[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 3258, H.R. 3307, and H.R. 3718
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
April 11, 2002
__________
Serial No. 107-102
__________
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
78-660 WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
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 NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands Ranking Democrat Member
Elton Gallegly, California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Joel Hefley, Colorado Samoa
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Tom Udall, New Mexico
Carolina, Mark Udall, Colorado
Vice Chairman Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mac Thornberry, Texas James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Chris Cannon, Utah Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Hilda L. Solis, California
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
C Of N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 11, 2002................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bono, Hon. Mary, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.............................................. 9
Prepared statement on H.R. 3718.......................... 10
Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the
Virgin Islands............................................. 2
Cubin, Hon. Barbara, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wyoming........................................... 3
Prepared statement on H.R. 3258.......................... 5
Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Thompson, Hon. Bennie, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Mississippi....................................... 6
Prepared statement on H.R. 3307.......................... 7
Statement of Witnesses:
Boss, Terry, Senior Vice President -- Environment, Safety and
Operations, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America,
Washington, D.C............................................ 36
Prepared statement on H.R. 3258.......................... 37
Culp, Pete, Assistant Director, Minerals, Realty and Resource
Protection, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of
the Interior, Washington, D.C.............................. 11
Prepared statement on H.R. 3258.......................... 12
Jones, Durand, Deputy Director, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C................ 18
Prepared statement on H.R. 3307.......................... 20
Prepared statement on H.R. 3718.......................... 21
Marker, Todd, RM Broadcasting, Palm Springs, California...... 47
Prepared statement on H.R. 3718.......................... 48
Myers, Eric D., Executive Director, TELROW Coalition,
Washington, D.C............................................ 31
Prepared statement on H.R. 3258.......................... 33
P'Pool, Kenneth H., Deputy State Historic Preservation
Officer, Mississippi Department of Archives and History,
Jackson, Mississippi....................................... 40
Prepared statement on H.R. 3307.......................... 41
Additional materials supplied:
Anderson, Rick, Superintendent, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Letter submitted for the record 28
H.R. 3258, To amend the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976
to clarify the method by which the Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of Agriculture determine the fair market value of right-of-
way granted, issued, or renewed under such Act to prevent unreasonable
increases in certain costs in connection with deployment of
communications and other critical infrastructure; H.R. 3307, To
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire the property known
as Pemberton's Headquarters and to modify the boundary of Vicksburg
National Military Park to include that property, and for other
purposes; and H.R. 3718, to authorize a right-of-way through Joshua
Tree National Park, and for other purposes.
----------
Thursday, April 11, 2002
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. George
Radanovich [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Radanovich. Good afternoon, and welcome to our hearing
today.
This afternoon, the Subcommittee on National Parks,
Recreation and Public Lands will hear testimony on three bills:
H.R. 3258, H.R. 3307, and H.R. 3718.
Mr. Radanovich. Our first bill is H.R. 3258, introduced by
our Committee colleague, Barbara Cubin of Wyoming. And it would
amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act to clarify the
method by which the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary
of Agriculture determine the fair market value of rights-of-way
in connection with the deployment of communications and other
critical infrastructure. Welcome, Barbara.
Our second bill is H.R. 3307, introduced by Congressman
Bennie Thompson of Mississippi. It would authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to acquire the property known as
Pemberton's Headquarters and to modify the boundary of the
Vicksburg National Military Park accordingly. Bennie, welcome,
and thank you for being here.
The last bill is H.R. 3718, introduced by Congresswoman
Mary Bono, which would authorize the rights-of-way through
Joshua Tree National Park. Welcome, Mary.
At this time I ask unanimous consent that Congresswoman
Cubin, Congressman Thompson, and Congresswoman Bono be
permitted to sit on the dais following their statements, and
without objection, so ordered.
Once again, I appreciate representation by all folks here
and appreciate all the other witnesses that will be here to
testify today, and I now turn the meeting over to our ranking
member, Mrs. Christensen. Donna?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]
Statement of The Honorable George P. Radanovich, Chairman, Subcommittee
on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands, on H.R. 3258, H.R. 3307
and H.R. 3718
Good afternoon and welcome to the hearing today. The Subcommittee
will come to order. This afternoon, the Subcommittee on National Parks,
Recreation, and Public Lands will hear testimony on three bills, H.R.
3258, H.R. 3307, and H.R. 3718.
Our first bill, H.R. 3258, introduced by our Committee colleague
Barbara Cubin of Wyoming, would amend the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act to clarify the method by which the Secretary of Interior
and the Secretary of Agriculture determine the fair market value of
rights-a-way in connection with the deployment of communications and
other critical infrastructure.
Our second bill, H.R. 3307 introduced by Congressman Bennie
Thompson of Mississippi, would authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to acquire the property known as Pemberton's Headquarters and to modify
the boundary of Vicksburg National Military Park accordingly.
The last bill, H.R. 3718, introduced by Congresswoman Mary Bono,
would authorize the right-of-way through Joshua Tree National Park.
At this time, I ask unanimous consent that Congresswoman Cubin,
Congressman Thompson and Congresswoman Bono be permitted to sit on the
dais following their statements. Without objection [PAUSE], so ordered.
Once again, I appreciate Congresswoman Cubin, Congressman Thompson,
and Congresswoman Bono and all the other witnesses being here to
testify today and I now turn the time over to the ranking member, Mrs.
Christensen for an opening statement.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I want to join you in welcoming our
colleagues here this afternoon and all of the other witnesses
that might be attending the hearing. I thank them for their
time and their efforts to help us gather necessary information
on the bills before us this afternoon.
Our first bill, H.R. 3258, raises a number of serious
concerns. Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976, known to many of us as FLPMA, rights-of-way fees are to
be charged at a level equal to the fair market value of the
right authorized. However, in evidence in both GAO and
inspector general reports, the BLM and the Forest Service
charge right-of-way fees that fail to reflect the fair market
value, with the result being that the public has not received
the fees for this use of public resources that the law
requires. Instead of correcting the problem, H.R. 3258 sets in
place a cumbersome fee structure that does not reflect the fair
market value and is inconsistent with fees to be charged for
similar uses of public resources.
So, Mr. Chairman, I share the concerns expressed in the
administration's testimony that this legislation is too costly,
it is time-consuming, and it still does not provide the
compensation to the American public that should be provided.
The second measure, introduced by my colleague and good
friend Bennie Thompson, H.R. 3307, would authorize an important
addition to the Vicksburg National Military Park. The Battle of
Vicksburg was a critical chapter in the Civil War, and
headquarters of the Confederate commanding officer during that
battle would be an important addition to the park. It is our
understanding that General Pemberton's Headquarters is some
distance removed from the park, and we look forward to hearing
from our witnesses regarding any management challenges that
this might pose, as well as more about the history of this
structure.
The final measure before us today, H.R. 3718, is troubling,
Mr. Chair. Apparently, a broadcasting company purposely cut a
road through a designated wilderness area to allow access to
one of its radio towers. The company did this with absolutely
no authority and knowing full well that the area was Federal
property. Such a road would be illegal.
