. Otter?
Mr. Otter. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You
know, I think more important than the numbers is good faith.
And I think in Mr. Peterson's opening testimony--and this is my
first year here--the fact that those who would now decry where
money is being spent have not lived up to their obligation
throughout the history.
Otherwise, we would not be over $660 million behind in PILT
payments. We would not be over $48 million behind in Idaho in
IDEA education payments. We wouldn't be near the financial
problems that we have, had we kept promise, let alone worrying
about the figures. And I think if you make a promise, you ought
to worry more about keeping that promise than playing some
zero-sum game all the time.
One of the problems that we have, Ms. Estill, is not just
of ownership; although I will admit, in my 19-county district
in Idaho I have double-digit unemployment in six of those
counties, and all six of those counties are the ones where
there is a predominant ownership by the Federal Government, and
therefore control by the Federal Government, and therefore
confusion on land management.
One of the other major problems that we have is that we
find that much Federal ownership is disuse of land. In other
words, we have probably the predominant source of invasive
species. We have noxious weeds. And one of the things that
obviously concerns us is that most of the seed genesis for
noxious weeds that end up on state land or private land in
Idaho comes from the Federal land.
And it always concerns me that if I, as a private property
owner, have a patch of noxious weeds on my property, the local
government can come in and, if I refuse to eradicate that
problem, the local government can come in and eradicate it for
me, and then put a lien against my land that says, ``If you
ever want to transfer ownership of this land, you are going to
have to satisfy this financial obligation to the rest of the
community.''
And so it is most appropriate, I think, that this is called
the ``Good Neighbor Act''; if we could go much further in
making the Federal ownership be a good neighbor in terms of
what is happening on the land, as well as the ownership of the
land, and their inability or their lack of desire to be good
neighbors by paying their fair share of the taxes. And so it is
the very management problems that you were talking about that
this would cause. That is what is causing us some problems.
And I want to know what is present in the Administration's
philosophy to be a good neighbor, with or without this bill?
What about eradicating the noxious weeds? What about managing
the lands in such a way so that we are a good neighbor? Is
there any general purpose in the Administration, or do we just
want to buy more land because we have got an inholder and we
think we need to own it?
Ms. Estill. No, I think, clearly, we do want to be good
stewards of the land, and we do want to be good neighbors. We
are as concerned about things like noxious weeds spreading
outside, or southern pine beetle in the southern states
spreading outside from a national forest. And I know you have
heard from us many times that we feel somewhat hamstrung or
gridlocked, in analysis paralysis sometimes, to be able to get
out and do active management in a rapid kind of way. That is a
problem.
Then, just simply a scarcity of resources to put on the
ground, which any agency will probably argue is a
consideration. But we would like very much to be better
neighbors than we are. And I think every one of our district
rangers who live in those local communities certainly is
sensitive to the needs of local people, and wants to do the
best that they can.
Mr. Otter. Well, my time is about up, but I just want to
tell you how disappointed I was in the Administration during
the discussions on CARA and their mute response to the problems
that we have; where we admitted, and in this Committee, we have
got $1,200,000,000 in backlog maintenance on noxious and
invasive weeds on Federal ground through all of the agencies.
We have got over $10 billion in maintenance that is due in
order to bring Federal facilities and Federal lands up to the
standards that the Federal Government imposes on everybody else
in Clean Water, Clean Air, the ADA, all of the other Federal
mandates, that the Federal Government then absolves itself from
any--It is such a good idea for everybody else, except a
Federal agency.
And I just want to tell you how frustrating it is to have
the Administration now come in here and tell us that, even
though while we were going through all the debate on CARA and
$1 billion--$450,000,000 for the Federal Government,
$450,000,000 for the states--to go out and buy up more land;
and then resist, or at least stand silent, while we ask, ``Why
don't you just bring your facilities and bring your lands that
you now own up to the standards that you are requiring of
states and that you are requiring of the private land owner?''
And I guess that is the end of my statement, because my
light is red. And Craig, welcome to Washington, D.C., I think.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Otter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Udall? Any other questions on this side?
Mr. Udall?
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just to review a little bit of the background with you, and
then ask a couple of questions, the total acreage under the
management of the BLM, the Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife,
and National Park Service, has actually decreased from about
700 million acres in 1964, to 60,200,000 acres. So we are
talking about 80 million acres less of Federal land from '64 to
'94, in 30 years. And that is in the GAO report.
Of the four agencies that acquired land in that 30-year
period, about half of that was done by either gift or donation,
or by exchange. So on the acquisition, it is a little bit over
10 million acres. So almost half of that. So we are only
talking about five million that was actually done, where we
have gone out and there was an acquisition.
I am wondering how many circumstances are in your states,
circumstances or cases that you can point to, where a land
acquisition went forward without support of the local
congressional delegation and against the wishes of local county
officials? Were there a lot of those circumstances? I mean, is
that what we are trying to solve with this bill?
You know, the local congressional delegations running over
the county? Or what is the big problem here that we are trying
to address?
Ms. Estill. Well, as I think most of you are aware, most of
the acquisitions come through LWCF, and they usually are
congressionally earmarked. So there has been ample public
discussion before the appropriations arrive at all levels,
typically.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. And in the new CARA bill, doesn't
it, have many requirements, in terms of local notification and
involving local people? And there are many protections that we
put in there to make sure that there weren't problems at the
local level. You are aware of those, I guess?
Ms. Estill. There certainly are measures. In fact, in
virtually all of the bills, there are measures that require
public notification. Again, how much notification and how
quickly it goes out, and the individual land owner who might
wish to dispose of his property to the Federal Government,
becomes a sensitive issue. But typically, all of the
acquisitions have been subjected to public scrutiny before they
go through.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. And what you said earlier is that
land exchanges would be severely hampered by this.
Ms. Estill. Well, yes. It would certainly put more process
and requirement on us. And again, as I mentioned, there is some
unease that I am hearing from in the field about how the
private land owners and those who acquire land on behalf of the
Federal Government would feel about having to go before a
public hearing. So it cuts both ways, it seems.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Craig, do you have any egregious
examples of where the congressional delegation has run over
local folks in acquisitions in your state?
Mr. McCurry. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, I don't have any
examples where our congressional delegation has run over people
in our state. We're pretty pleased with our congressional
delegation from Idaho.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. So what are we trying to fix here?
What is the problem?
Mr. McCurry. Well, there are instances in my county and in
neighboring counties in the past few years where some of the
government officials in charge of these Federally owned lands,
or acquiring these Federally owned lands, seem to push the
limits of public notification as far as they can push them. In
other words, the publication may or may not be in a very
conspicuous spot; or the time lines are pushed to the extreme.
And we have a lot of problems with, at the last moment,
citizens being asked for comment without time to prepare, when
we have a government-funded agency that has people that are
schooled in these things, having ample time to prepare.
We also object to the fact that local government officials,
as I mentioned in my testimony, are treated as stakeholders,
and not as a government agency. We testify along with everybody
else as a stakeholder, and not as a government agency that
should be treated as a partner in this; when we are the elected
officials closest to the people in those areas. And that is one
of the things that we object to.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Do you have a specific case you are
talking about?
Mr. McCurry. I can get that information, Congressman. I
don't have it right now off the top of my head.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. You don't?
Mr. McCurry. But I recall the instances.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Peterson. [Presiding.] The Chairman temporarily left
and gave me the gavel. I think it was my turn anyway, so I will
proceed.
I would like to comment that there is a huge difference
between public notification--and you talked about sometimes
that being kind of at the very end of the process--and
approval. I mean, those are two different things. We think,
when your predominant ownership is the Federal Government
through these four agencies, local governments when it is two-
thirds ought to have approval; not notification, approval.
Because you are a huge stakeholder. You are the big dog.
You are the big property owner. You control the area. And to
expand even further, local folks ought to have approval. I will
be on the side of the local folks any time.
In speaking about the decrease that a previous speaker
spoke about in Federal land, here is the explanation. Between
'64 and '94, the Federal estate decreased. This decrease,
however, was only in lands managed by the Bureau of Land
Management, with a substantial amount of lands being
transferred to Alaska and Native Alaskans. It still went into
public ownership. They pay no taxes.
The amount of lands managed by the Forest Service, Fish and
Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, all increased
between '64 and '94. And in fact, the amount of land managed by
the National Park Service increased 179 percent, and the amount
of land managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service increased by
285 percent over the 30-year period. This increase in land
managed by the Federal agencies has led to conflicts in certain
areas between the Federal land managers and local governments.
Our bill doesn't stop the Federal Government from buying
anything. It just says, ``If it is 50 percent, you have this
process; if it is excess of 67 percent, you have this
process.'' And it is about local Governor approval, or local
county commissioner approval.
Now, personally, I have been involved at all levels of
government: I have served in borough government; I have served
in the state legislature; I have served in the state senate;
and I have served in the Federal Government. And I want to tell
you, the power belongs at the local level. You don't want a
Federal Government that has dominant control or power over you.
I have worked in all of them.
And then the Ranking Member talked about comparing PILT
payments to some tax cuts for somebody. But let me tell you
what PILT payments compete with. I am on the Appropriations
Interior Subcommittee. They get an amount allocation. And you
know what prevents PILT payments from going up every year? Land
acquisition funds.
Every year, we allocate from a half a billion to a billion
dollars in land acquisition funds. Most of the Interior budget
is set. It is agencies; it is things that are pretty constant.
There is a little bit of money at the top--they call that the
cream--that can get moved around. That is land acquisition. It
wins every time.
We will buy land before we will pay our taxes, because we
have been able to get away with it, as a government. We have
never paid our taxes. Thirty-three cents an acre, which was
last year's payment--it has only been 24 cents an acre before
that--is a travesty to the local folks.
In Pennsylvania, the State owns a lot of land; more land
than most states. One of the last bills I got passed was, we
now pay $1.20, flat. Part of it goes to the school district;
part of it goes to the county; and part of it goes to local
governments. It is allocated. We pay $1.20 for every acre.
Now, the game commission was very unhappy about that, but
they were buying a lot of land. It is fair that they pay their
fair share of taxes. And if the Federal Government paid its
fair share of taxes, we wouldn't be holding this hearing today.
Because what we are doing is, these agencies are growing,
and the amount of land outside the tax base is growing. States
are buying; the Federal Government is buying. The only reason
our total aggregate went down is, we transferred it to states
and to tribes.
So I think that this whole issue today is about to make
sensitivity. I think it should be less than 50 percent where
some rules come in, but I tried to be fair. It only affects 177
counties currently, out of 3,066. We are saying, ``Be sensitive
where you own a lot of land.'' If a Federal agency can't be
sensitive in 177 counties, then I think they need to have a
brain transplant.