While H.R. 3718 purports to deal with this situation, we
are concerned that the approach taken in the bill lets the
company off too lightly. Instead of rewarding such behavior, we
should be looking at punitive provisions to ensure that any
company considering trespassing on Federally designated
wilderness would think twice about such action.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to the
testimony of our witnesses.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mrs. Christensen.
With that we will go ahead and begin with our panel.
Congresswoman Barbara Cubin, if you would like to start,
welcome to the Committee, and we look forward to your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BARBARA CUBIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
scheduling H.R. 3258 for a hearing today. I appreciate your
work and interest in this issue.
I know you have long been an advocate for fair and
reasonable Federal land rights-of-way fees, and for that I am
very pleased to be working with you and greatly appreciate your
support and cosponsorship of this bill.
The Nation's system of roadways and railways were born of
effective partnerships in planning and construction between the
Federal Government and private industry.
Today, we face the challenge of expanding the next
generation of technology and energy infrastructures to
underserved areas of the country and bringing commercial
benefits to citizens set apart by geographic, economic, and
digital divides.
I serve as a member of the House Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. As such, I
have been exploring ways to facilitate the expansion of the
telecommunications infrastructure in my home State of Wyoming,
as well as in other rural areas. In doing so, I became aware of
a significant Federal obstacle to infrastructure development
nationwide.
Recent applications of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act, or FLPMA, as we so fondly call it, have
resulted in exorbitant increases in fees to cross Federal
lands. Telecommunications providers, particularly those
building the next generation of fiber-optic broadband
infrastructure, have been specifically targeted for these fee
increases, while other infrastructure providers have been put
on notice of changes to come.
FLPMA requires that private uses of public lands pay a fair
price for that privilege, a policy that protects the value of
our Federal lands, helps ensure that these resources continue
to be available to and accommodating of a multitude of
compatible uses.
Recent interpretations of FLPMA, however, have motivated
policies which reach beyond the value of Federal lands,
attempting to associate the right-of-way to cross Federal lands
with the revenues that are generated by the use of
telecommunications technologies.
In the exercise of our public trust responsibilities, the
Federal Government protects and preserves the public interest
in our Federal lands. I am confident, however, that there is
little public interest in turning our Federal lands into toll
booths or road blocks on the information superhighway or along
the path of any of our Nation's critical infrastructures.
In 1999 and 2000, revisions to the right-of-way rental fee
schedules by the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service led to some
fiber-optic telecommunications companies receiving fee
increases of up to 100 to 150 times their previous annual
bills.
Congress put a temporary halt to these interim revisions to
existing right-of-way regulations in the Fiscal Year 2001
appropriations bill.
As the agencies process toward the rulemaking process
required to change existing right-of-way fees, it is important
that their responsibilities regarding the determination and
collection of right-of-way fees be clear and that we avoid a
reiteration of the previous misguided proposals.
A permanent solution must be found. That is why I have
introduced H.R. 3258, the Reasonable Right-of-Way Fees Act.
H.R. 3258 simply clarifies the responsibilities we have to
protect the value of Federal lands, explicitly limiting the
fees we charge for rights-of-way to the value of those lands,
the fair market value of those lands.
As a representative of the most rural State in the country,
I recognize the tremendous value of the vast open spaces of our
rural West, including lands managed by the Federal Government.
But these lands should not become an obstacle to the
infrastructure development we so badly need. Charging fair
market value for the use of Federal lands does not mean that we
share in the revenues associated with the facilities that cross
those Federal lands.
H.R. 3258 guarantees that Federal lands will continue to be
protected as valuable national resources and ensures that these
lands will not present unnecessary obstacles to infrastructure
deployment and improvement.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I
appreciate your support of this legislation, and I look forward
to hearing from the other witnesses who will testify regarding
it.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Cubin follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Barbara Cubin, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Wyoming, on H.R. 3258
Thank you Mr. Chairman for scheduling H.R. 3258 for a hearing
today. I appreciate your work and interest in this issue.
I know that you have been an advocate for fair and reasonable
Federal land rights-of-way fees and for that I'm very pleased to be
working with you and greatly appreciate your support for and
cosponsoring of the bill.
This nation's system of roadways and railways were borne of
effective partnerships in planning and construction between the Federal
Government and private industry.
Today, we face the challenge of expanding the next generation of
technology and energy infrastructures to under-served areas of the
country, and bringing commercial benefits to citizens set apart by
geographic, economic, and ``digital'' divides.
I serve as a member of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee
on Telecommunications and the Internet.
As such, I have been exploring ways to facilitate the expansion of
telecommunications infrastructure in my home state of Wyoming.
In doing so I became aware of a significant Federal obstacle to
infrastructure development nation wide.
Recent applications of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA) have resulted in exorbitant increases in fees to cross Federal
lands.
Telecommunications providers, particularly those building the next
generation of fiber optic broadband infrastructure, have been
specifically targeted for these fee increases, while other
infrastructure providers have been put on notice of changes to come.
FLPMA requires that private uses of public lands pay a fair price
for that privilege, a policy that protects the value of our Federal
lands, helps ensure that these resources continue to be available to
and accommodating of a multitude of compatible uses.
Recent interpretations of FLPMA, however, have motivated policies
which reach beyond the value of Federal lands, attempting to associate
the right to cross Federal lands with the revenues generated by the use
of telecommunications technologies.
In the exercise of our public trust responsibilities, the Federal
Government protects and preserves the public interest in our Federal
lands.
I am confident, however, that there is little public interest in
turning our Federal lands into toll booths or road blocks on the
information superhighway, or along the path of any of our nation's
critical infrastructures.
In 1999 and 2000, revisions to right-of-way rental fee schedules by
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service led to some
fiber-optic telecommunications companies receiving fee increases of 100
to 150 times their previous annual bills.
Congress put a temporary halt to these interim revisions to
existing right-of-way regulations in the Fiscal Year 2001
Appropriations bill.
As the agencies proceed toward the rulemaking process required to
change existing right-of-way fees, it is important that their
responsibilities regarding the determination and collection of right-
of-way fees be clear, and that we avoid a reiteration of the previous,
misguided proposals.
A permanent solution must be found. Therefore, I have introduced
H.R. 3258, the Reasonable Right-of-Way Fees Act.
H.R. 3258 clarifies the responsibilities we have to protect the
value of Federal lands, explicitly limiting fees we charge for rights-
of-way to the value of those lands.
As a representative of the most rural state in the country, I
recognize the tremendous value of the vast open spaces of our rural
West, including lands managed by the Federal Government.
These lands should not become an obstacle to infrastructure
development. Charging fair market value for the use of Federal lands
does not mean a share in the revenues associated with facilities
crossing Federal lands.
H.R. 3258 guarantees that Federal lands will continue to be
protected as valuable national resources, and ensures that these lands
will not present unnecessary obstacles to infrastructure deployment and
improvement.
Again, thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing. I
appreciate your support for this legislation and I look forward to
hearing from the other witnesses.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Barbara.
Next is the honorable Bennie Thompson from the 2nd District
of the State of Mississippi, here to speak on H.R. 3307.
Welcome, Congressman. You may begin.
STATEMENT OF HON. BENNIE THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to present my views on H.R. 3307, which would
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire the property
known as Pemberton's Headquarters and to modify the boundary of
the Vicksburg National Military Park to allow for the inclusion
of that property.
In 1895, Union and Confederate veterans organized the
Vicksburg Military Park Association to petition Congress to
establish a national military park at Vicksburg comparable to
those previously established at Chattanooga, Shiloh, and
Gettysburg. These veterans of the siege of Vicksburg
recommended that the headquarters of both Union Major General
Ulysses S. Grant and Conference General John Pemberton be
included in the park. However, when Congress enacted the
legislation establishing the park in 1899, it simply charged
park commissioners to ``mark with historical tablets...the
headquarters of General Grant and of General Pemberton.''
It is important to note that, when the enabling legislation
was passed, the building that had served as General Pemberton's
Headquarters was a private residence. As Congress at that time
was reluctant to condemn property with private housing on it
for public use, Pemberton's Headquarters, located in the heart
of the city's historic district, was excluded from the park.
However, the site of Grant's Headquarters, located in the
proximity of the Union siege lines around Vicksburg, was
incorporated into the park.
In 1990, new legislation charged Vicksburg National
Military Park ``to interpret the campaign and siege of
Vicksburg from April 1862 to July 4, 1863, and the history of
Vicksburg under the Union occupation during the Civil war and
Reconstruction.'' Thus, the park finds itself today with its
interpretive mission greatly expanded, but without the
facilities and means to fulfill this legislated mandate.
Acquisition of Pemberton's Headquarters would provide the park
with the facilities it needs to allow it to address the
expanded mandate and, at the same time, to finally fulfill the
desire of the veterans themselves who sought to include the
building within the park.
My understanding is that a preliminary interpretive plan
has been developed by the staff at Vicksburg National Military
Park which proposes developing such interpretive themes as:
``The Military Significance of Vicksburg during the Civil
War,'' ``The Role of Blacks and Black Troops in the Siege and
Defense of Vicksburg,'' ``Military Occupation of Vicksburg,''
``Reconstruction in Vicksburg,'' and ``Work of the Freedom's
Bureau.'' Walking tours could also be conducted from
Pemberton's Headquarters to other historical sites, many of
which have African American significance, throughout downtown
Vicksburg.
Acquisition of Pemberton's Headquarters by the National
Park Service has long been a desire of the Mayor and Board of
Aldermen of Vicksburg and the Warren County Board of
Supervisors and the State Historic Preservation Office, who is
represented here today by Kenneth H. P'Pool, Deputy State
Preservation Officer for Mississippi and Director of the
Historic Preservation Division of the Mississippi Department of
Archives and History. The Honorable Robert M. Walker, former
Mayor of Vicksburg, voiced his strong interest in the National
Park Service acquiring the Pemberton Headquarters that it may
serve as the catalysts for the establishment of a United States
Colored Troops National Research Center in the nearby Southern
Heritage Cultural Center. The current mayor, the Honorable
Laurence Leyen, supports the idea as well. In addition to this,
H.R. 3307 has the support of the entire Mississippi
congressional delegation.
The interests of Vicksburg/Warren County as well as those
of the Nation would be well served in this acquisition,
restoration, and operational of the Pemberton Headquarters by
the National Park Service.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, it is important to note that the
funds necessary to facilitate the start of this project, the
acquisition and minimum restoration, have already been
appropriated in the Fiscal Year 2002 Department of Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Under last year's act,
$500,000 was dedicated to this project, and it is my
understanding that modest future funds will be required to
complete the restoration and to cover annual maintaining and
operating cost.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I urge the Committee to support H.R.
3307.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Mississippi on H.R. 3307
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present my views on
H.R. 3307, which would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
acquire the property known as the Pemberton's Headquarters and to
modify the boundary of the Vicksburg National Military Park to allow
for the inclusion of that property.
In 1895, Union and Confederate veterans organized the Vicksburg
National Military Park Association to petition Congress to establish a
national military park at Vicksburg comparable to those previously
established at Chickamauga/Chattanooga, Antietam, Shiloh, and
Gettysburg. These veterans of the Siege of Vicksburg recommended that
the headquarters of both Union Major General Ulysses S. Grant and
Confederate Lt. General John C. Pemberton be included in the park.
However, when Congress enacted the legislation establishing the park in
1899, it simply charged park commissioners to ``mark with historical
tablets...the headquarters of General Grant and of General Pemberton.''
It is important to note that, when the enabling legislation was
passed, the building that had served as General Pemberton's
headquarters was a private residence, lived in by respective citizens.
As Congress at that time was reluctant to condemn property with private
housing on it for public use, Pemberton's headquarters, located in the
heart of the city's historic district, was excluded from the park.
However, the site of Grant's headquarters, located in the proximity to
the Union siege lines around Vicksburg, was incorporated into the park.
In 1990, new legislation (P.L. 101-442) charged Vicksburg National
Military Park ``to interpret the campaign and siege of Vicksburg from
April 1862 to July 4, 1863, and the history of Vicksburg under the
Union occupation during the Civil War and Reconstruction.'' Thus, the
park finds itself today with its interpretive mission greatly expanded,
but without the facilities and means to fulfill this legislated
mandate. Acquisition of Pemberton's Headquarters would provide the park
with the facilities it needs to allow it to address this expanded
mandate and, at the same time, to finally fulfill the desire of
veterans themselves who sought to include the building within the park.
Pemberton's Headquarters is a registered National Landmark. Its
location next to the Balfour House, which served as headquarters for
the Union occupation forces, and only four blocks from the historic
Warren County Courthouse where military administration of the occupied
city was conducted through Reconstruction, makes the Pemberton House
ideally situated for the park to address its expanded interpretive
mandate. It is also centrally located for National Park Service to
administer its outlying park units in and around Vicksburg.
Its current owner has recently restored the building and, should
the National Park Service acquire it, will need only minimal
restoration for historical accuracy.
My understanding is that a preliminary interpretive plan has been
developed by the staff at Vicksburg National Military Park which
proposes developing such interpretive themes as: ``The Military
Significance of Vicksburg During the Civil War,'' ``Construction of
Confederate Fortifications,'' ``Citizens Under Siege,'' ``The Role of
Blacks and Black Troops in the Siege and Defense of Vicksburg,''
``Surrender of Vicksburg,'' ``Military Occupation of Vicksburg,''
``Reconstruction in Vicksburg,'' and ``Work of the Freedom's Bureau.''
Walking tours could also be conducted from Pemberton's Headquarters to
other historical sites, many of which have African-American
significance, throughout downtown Vicksburg.