Mr. McInnis. Any other questions? Mr. Holt?
Mr. Holt. I thank the Chair.
First, before I begin, I would ask the Chair if we might
have permission to insert in the record at this point a letter
and a statement; a letter dated April 8th, to the Chairman and
the Ranking Member, from Mr. David Alberswerth, Director of the
Bureau of Land Management Program at the Wilderness Society in
Washington, D.C.; and also, a statement dated April 10th from
the Western Land Group in Denver, Colorado.
Mr. McInnis. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information submitted for the record by Mr. Holt
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.021
Statement of Western Land Group, Inc.
in opposition to H.R. 3962
The Good Neighbor Act of 2002
submitted to the
U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
April 10, 2002
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
Thank you for inviting us to comment on H.R. 3962. Western Land
Group, Inc. is a small public lands consulting firm based in Denver,
Colorado, which specializes in assisting public and private clients who
wish to sell or exchange lands to the United States. Since our
establishment in 1981, we have successfully assisted a variety of
clients in completing more than 100 land exchanges and Land and Water
Conservation Fund sales to the Forest Service, BLM and Park Service,
including assisting on numerous legislated land exchanges.
While we appreciate the intention of H.R. 3962 that land exchanges
and sales be closely coordinated with units of local and state
government, we believe that close coordination and consultation already
occurs, and that many of the provisions of H.R. 3962 unnecessarily
duplicate or complicate existing law and regulation.
As the Subcommittee is well aware, the ownership of property comes
with certain so-called ``property rights''. One of those property
rights is the right to sell or exchange lands to the U.S. Government on
a willing-seller, willing-buyer basis. Many of our clients own lands
within the National Forest, BLM or National Park Systems, and because
of deeply felt feelings for the land, wish to convey it to one of the
Federal agencies, so that it can forever be preserved for open space
and public enjoyment. Therefore, sale in the private sector is not an
option they wish to pursue.
H.R. 3962 would complicate private landowners efforts to convey
private land to the United States by adding new steps to the already
time consuming and complex sale or exchange process. For example, all
Congressional (legislated) land exchanges and sales involve hearings,
markups and the opportunity for floor debate in either the authorizing
or appropriating Committee processes, on in floor consideration in both
the House and Senate. In short, they receive careful Congressional
scrutiny. The process is a deliberate one, and provides ample
opportunity for input from the Senators or Congressmen representing the
areas concerned. Additional notification and review is unnecessary.
Further, Forest Service and BLM exchange regulations (36 CFR 254.8
for the Forest Service, and 43 CFR 2201.2 for the BLM) already require
notification to States, Counties, Congressional delegations and the
general public at the beginning of the land exchange process, so that
there is no need to legislate on the matter. In addition, land
exchanges that are processed by the Federal agencies in-house, must
undergo a full NEPA analysis, which must be accompanied by public
notification, meetings and/or public hearings. Thus, as we have
indicated, the land exchange or sale process is already very complex,
and additional steps and protections are not needed.
We also strongly object to giving Governors or Counties effective
veto power over Federal sales or land exchanges. Governor or County
approval is not required for private sector land sales or exchanges,
and should not be required for Federal transactions. The consultation
and coordination with State and local government required by existing
law and policy is extensive, and is sufficient.
A few additional points:
The 97% exchange value criteria of subparagraph 2(a)(1)(B)
of H.R. 3962 conflicts with the existing FLPMA requirement (43 U.S.C.
1716(b)) that lands to be exchanged must be within 25% of each other in
value. Finding exchange lands that are as close in value as 3% of each
other would be extremely difficult in most cases, and we believe the
existing FLPMA requirement of 25% is well advised and realistic. The
97% requirement would significantly reduce the level of flexibility
necessary to complete a land exchange and would reduce the ability of
the agencies to use this important tool to accomplish land tenure
objectives.
Requiring that exchange lands be mostly in the same county
is not realistic in some cases. Many land exchanges involve lands in
more than one county because the lands desired for acquisition by the
Forest Service and/or BLM may not be in the exact same county as the
lands being disposed, or because county jurisdictional lines do not
always follow lines that make sense from a watershed, topographic or
ecological standpoint. So, the best exchange may involve giving up
lands that are non-essential for public use in one county in order to
acquire publicly beneficial lands in another. Again, this and other
provisions of H.R. 3962 would unwisely limit the use of land exchanges
to serve the public interest.
We believe the House and Senate Appropriations Committees
do an excellent job of soliciting input on land sales from the various
state Congressional delegations. In fact, in our experience, it is
virtually unheard of for the Appropriations Committees to proceed with
an LWCF project without approval from the Senators or Congressmen
involved. Therefore, we see no need to for additional approval
procedures.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, for the reasons outlined above, we
believe that H.R. 3962 is unnecessary and unwise legislation, and urge
that it not be enacted. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
______
Mr. McInnis. Also, if the member would provide members
copies, and would you give me a copy of that?
Mr. Holt. We will be happy to do that.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you. You may proceed.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would say, first of all, that I had never heard a real
answer to Mr. Udall's question of: Well, what is the problem
here? Can anybody show us some specific examples where this
bill would have prevented some egregious behavior? And so I
would ask the sponsor of this legislation to compile for us a
list of cases where the Congressional action to acquire land
has run roughshod over local concerns.