Both the Vicksburg Riverfront and the Cultural Landscape Study
issued by the National Park Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation
Assistance Program (1982) and the Chadbourne Study (1993) cite the need
for the linkage between the Vicksburg National Military Park and the
historic district as a means of enhancing economic development of the
downtown area. Acquisition of Pemberton's Headquarters by the National
Park Service would have significant economic impact on the City of
Vicksburg. The park currently attracts up to 1.2 million visitors a
year, most of who do not venture into the city's downtown historic
district where they can visit museums, antebellum tour homes, shops,
restaurants, and hotels. This will spur economic development and create
new jobs in an array of businesses that hire mainly minorities
employees.
Acquisition of Pemberton's Headquarters by the National Park
Service has long been the desire of the Mayor and Board of Alderman of
Vicksburg and the Warren County Board of Supervisors and the State
Historic Preservation Office, who is represented here today by Kenneth
H. P'Pool Deputy State Preservation Officer for Mississippi and
Director of the Historic Preservation Division of the Mississippi
Department of Archives and History. The Honorable Robert M. Walker,
former Mayor of Vicksburg, voiced his strong interest in the National
Park Service acquiring the Pemberton's Headquarters, that it may serve
as the catalysis for the establishment of a United States Colored
Troops National Research Center in the nearby Southern Heritage
Cultural Center. The current mayor, the Honorable Laurence Leyen
supports this idea as well. In addition to this, H.R. 3307 has the
support of the entire Mississippi Congressional Delegation.
The interest of Vicksburg/Warren County as well as those of the
nation would be well served in the acquisition, restoration, and
operation of the Pemberton's Headquarters by the National Park Service.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, it is important to note that the funds
necessary to facilitate the start of this project, the acquisition and
minimum restoration, have already been appropriated in the Fiscal Year
2002 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
(House Report 107-234). Under last year's act, $500,000 was dedicated
to this project and it is my understanding that modest future funds
will be required to complete the restoration and to cover annual
maintaining and operating cost.
Again Mr. Chairman, I urge the Committee to support H.R. 3307. That
concludes my statement.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Congressman Thompson.
Next up to speak on H.R. 3718, a bill to authorize right-
of-way through the Joshua Tree National Park, and for other
purposes, the Honorable Mary Bono, District 44 of California.
Welcome, Mary.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARY BONO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Bono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
you for holding a hearing on this bill, H.R. 3718, the Little
San Bernardino Mountains Right-of-Way Act.
In 1986, R Group Broadcasting, a locally owned and operated
company, purchased land for a tower facility located on Indio
Hills, adjacent to what was then Joshua Tree National Monument
and is now Joshua Tree National Park. An access road of seven-
tenths of a mile long going through the monument area, zoned as
wilderness, was already present. In 1987, as R Group began to
make improvements to the road to better access their
transmissionsite, they were informed by then-Superintendent
Rick Anderson that they could not continue with their
improvements on the wilderness section of the road.
After negotiating with Superintendent Anderson, R Group
received approval by the superintendent for use of the road on
the condition of installing a gate, maintaining the road, and
running public service announcements for Joshua Tree. For all
intents and purposes, R Group believed it had legal access to
their transmissionsite.
However, approximately 10 years later, in 1997, the new and
current superintendent, Ernest Quintana, informed R Group they
had no such right because Superintendent Anderson did not have
authority to grant a right-of-way. Other options, such as
access by pack mule or admittance through another direction,
were not feasible or permitted under law.
After months of work, it was determined that the Secretary
of the Interior needed congressional authorization to grant a
right-of-way for this seven-tenths of a mile. Therefore, as I
did during the successful process of constructing the Santa
Rosa and San Jacinto National Monument legislation, I brought
together Superintendent Quintana and representatives of the
Park Service, along with the owners of the radio station, to
find a fair and equitable solution.
According to the Park Service, the additional impacts to
this road would be minimal, so, therefore, as long as fair
compensation would be made, they urged and supported granting a
right-of-way by congressional action.
R Group, through its two radio stations in the Cochella
Valley, plays a vital role in our community. In addition, they
have been very good stewards of this land and have every
intention to continue in this very same spirit. So while I am
not a proponent by any means of creating roads through
wilderness, I believe the existence of the road during purchase
of the land and the short length of it warrant consideration.
I realize this is a unique circumstance and, therefore,
look forward to working with the Committee and the Park Service
and other environmental interests on improving this
legislation. For instance, we could consider adding a
reasonable and comparable section of wilderness owned by R
Group in this vicinity. This could provide additional
protection for an area all of us in Southern California cherish
and is a win-win for all parties. I am also willing to
entertain other sensible additions to this legislation.
Again, thank you very much for consideration of H.R. 3718,
and I look forward to a continued dialog with you, Mr.
Chairman, as well as both sides of the aisle, to bring closure
to this long and protracted situation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Bono follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Mary Bono, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, on H.R. 3718
The Chairman.
I would like to thank you for holding a hearing on my bill, H.R.
3718, the Little San Bernardino Mountains Right-of-Way Act.
In 1986, RM Group Broadcasting (then R Group Broadcasting), a
locally owned and operated company, purchased land for a tower facility
located on Indio Hills adjacent to what was then Joshua Tree National
Monument and now is Joshua Tree National Park. An access road 7/10ths
of a mile long going through the Monument area zoned as wilderness was
already present. In 1987, as RM Group began to make improvements to the
road to better access their transmission site, they were informed by
then Superintendent Rick Anderson that they could not continue with
their improvements on the wilderness section of road. After negotiating
with Superintendent Anderson, RM Group received approval by the
Superintendent for use of the road on the condition of installing a
gate, maintaining the road and running public service announcements for
Joshua Tree. For all intents and purposes, RM Group believed it had
legal access to their transmission site.
However, approximately ten years later, in 1997, the new and
current Superintendent, Ernest Quintana, informed RM Group they had not
such right because Superintendent Anderson did not have authority to
grant a right of way. Other options, such as access by pack mule or
admittance through another direction, were not feasible or permitted
under law.
After months of work, it was determined that the Secretary of the
Interior needed Congressional authorization to grant a right of way for
this 7/10ths of a mile. Therefore, as I did during the successful
process of constructing the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto National
Monument legislation, I brought together Superintendent Quintana and
representatives of the Park Service, along with the owners of the radio
station, to find a fair and equitable solution. According to the Park
Service, the additional impacts to this road would be minimal so
therefore, as long as fair compensation was made, they urged and
supported granting a right-of-way by Congressional action.
RM Group, through its two radio stations in the Coachella Valley,
plays a vital role in our community. In addition, they have been good
stewards of this land and have every intention to continue in this same
spirit. So, while I am not a proponent of creating roads through
wilderness, I believe the existence of the road during purchase of the
land and the short length of it warrant consideration.
I realize this is a unique circumstance and therefore look forward
to working with the committee and the Park Service on improving this
legislation. For instance, it has been suggested that we consider
adding a reasonable and comparable section of wilderness owned by RM
Group in this vicinity. This could provide additional protection for an
area all of us in Southern California cherish and is a win-win for all
parties. I am also willing to entertain other sensible additions to my
legislation.