Now, I do understand the burden that some local
jurisdictions feel. And I think many of us would say the PILT
payments probably are insufficient. I am not sure that this is
the time to go into a discourse on the problems that we face in
Congress in so many areas, and the disconnect between the
budget resolution process and the authorization process and the
appropriations process. I wish we could get the three of those
in much better coordination in a lot of areas, including the
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, special education,
as well as PILT.
But it seems to me that this bill is really misdirected to
solving that problem. Perhaps this is motivated by some
philosophical concern that the Federal Government simply
shouldn't own so much land and we shouldn't have national parks
and national forests. And if so, we should debate it on those
grounds; but not on the basis of PILT payments.
But I do have a specific question for the Forest Service.
Your testimony, Ms. Estill, says that H.R. 3962 could limit the
ability of the Forest Service to acquire lands to meet the
purposes of several statutes. Could you explain more
specifically how this would limit the ability of the Forest
Service to acquire lands?
Let me, though, before I ask you to do that, point out that
I don't want us to get sidetracked on a myth here. And the myth
is that the Federal Government is acquiring more and more and
more land here. I mean, data from the BLM shows that there not
only has been no significant increase in the total amount of
land owned by the Federal Government; but in fact, this total
has decreased in recent years.
You know, Federal land holdings between '79 and '89
decreased by more than 75 million acres. So I don't want us to
get too far on this, away on a myth here that the Federal
Government is just getting more and more and more. But in those
places where the Federal Government does seek to acquire lands,
how would this bill limit the ability of the Forest Service to
do so?
Ms. Estill. Well, typically, our acquisitions, our list of
acquisitions, the things that we desire to acquire, come
through our land management and planning process, which you
know is a very open process with a great deal of public input.
And then, typically, what we like to do is strike while the
iron is hot, either through a land trust or the Nature
Conservancy or someone else acquiring on our behalf, until we
get an appropriation; or just through a trade. And many of our
acquisitions also are done through land trades.
And what this would do, in fact, would require, in those
counties that have 66 percent or greater, that we would go
through a public hearing process at the county level and
actually acquire county approval before we could move forward.
So it would be a process that would add more process; and in
fact, in some cases we would lose the opportunity to acquire
the land, and it just appears once.
Mr. Holt. Well, since my time has expired here, perhaps the
Forest Service, for the record, would like to extend the
testimony a little bit more about how this would limit the
ability to meet the purposes of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act, and the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act, and
the Forest Management Act, and so forth.
Ms. Estill. Certainly.
Mr. Peterson. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Holt. My time has expired. I would be happy to yield if
I had it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McInnis. We need to move on, because we have another
bill, and I need to complete this before noon, and we are not
making very good progress. But I do want to point out, Mr.
Holt, you made a comment about a decrease in Federal land.
There was an earlier paragraph. I just want to make sure of the
clarification. The only significant decrease of Federal land
holdings was the Bureau of Land Management, and that was
primarily transfers to the Native Americans.
And I just want to make sure we are all clear on this.
Because if you take a look at the acquisitions by Federal
agencies, they have gone up substantially. With that one
exception or trade or giving land to the Native Americans, I
guess the testimony would kind of give the implication that the
Government is giving away all this land. We are not. We are
acquiring land by the thousands of acres. So I just want that
clarified.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McInnis. Sure, I'd be happy to. I think we should
clarify this.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. The land that goes to the Native
corporations is going out into the private sector. So I mean, I
don't know to argue that land that is going to Alaskan natives
is somehow now public land.
And the second point is, Mr. Chairman, that it seems to me
that then the argument you are making is: The increases
happened in parks, so we have more parks, which are very much
supported by the American people. So if the purpose of this
bill is saying, ``We don't want any more parks,'' then let's
announce it, that that is the purpose of the bill.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Udall, I don't think that is the purpose
of the bill.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Well, I don't know where the bill is
directed.
Mr. McInnis. I control the time, Mr. Udall.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Well, OK.
Mr. McInnis. I control the time. I just want this very
clarified, because I don't want it misleading.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Maybe you need to come to the State
of Colorado, and I'll show you about Federal land acquisition.
Maybe you need to go to some of the other mountain states,
perhaps even New Mexico, and find out about land acquisition.
You are talking about one specific example, and that deals with
the Alaskan Native Tribes.
Mr. McInnis. I want to make sure that we have it very
clear, especially to our listening audience here, that there
has not been a significant decrease--in fact, no decrease at
all--with most of those Federal agencies, with that one
specific example with Alaska and the natives.
Now, in regards to the bill, I was addressing the specific
point. The merits of the bill can stand on their own.
We will go ahead and proceed. Any further witnesses?
Everybody on this side? Well, we need to move on. I am giving
everybody an opportunity.
Mr. Otter. Mr. Chairman, I neglected in my initial round to
ask that a letter that I have received from other county
commissioners and other counties in Idaho be submitted for the
record, on the loss of private ground.
Mr. McInnis. If there is no objection, so ordered.
[The letter submitted for the record by Mr. Otter follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.023
Mr. Peterson. Can I make just one quick statement?
Mr. McInnis. You can close it up.
Mr. Peterson. OK. There is an implication here that we are
against land acquisitions. We are saying in 171 counties.