Again, thank you for your consideration of H.R. 3718 and I look
forward to a continued dialogue to bring closure to a long and
protracted situation.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, and thanks to all three of you
for your testimony. You are welcome to join us on the dais as
we introduce the next panel to hear these bills. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Radanovich. The next panel is Mr. Peter Culp, Assistant
Director of Minerals, Realty and Resource Protection from the
Bureau of Land Management, and Mr. Durand Jones, Deputy
Director of the National Park Service.
Welcome, gentlemen. Mr. Culp, if you would like to begin
your testimony, you are here to speak on H.R. 3258, which is
Congresswoman Cubin's bill, and it is so long, I am not going
to repeat it. But I am sure you know what the subject matter
is. Go ahead.
STATEMENT OF PETE CULP, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MINERALS, REALTY
AND RESOURCE PROTECTION, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, WASHINGTON,
D.C.
Mr. Culp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today to
discuss H.R. 3258.
The Department is committed to working with our
stakeholders and with the Congress to ensure that right-of-way
rental fees on public lands are appropriate and fair, and that
there is certainty in right-of-way rental fee valuation. We
believe that the existing land-based linear right-of-way rental
fee schedule established by regulations in 1986 and the rental
fee schedule for nonlinear communications facilities right-of-
ways established by separate regulations in 1995 can continue
to be an appropriate basis for the derivation of right-of-way
rental fees, with appropriate annual adjustments for inflation.
I want to emphasize that the 1986 schedule is a land-based
schedule, that is, it determines a rental fee that starts with
the value of the land, and that is the same principle that
Congresswoman Cubin spoke about just a few minutes ago, as
opposed to some other interpretation of fair market value. So
the underlying principle is the same.
We are concerned that the proposed bill would require a
more time-consuming, multiple-appraisal process for each right-
of-way before its issuance or renewal, and would establish a
different standard for rental fees for rights-of-ways under
FLPMA as opposed to the other kinds of rights-of-ways that we
issue under the Mineral Leasing Act that primarily involve oil
and gas pipelines. Also, we have a concern that the bill could
delay rather than expedite the processing of right-of-ways
authorized by FLPMA, especially electric transmission lines,
and that is, again, a reflection on the complexity of having to
do three appraisals and then determining the lowest of the
three.
We recognize that the rental fee issue can be and has very
much been a contentious issue for at least the last 2 years. We
and the Forest Service have engaged in dialogs with our
stakeholders, appraisal organizations, interest groups and
industry on the subject of rental fees. We are definitely
interested in continuing to work with all of our stakeholders
and the Congress to ensure fairness and certainty in right-of-
way rental fees on public lands.
We do administer a large number of rights-of-ways, 63,000
under FLPMA and 24,000 under the Mineral Leasing Act. The
Forest Service administers approximately 24,000 FLPMA right-of-
ways and 1,000 Mineral Leasing Act right-of-ways. These rights-
of-ways, of course, often cross both Federal lands and private
and State lands.
Prior to 1986, we did use an appraisal process, but then we
adopted the current land-based schedule primarily as a method
of efficiency for setting the rental fees, and I won't go into
how the schedule works because that is covered in my testimony
for the record. But it is land-based.
We did have audits in 1995 and 1996 which questioned
whether we were obtaining fair market value, and those did lead
to some proposals to do market studies that the Congress was
concerned about, and, in fact, there was language in the 2001
appropriations which told us not to do that. And, again, I want
to emphasize that that is not the direction we propose to go at
this point unless it was the consequence of a lot more
discussion with our stakeholders and the Congress.
So just to repeat in the few seconds that I have left, the
concern here is with the complexity of the three-appraisal
process and the time that would be required to implement it.
And we very much want to continue the dialog with our
constituents and the Congress on this process. We appreciate
the opportunity to be here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Culp follows:]
Statement of Pete Culp, Assistant Director, Minerals, Realty & Resource
Protection, Bureau of Land Management, on H.R. 3258
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear here today to discuss the methodology by which
the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture determine the fair market
value of rights-of-way (ROW), and to present the Department of the
Interior's views on H.R. 3258, the ``Reasonable Right-of-Way Fees Act
of 2001.''
The Department is committed to working with our stakeholders and
Congress to ensure that ROW rental fees on public lands are appropriate
and fair, and that there is certainty in ROW rental fee valuation. We
believe that the existing land-based linear ROW rental fee schedule
established by regulations in 1986 and the rental fee schedule for
nonlinear communication facility ROW established by regulations in 1995
can continue to be an appropriate basis for derivation of ROW rental
fees, with periodic adjustments for inflation.
The Department is concerned that the proposed bill would not allow
for fair market value rates of return for rights-of-way on the public
lands as required by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA); would require a time-consuming, multiple appraisal process for
every ROW before issuance or renewal; and would establish a different
standard for establishing rental fees for rights-of-way authorized by
FLPMA (generally involving roads, electrical transmission lines, and
telecommunication facilities) and rights-of-way authorized by the
Mineral Leasing Act (which primarily involve oil and gas pipelines). In
addition, we believe that this bill may be inconsistent with the goals
of the Department in that it would delay, rather than expedite, the
processing of ROWs authorized by FLPMA, especially electric
transmission lines.
The Department realizes that ROW rental fees can be a contentious
issue. For at least the last two years, the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) and the Forest Service (FS) have engaged in dialogues with our
stakeholders, including appraisal organizations, ROW interest groups
and industry, on the subject of linear right-of-way rental fee issues.
The BLM and the FS also worked with industry and the congressionally-
established Radio and Television Use Fee Advisory Committee to finalize
regulations in 1995 for rental fee schedules for nonlinear rights-of-
way for various communication facilities on the public lands. As
mentioned, the Department is committed to continuing to work with our
stakeholders and Congress to ensure fairness and certainty for ROW
rental fees on public lands.
rights-of-way background
BLM and FS lands are managed for a variety of multiple uses,
including the location of ROWs that are a vital part of our nation's
infrastructure for telecommunications purposes and for the delivery of
critical energy supplies. This ROW infrastructure is a significant
component of our nation's interstate commerce, as well as our national
defense and homeland security. Due to our nation's increasing demand
for energy, the need for energy-related ROWs also will increase.
The BLM processes approximately 6,000 right-of-way (ROW) actions
each year, including the issuance of 2,700 ROW grants and amendments.
Currently, the BLM administers approximately 63,000 ROWs authorized
under FLPMA and 24,000 ROWs authorized under Mineral Leasing Act. The
FS, meanwhile, administers approximately 24,000 FLPMA ROWs and 1,000
MLA ROWs on Forest land. Both BLM and FS right-of-ways also cross state
and other non-federal landowners. Of the total BLM authorized ROWs,
about 21,000 FLPMA and 23,000 Mineral Leasing Act ROWs are currently
subject to the collection of rents. The remaining ROW authorizations
are not subject to rent, either due to statutory exemptions or because
they meet other rent reduction regulatory criteria.
rights-of-way rents
Prior to 1986, the BLM and FS carried out their respective
responsibilities for collecting market rent from ROW users by making
appraisals for each separate ROW. In order to reduce overall
administrative costs, and to make ROW processing more timely and
consistent, the BLM and FS in 1986 established the linear ROW rent
schedule that is still in use today.