If the gentleman from Colorado would listen--from New
Mexico would listen? Yes. OK.
But we are talking about 171 counties, out of 3,066. What
we are saying is, if you are going to acquire land, and you
don't want to get approval locally, you have got almost 3,000
counties you have to do it. Do some of it in New Jersey, where
you may need more public land.
We have states in the West that are totally hamstrung with
public ownership. The have no economies left, because of public
policies by agencies, who are people who are not elected. And
we are saying, when you own half of it, then you go through a
process to buy more. There is no process asked in all of those
other counties.
Mr. Holt. If the gentleman would yield?
Mr. Peterson. I would be glad to.
Mr. Holt. You know, in fact, there is a process. Whether
the Federal Government owns 50 percent or less, or more, there
is a process to go through. And I am not sure why this
arbitrary cutoff at 50 percent.
And indeed, I would like to take you up on this. New Jersey
would jump at the chance to have more LWCF money for land
acquisition.
Mr. Peterson. Raise your own money. You know, take it all.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Peterson. But I mean, I want to tell you something. If
you think Federal agencies are sensitive to locals, think
again. Do you think the Fish and Wildlife Service is sensitive
to local governments? Come on! They are not sensitive. They buy
land--
Mr. Holt. That is one of your--
Mr. Peterson. No, let me finish. They buy land without us
even approving it. The Fish and Wildlife Service is the only
agency in the world that gets no legislative approval to buy
land. That is an outrage. That ought to be stopped. No agency
should be able to buy land without legislative approval. And
the Fish and Wildlife Service does it every year.
They are getting us into hock all over this country, where
we are going to have to maintain land, and we never put the
money in. Every one of these agencies has a huge maintenance
backlog, because we take those few dollars at the top of the
Interior budget to buy more land, instead of maintaining what
we have. And you have almost 2,080-some counties that there's
no additional requirements.
All we are saying, we just want you to have a process to
increase the sensitivity to the impact at the local level.
That's all this is about. It only affects less than 6 percent
of the counties; 94 percent, nothing changes. It is not
catastrophic, in any way, positive or negative. It is just
asking the Federal Government to be sensitive.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. I think the members
have been allowed to vent here, and it is good. But we need to
move on, as a courtesy to Mr. Acevedo-Vila.
Mr. Holt. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McInnis. Not on this bill. We need to move on, so that
our fellow member, as a courtesy, has time to present his bill.
Mr. McInnis. I appreciate your patience. I guess we have
one witness, is that right, on the next panel for your bill?
Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Yes.
Mr. McInnis. And that is Kristen McDonald, Associate
Director, Wild and Scenic Rivers, with the American Rivers. Mr.
Acevedo-Vila, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. ANIBAL ACEVEDO-VILA, REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO
Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for
this opportunity.
Many of you are familiar with the Caribbean National
Forest, commonly known in Puerto Rico as ``El Yunque.'' If you
are not familiar, I encourage you to visit El Yunque on your
next visit to Puerto Rico. I am sure you will agree that El
Yunque, the only tropical rain forest within the U.S. National
Forest System, is a natural wonder and a unique resource that
we must preserve and protect forever. El Yunque is the only
managed rain forest on Earth. And with this distinction comes
heightened responsibility, in my opinion, to fully protect this
important resource.
The enactment of this bill, along with the wilderness
legislation, H.R. 3955, approved by the Full Committee last
month, will help ensure that the natural integrity of El Yunque
is preserved not only for Puerto Ricans, but also for the one
million annual visitors to the CNF for generations to come.
H.R. 3954 will preserve and protect three rivers that flow
within the boundaries of El Yunque. It is the intent of the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 to preserve rivers and
sections thereof to protect the water quality of such rivers,
and to fulfill other vital national conservation purposes. It
is within this intent that I have introduced this bill. And I
am fully committed to the preservation of these beautiful
rivers.
While there are additional rivers within El Yunque that
have received wild and scenic designation recommendations, the
areas of these rivers are covered under H.R. 3955, which was
approved by the Full Committee last month, through wilderness
designation, or are within the existing ``Bano de Oro'' natural
area. Therefore, I have followed recommendations to focus on
rivers running outside of the proposed El Toro Wilderness Area,
and outside of existing natural areas.
The three rivers that will be designated under this Act
were all recommended for inclusion under the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System by the revised land and resources
management plan for the CNF, approved April 17, 1997. This
management plan was the basis for the introduction of this
bill, and I ask for your support in its consideration.
The three rivers include the Rio Mamayes, the Rio Icacos,
and the Rio de la Mina. All three have outstanding
characteristics, and make up an integral part of the experience
when visiting the forest.
The Rio Mamayes offers outstanding scenic, biological, and
recreational values to visitors. It flows over large boulders
and numerous waterfalls, forming enjoyable pools. Trails run
along gorges that descend through the forest. The water quality
along the upper segment is optimum, with no interference from
human encroachment.
The Rio Mamayes provides important habitat for the Puerto
Rican Parrot and Puerto Rican Boa, both endangered species.
Furthermore, the endangered Broad-Winged and Sharp-Skinned
Hawks and the threatened Peregrine Falcon are also known to use
this area. The Mamayes system enjoys the highest natural
aquatic diversity and species richness of any forest watershed.
The Mamayes remains the only uninterrupted, free-flowing river
in Puerto Rico.
The Rio de la Mina is judged as eligible based on its
outstanding scenic, recreational, biological, and historic
values. Like the Mamayes, the Rio de la Mina descends over
boulders and waterfalls, forming rapids and pools. Trails
parallel the river and provide for numerous recreation areas.
The most spectacular waterfalls in the forest exist along
the Rio de la Mina. These falls, known as ``La Mina Falls,''
play an important role in promoting Puerto Rico as a prime
vacation destination. The water quality is good within the
proposed designation area. The Rio de la Mina also provides
habitat for endangered animal and plant species.
The Rio Icacos is judged as eligible based on its
outstanding scenic, historic value, and ecological values. The
Rio Icacos has some of the most varied terrain of El Yunque's
rivers. Near the headwaters, the gradient is less steep than
further downstream, where it also descends over boulders and
waterfalls.
In the upper section the stream bed exhibits a unique sandy
bed due to its origin in the upper, flatter section. The palm
forest is very striking along the bank; more so than in any
other areas of the forest. Water quality is high within the
proposed designation area. Endangered animal and plant species
are present within the proposed area.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on these wild
and scenic river designations in El Yunque. Please let me know
when and if you will visit the Caribbean National Forest.
Puerto Ricans take great pride in El Yunque, and I assure you
that it is worth the trip to visit. And I think you all have
copies of some of the pictures of the scenic beauty of the
three rivers. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Acevedo-Vila follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Anibal Acevedo-Vila, a Delegate in Congress
from Puerto Rico, on H.R. 3954
I want to thank Chairman McInnis, Ranking Member Inslee and all of
my colleagues on the Subcommittee for this opportunity to testify in
support of the Caribbean National Forest Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of
2002.
Many of you are familiar with the Caribbean National Forest,
commonly known in Puerto Rico as ``El Yunque.'' Should you not yet be
familiar, I encourage you to visit El Yunque upon your next visit to
the Puerto Rico. I am sure you will agree that El Yunque, the only
tropical rain forest within the U.S. National Forest System, is a
natural wonder and unique resource that we must preserve and protect
forever. El Yunque is the only managed rain forest on earth, and with
this distinction comes heightened responsibility in my opinion, to
fully protect this important resource. The enactment of this bill,
along with the wilderness legislation (H.R. 3955) approved by the
Committee last month, will help ensure that the natural integrity of El
Yunque is preserved for the 1 million annual visitors to the CNF for
generations to come.
H.R. 3954 would preserve and protect three rivers that flow within
the boundaries of El Yunque. It is the intent of the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act of 1968 to preserve rivers and sections thereof to protect
the water quality of such rivers and to fulfill other vital national
conservation purposes. It is within this intent that I have introduced
this bill, and I am fully committed to the preservation of these
beautiful rivers. While there are additional rivers within El Yunque
that have received wild and scenic designation recommendations, the
areas of these rivers are covered under H.R. 3955 through wilderness
designation, or are within the existing Bano de Oro Natural Area.
Therefore, I have followed recommendations to focus on rivers running
outside of the proposed El Toro Wilderness Area and outside of existing
natural areas.
The three rivers that would be designated under this act were all
recommended for inclusion under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System by the revised land and resource management plan for the CNF,
approved April 17, 1997. This management plan was the basis for the
introduction of this bill, and I ask for your support during its
consideration.
The three rivers include the Rio Mameyes, the Rio Icacos, and the
Rio de La Mina. All three have outstanding characteristics and make up
an integral part of the experience when visiting the forest.
The Rio Mameyes offers outstanding scenic, biological and
recreational values to visitors. It flows over large boulders and
numerous waterfalls, forming enjoyable pools. Trails run along gorges
that descend through the forest. The water quality along the upper
segment is optimum, with no interference from human encroachment.
The Rio Mameyes provides important habitat for the Puerto Rican
Parrot and Puerto Rican Boa, both endangered species. Furthermore, the
endangered Broad-winged and Sharp-shinned Hawks, and the threatened
Peregrine Falcon, are also known to use this area. The Mameyes system
enjoys the highest natural aquatic diversity and species richness of
any forest watershed. The Mameyes remains the only uninterrupted, free
flowing river in Puerto Rico.
The Rio de la Mina is judged as eligible based on its outstanding
scenic, recreation, biological and historic values. Like the Mameyes,
the Rio de La Mina descends over boulders and waterfalls, forming
rapids and pools. Trails parallel the river and provide for numerous
recreation areas. The most spectacular waterfalls in the forest exist
along the Rio de la Mina. These falls, known as La Mina Falls, play an
important role in promoting Puerto Rico as a prime vacation
destination. The water quality is good within the proposed designation
area. The Rio de la Mina also provides habitat for endangered animal
and plant species.
The Rio Icacos is judged as eligible based on its outstanding
scenic, historic, cultural and ecological values. The Rio Icacos has
some of the most varied terrain of any of El Yunque's rivers. Near the
headwaters, the gradient is less steep than further downstream where it
also descends over boulders and waterfalls. In the upper section, the
streambed exhibits a unique sandy bed due to its origin in the upper,
flatter section. The palm forest is very striking along the bank, more
so than in any other area of the forest. Water quality is high within
the proposed designation area. Endangered animal and plant species are
present within the proposed area.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on these wild and
scenic river designations in El Yunque. Please let me know when and if
you will visit the Caribbean National Forest. Puerto Ricans take great
pride in El Yunque, and I assure you it is worth the trip to visit.