The current linear ROW rental schedule is based on the following
three factors:
1) LAn average land value for the linear ROW facility, using
county boundaries and zones (based on market data in 1986, each
county in the lower forty-eight states was placed in one of
eight land valuation categories or zones);
2) LAn impact adjustment factor of either 80% (generally for
roads and oil and gas pipelines) or 70% (generally for electric
transmission and telecommunication lines) based on the type of
linear ROW facility to be authorized; and
3) LAn interest rate (6.41%) for converting the land value to a
dollar-per-acre annual rental for each land value zone.
In addition, the current linear ROW rental schedule has been
adjusted annually since 1986 using the annual percentage change in the
Implicit Price Deflator, Gross National Product Index (IPD). Proposals
to Revise Current Linear ROW Rent Schedule
The BLM and FS implementing regulations of 1986 state ``that at
such time that the cumulative change in the IPD index exceeds 30% ....
the zones and rental per acre figures shall be reviewed to determine
whether market and business practices have differed sufficiently from
the index to warrant a revision in the base zones and rental per acre
figures.'' This threshold was exceeded in 1995 and the cumulative
change in the IPD index now stands at 45% for calendar year 2002.
A 1995 Department of the Interior's Office of the Inspector General
report (Audit No. 95-1-747) and a 1996 General Accounting Office report
(GAO/RCED-96-84) indicated that the linear rent schedule used by BLM
and the FS at the time of the audits did not reflect fair market value.
These findings prompted the BLM and the FS to begin to engage in
discussions regarding the rent schedule values. These discussions have
most recently involved a December 2001 workshop sponsored by the
Appraisal Institute that involved the BLM, FS, industry and other
interest groups, and congressional staff. Any further efforts by the
BLM and the FS to continue any fair market value studies regarding
linear rights-of-way are currently on hold pending additional dialogue
with our stakeholders and Congress.
h.r. 3258
The Department's concerns regarding the legislation generally
center on its elimination of the existing linear rental fee schedule
(1986) and the communication facilities ROW rental fee schedule (1995),
and the requirement that time-consuming and costly multiple appraisals
be completed for every ROW before issuance or renewal. The legislation
also would establish an inconsistent process to determine rental fees
for FLPMA rights-of-way different than rental fees for Mineral Leasing
Act rights-of-way.
The bill requires the BLM and FS to conduct three valuations to
determine the value for FLPMA rights-of-way. First, the agencies would
be required to do an appraisal of the lands crossed by a proposed ROW
use. Second, another appraisal would be conducted to determine the loss
of value in the lands crossed by the proposed use. Third, a reclamation
plan for the project would have to be conducted to determine the costs
to be incurred at the end of the grant term. Only after these three
valuations are completed, and the lowest amount is determined, will
involved Federal agencies be able to establish the rental for a FLPMA
ROW.
The administrative costs to process an application and the multiple
appraisals would be extraordinary--potentially increasing several fold.
Also, for lengthy linear ROW projects, it will be especially
problematic to determine the current values of the multiple parcels of
land that a ROW crosses. The costs of these additional appraisals
inevitably will be passed on to ROW applicants as part of the Federal
Government's costs in processing a ROW. Such timely and costly
impediments to ROW processing are inconsistent with the Department's
goal to expedite the processing of rights-of-way--especially energy-
related rights-of-way.
The Department wishes to continue to engage in discussions with all
interested parties, including Congress, to ensure that ROW fee
schedules for BLM and FS lands are consistent, fair and promote timely
consideration of ROW applications.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you or the other
members of the Subcommittee may have.
______
Mr. Radanovich. I think in the order of the hearing, we are
going to take questions on this single bill, and then move to
Mr. Jones on the two remaining bills first. So I am going to
defer on any questions right now, but would defer to Mrs.
Christensen to begin questioning, if you have any questions.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culp, with the GAO and inspector general reports
showing that the agencies are not receiving fair market value,
why has it taken 6 years, over 6 years for the BLM and Forest
Service to reach an agreement as to how to correct this
situation?
Mr. Culp. I think that there is an awful lot of room for
very reasonable people to disagree on what fair market value is
and what the underlying basis for it should be. And that has
led to this relatively long period of rather contentious
debate--
Mrs. Christensen. Very long.
Mr. Culp. --about what these fees should be.
Mrs. Christensen. It just seems like an inordinately long
period of time and that someone should have made a decision at
some point to move ahead.
How do the right-of-way fees charged by BLM and the Forest
Service compare with those charged by State and private
landowners?
Mr. Culp. The reference point would have to be the studies
done by GAO and the inspector general. In most of their
examples in their studies, they concluded that the fees charged
by private landowners and by States were higher than the
Federal fees. There were a few examples that worked the other
way, but most--
Mrs. Christensen. Were the State fees generally lower than
private fees?
Mr. Culp. I don't know the answer to that. We could check
to see if the data is differentiated--it is differentiated that
way. I just don't know the answer offhand, but I could get it
for you.
Mrs. Christensen. I would appreciate that. I would like to
know the answer to that.
Mr. Culp. All right.
Mrs. Christensen. If it is OK with you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Radanovich. Yes.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. I don't have any other
questions.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mrs. Christensen.
If there is no objection, shall I defer to Mrs. Cubin.
Barbara?
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
Committee for--
Mr. Radanovich. You are very fortunate that you were able
to jump ahead of all of them.
Mrs. Cubin. I really am, and I won't forget it, guys.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Cubin. Mrs. Christensen, I wanted to answer one of the
questions you asked, whether or not the Federal land right-of-
way fees were higher or lower than private. Well, usually what
happens in a private situation, the company buys the right-of-
way, so it is a one-time payment. In the public lands, it is an
annual fee. So it is really hard to compare whether it is more
or less, but usually, you know, it is a much higher price at
one time because it is a one-time event.
Mrs. Christensen. If I may ask, and the States, do the
States charge a fee?
Mrs. Cubin. Yes, they do, and I think it just depends on
where you are how the fee relates to the Federal fee.
The reason I bring this bill is that what we are talking
about are existing right-of-ways and wanting to be able to
develop with telecommunications and pipelines and whatnot,
develop areas all across the country. And so I am very happy,
Mr. Culp, with the statement that you made at the very end that
the only problem you have with the bill is the complicated
process of the three different appraisals, because the intent
of the bill is not to require three different appraisals, but
to allow the BLM and the Forest Service to use any one of those
three appraisals. And if we have not worded it well, we can
reword that.
I would suspect while it says ``or the lowest of the
appraisals,'' that it would be the company that would pay for
additional appraisals if they thought the method that was used
in determining the fee was too high. So it would not require
three appraisals by the Government to take care of that.
Actually, what my bill does is it just says do what is on the
books now.
And another point that I would like to make, I think that
your agency--in your testimony you note that your own
regulations require you to adjust the base zones and rental per
acre fees when cumulative changes exceed 30 percent. And I
think that is reasonable. But I am aware that the Forest
Service and the BLM policies that were implemented over the
last 2 years increased these fees without adjusting the rental
per acre fee. And in one case, when the pipeline--it was for
fiber optics. When the pipeline was going down--it wasn't the
pipeline that the fee was charged on. It was every single fiber
that went through the pipe that was being charged.
And I don't think anyone can construe fair market value for
right-of-ways to be based on what the commodity or what the
infrastructure is used for. And so if telecommunications make a
lot of money because they have more fibers going through there,
one company shouldn't be paying more for crossing the same land
than another. And that is the reason for this bill.
You said that you didn't do that anymore, but I would like
you to reassure me, in more than an offhanded way, that it
won't be done, whether or not this bill passes, which I fully
expect it will at some point.
Mr. Culp. Well, certainly I know that there was one--at one
time there was a proposal for charging for individual fibers--
or bundles of fibers, it might have been. We are not talking in
those terms--
Mrs. Cubin. Anymore.
Mr. Culp. --at all anymore. I absolutely agree with your
comment on the effect of that. It doesn't affect the land any
differently. These are very small things.
Mrs. Cubin. Right. And the only--I mean, the situation is
that across rural areas, you dig a hole in the ground, put the
line in, cover it up, and 3 weeks later there is no evidence
that it is even there.
You are aware, I am sure, of the case in New Mexico where a
project was going to cross a very rural area, one of the most
depressed economies in the State, and the project did not move
forward because of the enormous fees that were going to be
charged for the right-of-way, and it was based on the single-
strand situation.
So I look forward to working with you, Mr. Culp, and the
administration on making the language more clear so that it
will be clear that all three appraisals are not required, that
we just stick to fair market value.
Thank you.
Mr. Culp. We look forward to that, too, Madam Chairman.
Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culp, how much does the BLM or how much does the
Federal Government take in on these fees right now in total?
Mr. Culp. In Fiscal Year 2000, we took in $13,374,000 for
FLPMA right-of-ways and just under $2 million for the Mineral
Leasing Act right-of-ways. Again, that is the oil and gas
pipelines, which are under a different law.
Mr. Duncan. And how much do you estimate that these
proposed increases will increase these fees? I understand that
there is at least one estimate that says that they may increase
by as much as 100 times. And if they increase anything like
that, I mean, you have got serious problems. And, you know,
most of these increases, businesses have to pass them on to the
consumer.
Mr. Culp. If we took an approach to fair market value,
which in my kind of layman's terms would be get everything that
you can get because somebody has to get across your property to
complete a project, you could get results like that. But,
again, we are very much in agreement that the basis for the fee
ought to be the value of the land. Most of our land is rural,
and the values are not that high. So nothing that is on the
table now would result in a 100-times-fee increase. Nothing
like that.
Mr. Duncan. Well, you say at one point you could get
results like that, but then you say that you wouldn't. To
businesses, those types of increases, I don't know how any
business could absorb those kinds of increases.
Let me ask you this: The later testimony by Mr. Eric Myers,
at one point he says that the methodologies proposed by the BLM
and USFS are inconsistent with current regulations and policies
applied to other infrastructure providers. And then at a later
point he says, ``The approach taken by Federal agencies focuses
on situations where cities or other entities have incorporated
franchise-like fees into required easement payments or where
individual landowners have leveraged their ability to hold out
or obstruct established rights across adjacent lands. These
cases are exceptional and should not alter the established
principles which base easement payments on the underlying
property value.''
What do you say in response to those comments by Mr. Myers?
Mr. Culp. I would say that we agree that the payments
should be based on the underlying property value. We now agree.
Some of the earlier proposals that were being talked about
would have been based on a different approach and resulted in
considerably higher rental fees.
Mr. Duncan. What do you say when he says that the proposals
that you are making are inconsistent with current regulations
and policies applied to other infrastructure providers?
Mr. Culp. Well, the Department's position really goes back
to current regulations now. Our position is that the current
regulations are a reasonable basis for the fee.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Radanovich. Does anybody else wish to speak? Mr.
Gibbons?
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just one
clarifying question I would like to ask Mr. Culp, and that is,
if you will confirm for me today that current policy now of
your agency is to evaluate these rights-of-ways based on the
linear foot rental fee, or whatever determination that may be,
linear length, versus the throughput. That is the way you are
valuating it today. is that correct?
Mr. Culp. That is correct, Mr. Gibbons, because it is based
on converting the width of the right-of-way to acres and has
nothing to do with the amount of throughput that you could put
through the electric line or the fiber-optic cable.
Mr. Gibbons. And that is the current status of your
regulations?
Mr. Culp. That is the current status.
Mr. Gibbons. That is the only question I had, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much.
Mr. Culp, if I may ask a couple of questions. On these
transmission lines that we are talking about in general, that
is for both telephone and telecommunications data transfer, all
of the above--isn't it?--for phone companies?
Mr. Culp. That is correct. It even--
Mr. Radanovich. And gas.
Mr. Culp. It actually even goes to canals. Any linear
right-of-way.
Mr. Radanovich. And as far as telecommunications, you know,
obviously these lines would serve urban areas. But would the
preponderance of these easements serve rural America? Can you
say that, or is it basically for access to both urban and
rural?
Mrs. Cubin. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Radanovich. Sure.
Mrs. Cubin. Well, basically because the BLM lands are
mostly in rural areas, it would mostly affect rural areas.
Mr. Radanovich. Right. I live in a very rural area, and
when you dial up the phone, you have got to wait 30 seconds for
them to hook into somewhere before you get a ring. And I know
that that is kind of a problem in most of rural America,
getting some of these high-technology communications abilities
out into the rural areas. Just keep that in mind when you are
looking at assessing fees that might further hinder the
progress of delivery of this telecommunications to rural
America.
Mr. Culp. I agree, Mr. Chairman, that is a real issue.
Mr. Radanovich. OK. Thank you, Mr. Culp.
Mr. Jones? Randy, I believe it is. Randy, good to have you
here with us. Before you begin your testimony on these other
bills, I do have a little bit of business here, if you don't
mind. It concerns an issue that we are waiting to hear back
from the National Park Service regarding the Washington
aqueduct in a previous hearing. It was October 30th of last
year. We had hearings on the effects of the Washington aqueduct
discharge upon the C&O Canal National Historic Park. And on
November 27th, I wrote a letter to the Park Service with some
follow-up questions that haven't been answered yet. So I would
really appreciate your answers to those questions, and as
quickly as possible. Both the EPA and the Army Corps have
answered their questions. I am still waiting on you guys.
Mr. Jones. I understand, Mr. Chairman, and we apologize for
that. I do know in the last 2 weeks there have been a series of
meetings with our regional folks, the solicitor's office, as
the answers are being developed. So we will have them to you
very shortly.
Mr. Radanovich. Great. I appreciate that.
Now, if you will go ahead and begin your testimony, I
believe you are here to speak on the other two bills, which
would be H.R. 3307 and H.R. 3718.
STATEMENT OF DURAND JONES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do ask that both my
statements be submitted in their entirety for the record, and I
would be happy to summarize them.