______
Mr. McInnis. Congressman, in the picture, is that you in
the swimming suit?
Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Excuse me?
Mr. McInnis. Is that you in the swimming suit in the
picture you gave us?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Let me check. [Laughs.] No. Although I
have swum there.
Mr. McInnis. OK. We will proceed to the witness. Ms.
McDonald, we appreciate your coming today. You have 5 minutes.
Thank you for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF KRISTEN McDONALD, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, WILD AND
SCENIC RIVERS PROGRAM, AMERICAN RIVERS, INC.
Ms. McDonald. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the Caribbean
National Forest Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. With your
permission, I will summarize my comments now, and ask that my
entire testimony be submitted to the record.
My name is Kristen McDonald. I am the Associate Director of
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Program for American Rivers, a
national, non-profit river conservation organization. Since our
founding in 1973, American Rivers has worked with state and
local groups and local, state, and Federal agencies to protect
rivers using the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
I would like to thank Commissioner Acevedo-Vila for
introducing this landmark bill to protect three outstanding
rivers in the Caribbean National Forest as wild and scenic
rivers. These rivers would not only be the first wild and
scenic rivers designated in Puerto Rico; they would be the
first tropical rivers in the system as a whole.
As you know, one of the goals of Congress in passing the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1968 was to create a system of
rivers that were representative of the Nation's diversity of
rivers. By designating these rivers, the 107th Congress would
make a significant mark in the history of the wild and scenic
rivers system.
The Rio Mamayes is the only free-flowing river that remains
in Puerto Rico, and is known for its beautiful waterfall. It
supports the highest aquatic biodiversity of any river in the
forest, with all five species of native fish, all nine species
of the unusual freshwater shrimp, and the only freshwater crab.
The Rio Icacos is remarkable for its unusual geology and
endangered and sensitive tropical plant species. The upper part
of the river has sandy-bottomed pools and is sinuous and lower
in gradient than the other rivers in the forest. It is known to
provide habitat for the sensitive Burrow Coqui, a rare tree
frog that only occurs in the high cloud forest of Puerto Rico.
The Rio de la Mina was likely named after a mid-1800's
Spanish gold mining complex, the remains of which are within
the river's scenic corridor. The Rio de la Mina is a reminder
that these rivers are part of one of the oldest protected areas
in the Western Hemisphere. They were set aside in 1876 for
special protection, and there are still 1,000-year-old trees
along the banks of these rivers.
Unfortunately, other things in the forest have changed over
time. The Puerto Rican Parrot, which used to flourish
throughout the island, is now in danger of becoming extinct.
And the some 40 birds left in the wild all live within the
Caribbean National Forest. Designating these rivers would help
protect the last areas where the Puerto Rican Parrot has a
chance of recovery.
These rivers would make excellent additions to the national
wild and scenic rivers system. They are free-flowing; possess
outstanding scenic, historic, cultural, geologic, wildlife, and
research values; and there is substantial local support in
Puerto Rico for their designation.
We do have two concerns with the bill as currently drafted,
but the Commissioner has drafted an amendment to the bill that
will alleviate our concerns. The amendment will correct Section
2(c) dealing with the establishment of boundaries, to be
consistent with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
Second, the amendment will correct Section 2(d), ``Special
Management Considerations,'' to ensure that any scientific
research facilities do not harm the free flow or the values for
which the rivers have been designated.
In conclusion, I would like to point out that the Caribbean
National Forest is the source of drinking water for 20 percent
of Puerto Rico's population. By designating the headwater areas
of these rivers, Congress will ensure that existing water uses
can be maintained and that future water use is balanced with
the need to protect valuable tropical habitat, scientific
research sites, and recreational resources.
Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McDonald follows:]
Statement of Kristen McDonald, Wild and Scenic Rivers Program Associate
Director, American Rivers, Inc., on H.R. 3954
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on H.R. 3954, the Caribbean National Forest Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act. My name is Kristen McDonald, and I am the
Associate Director of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Program for American
Rivers. American Rivers is a national river conservation organization
with over 30,000 members. Since its founding in 1973, American Rivers
has worked with our grassroots partners to protect rivers under the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and has actively assisted Federal agencies,
states and local groups with river conservation efforts.
I would like to thank Resident Commissioner An!bal Acevedo-Vila for
introducing H.R. 3954, which would designate three outstanding rivers
in the Caribbean National Forest in Puerto Rico as components of the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. These rivers would not only be
the first wild and scenic rivers designated in Puerto Rico, they would
be the first tropical rivers in the System as a whole. One of the goals
of Congress in passing the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1968 was to
create a system of rivers that were representative of the nation's
diversity of rivers, and by designating the Rio Mameyes, Rio Icacas,
and Rio de la Mina, this Congress would make a significant mark in the
history of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
The Rio Mameyes is the only free-flowing river that remains in
Puerto Rico. The portion found eligible and suitable for designation is
entirely within the National Forest boundary, from its headwaters in
the Bano de Oro Research National Area to the Forest Boundary. This
remote area is known for its beautiful waterfalls, and hiking trails
and swimming holes make it a popular recreational destination. The Rio
Mameyes has unique stands of buttress-rooted trees that are uncommon
not only in Puerto Rico but throughout the Caribbean. In addition, the
river provides important habitat for the endangered Puerto Rican
Parrot, Puerto Rican Boa, and Broad-winged and Sharp-shinned Hawks.
The Rio Icacas is remarkable for its variety of terrain, unusual
geology, and numerous endangered and sensitive tropical plant species.
The upper part of the river has sandy-bottomed pools and is sinuous and
lower in gradient than the other rivers in the Forest. It is known to
provide habitat for the sensitive Burrow coqu!, a rare tree frog that
only occurs in the cloudforest area of the National Forest.
The picnic areas in the headwaters of the Rio de la Mina are the
most popular tourist destinations within the Caribbean National Forest;
in addition La Mina Falls is a spectacular scenic attraction and a
popular hiking destination. The river was likely named after a mid-
1800s Spanish gold mining complex, the remains of which are within the
scenic corridor; the old mine shaft and some of the homestead sites can
still be enjoyed by hikers along the La Mina Trail. The Puerto Rican
parrot, Puerto Rican Boa, and two endangered plant species are known to
occur along the Rio de la Mina.
All three of these rivers are important to the survival of the
endangered Puerto Rican Parrot. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates
there are only about 100 known Puerto Rican Parrots left today, and the
40 of these that live in the wild all live in the Caribbean National
Forest. It is the last protected area where these birds have a chance
at recovery. Protecting these three river corridors would help ensure
desired tree habitat for the parrot is left intact.
The three rivers are eligible and suitable for designation, and the
Forest Service has demonstrated there is substantial local support for
their designation. American Rivers supports passing H.R. 3954 but we do
have three concerns with the bill as currently drafted and we are
working with the Regional Commissioner's staff to address these issues.
First, section 2(c) dealing with establishment of boundaries should
be corrected to be consistent with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act,
which states that boundaries must be established within one year of
designation, not ``as soon as practicable,'' as currently required in
the bill. This is an important correction, as boundary establishment
will determine the area that the Forest Service must protect and
enhance as a wild and scenic river, which must average , mile from the
ordinary high water mark on each side of the river.
Our second concern involves section 2(d), ``Special Management
Considerations.'' While American Rivers agrees that the research
activities within the Caribbean National Forest are vital to the
American people, installation and maintenance of such facilities, if
they occur within designated wild and scenic rivers, must be consistent
with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. In particular, we would suggest
amending the bill to require the Forest Service to ensure that any such
facilities do not harm the free flow or values for which the rivers
have been designated.
Finally, the bill should include an authorization of appropriations
as necessary for the Forest Service to protect and enhance the Rio
Mameyes, Rio de la Mina, and Rio Icacas Wild and Scenic Rivers.
In conclusion I would like to point out that the Caribbean National
Forest is the source of drinking water for 20% of Puerto Rico's
population. There are already a dozen dams in the National Forest that
divert water for public use. By designating the headwater areas of the
Rio Mameyes and Rio Icacas as wild and scenic rivers, Congress will
ensure that these existing water uses can be maintained and that future
pressure to build more dams in the area is balanced with the need to
protect valuable tropical habitat, valuable scientific research sites,
and recreational resources.
I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony to the
Subcommittee today.
______
Mr. McInnis. Thank you. I will begin the questions. First
of all, since I am not familiar, Congressman, with the
boundaries, just the headwaters are protected under the wild
and scenic designation? So that your diversion points for the
drinking water will not be impacted in a negative fashion by
this bill? Is that correct?
Mr. Acevedo-Vila. That is right. And I can assure the
Committee that in the process of drafting the bill, we
discussed it with everybody down there in Puerto Rico, just to
be sure that water supply and all of the needs for the
population were protected. Yes.
Mr. McInnis. And that would also apply in the case of low
water flow?
Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Yes.
Mr. McInnis. For example, right now in the West we are
experiencing a huge drought.
Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Yes.
Mr. McInnis. Fine. And Ms. Estill, how does the wild and
scenic river designation modify a river's uses? Can you help me
on that a little, or do you have that background? I know you
have got some background in Puerto Rico, so you could even
apply it to this, as well; but just generally.
Ms. Estill. Well, it protects the outstanding values of the
river. It would prohibit any additional structures going in the
river; would not in any way limit recreation use, unless it
started contaminating the streams.
Mr. McInnis. Would it allow repair of existing structures?
Ms. Estill. Yes, it would. We see this as a real ``win-
win'' all the way around: protecting the water quality, the
scenic and the biotic resources of all three of these
corridors.
Mr. McInnis. All right, thank you.
Mr. Inslee?
Mr. Inslee. I have no questions, I think, for the sponsor
for this great work. Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. Any other questions of the panel? Mr. Kildee?
Mr. Kildee. Just a statement. I had the opportunity of
visiting and enjoying these rivers. And I commend my colleague,
Mr. Acevedo-Vila, for the introduction of this bill. I look
forward to its passage.
Mr. Acevedo-Vila. It is time to go back.
Mr. Kildee. It is time.
[Laughter.]
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Acevedo-Vila?
Mr. Acevedo-Vila. Yes, I just wanted to thank both of them
for the testimony and their support. And thanks to the
Committee.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you. And I thank the panel. Thank you
for your time. I appreciate your being here. Mr. Acevedo-Vila,
thank you for the bill.
The Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[A letter submitted for the record by Rebecca Watson,
Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, U.S.
Department of the Interior, on H.R. 3962 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 78631.025
-