Mr. Radanovich. There being no objection, so ordered.
Mr. Jones. Thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of Interior's views on H.R. 3718, a bill to
authorize a right-of-way through Joshua Tree National Park.
The Department supports this bill if amended to address the
administration's concerns.
The legislation will authorize a right-of-way for an
existing road through Joshua Tree National Park for vehicle
access to RM Broadcasting's telecommunication tower site
located outside the park. The right-of-way is located in the
rugged southwestern portion of the park known as the Little San
Bernardino Mountains. The remoteness of this area attracts few
visitors; however, Congress did designate this portion of the
part as wilderness in 1976.
In 1987, R Group Management entered the park without
authorization to grade a road on National Park Service land. In
compliance with the Wilderness Act, the current superintendent
has prohibited continued vehicle access on this route.
This legislative solution to authorize the right-of-way is
preferable to eliminating seven-tenths of a mile of the road
and requiring the construction of a new road outside the park.
To that end, I would add that this is, we think, a fairly
unique situation because what in one regard might be an obvious
solution, which would be to close the park, have them relocate
the road outside the park, we feel from an overall
environmental point of view would result in total worse damage
to the environment than just allowing this right-of-way to be
recognized. The construction of a new road outside the park
would further impact the surrounding environment.
We will have a series of recommended amendments to you
within the next few days. As we were preparing for this
hearing, the Department of Justice requested additional time to
review the amendments as we had drafted them, and we, in fact,
have a meeting with the Justice Department officials on Monday
to review the issues involved in this case.
But, generally, the amendments that we would be proposing:
one, ensure that the National Park Service would retain the
authority to manage parklands and protect park resources; allow
for an annual fee for the use of the right-of-way; and also
allow the Secretary to ensure that the use of the right-of-way
is consistent with National Park Service regulations and to
collect appropriate compensation for the unauthorized entry and
resource damage that has occurred from this entry.
In addition, the Department does recommend that Congress
incorporate a provision to address a no net loss of wilderness.
We have had some discussions with the staff on that issue, and
there are several ways of addressing it. But our concern in
this area is that if we are, in fact, recognizing that a small
portion of the park no longer has wilderness values, we think
that there are alternate lands that could be designated
wilderness so that there is no net loss of designated
wilderness within the park.
That does conclude my statement on that. I would be happy
to move on to the other bill, or would you prefer to address
questions on this one first? I serve at your pleasure.
Mr. Radanovich. If you would make your statement on both
bills, that would be just fine, if you want to proceed with
that.
Mr. Culp, you are free to go since we have discussed the
bill that you were here for. Thank you for being here, and you
are more than welcome to stay. But I want to give you the
opportunity to leave.
Mr. Jones?
Mr. Jones. I also thank you for the opportunity to present
the Department's views on H.R. 3307, which would authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to acquire the property known as
Pemberton's Headquarters and modify the boundary of Vicksburg
National Military Park to include the property.
The Department supports H.R. 3307. Pemberton's Headquarters
is a nationally significant resource that is well suited for
use as a visitor site and its inclusion within the National
Park System unit.
The headquarters is the building that Confederate
Lieutenant General John C. Pemberton occupied during the siege
of Vicksburg during the Civil War, and it served as the
Confederacy--excuse me, sir. And that particular battle was
viewed as especially significant because it severed the
Confederacy geographically and cut vital supply lines to the
Confederate States and, thus, was pivotal in bringing about the
conclusion of the war.
The national significance of Pemberton's Headquarters was
recognized through its designation as a National Historic
Landmark in 1976. Why this is especially timely is that while
this particular site has been talked about and recommended
since 1895 for protection inclusion as a unit of the National
Park System, we now have an owner who is very much a willing
seller and is desirous to protect the importance and the
significance of this site. And funding has already been
included for the acquisition of this property in the 2002
fiscal year budget to be spent pending completion of
authorizing legislation.
In the interest of time, I will--oh, one last thing. H.R.
3307 includes language that would authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to acquire less than one acre of additional land
in the environs of Pemberton's Headquarters to use as off-
street parking as well as to provide appropriate administrative
facilities for park personnel to serve and protect this
particular resource.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my formal statements. I would
be happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Jones follow:]
Statement of Durand Jones, Deputy Director, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, on H.R. 3307
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 3307, which would authorize
the Secretary of the Interior to acquire the property known as
Pemberton's Headquarters and to modify the boundary of Vicksburg
National Military Park to include that property.
The Department supports H.R. 3307. Pemberton's Headquarters is a
nationally significant resource that is well-suited for use as a
visitor site, and its inclusion in Vicksburg National Military Park
would enable the National Park Service to add an important dimension to
the interpretation of Civil War and post-Civil War events in the
Vicksburg area. The addition of Pemberton's Headquarters would entail
acquisition, preservation, and operating costs that are described later
in this testimony.
Pemberton's Headquarters is the building that Confederate Lt.
General John C. Pemberton occupied during the siege of the city of
Vicksburg led by Union Major General Ulysses S. Grant from May 19 to
July 4, 1863. It was in this building that Pemberton held a council of
his chief officers on July 3, 1863 to discuss plans for surrender of
the city, which occurred the following day. The campaign for Vicksburg
is considered by many military historians to have been the most
critical campaign of the Civil War, as it severed the Confederacy
geographically and cut vital supply lines to the Confederate states and
thus was pivotal in bringing about the Confederacy's defeat.
The national significance of Pemberton's Headquarters was
recognized through its designation as a National Historic Landmark in
1976. The building, which was constructed from 1834-1836, is located in
Vicksburg's historic district. It is adjacent to Balfour House, which
served as the headquarters for the Union occupation forces following
the surrender and is open to the public. And, it is four blocks from
the historic Warren County Courthouse, where the military
administration of the occupied city was conducted through
Reconstruction. A visitor site at this location would give the National
Park Service the opportunity not only to expand its interpretation of
the siege of Vicksburg, but also to interpret historical events in the
years immediately following the Union victory there. It would help the
service fulfill legislation passed by Congress in 1990 calling on the
park to ``interpret the campaign and siege of Vicksburg from April 1862
to July 4, 1863, and the history of Vicksburg under Union Occupation
during the Civil War and Reconstruction.''
Acquisition of Pemberton Headquarters for inclusion in Vicksburg
National Military Park would also fulfill the vision of the Union and
Confederate veterans who, in 1895, petitioned Congress to establish a
national military park at Vicksburg similar to those previously
established at Chickamauga and Chattanooga, Antietam, Shiloh, and
Gettysburg. Those veterans recommended that the headquarters of both
Union and Confederate commanders be included in the park. However,
while the site of Grant's headquarters was included in the park, that
of Pemberton's was not due to the objections of the then-owner of the
property. The current owner, who has used the building for a bed-and-
breakfast in recent years, would now like to sell the property to the
National Park Service so that its place in history will be secure.
As you know, the Department is committed to the President's
priority of eliminating the National Park Service's deferred
maintenance backlog and is concerned about the development and life-
cycle operational costs associated with expansion of parks already
included in the National Park System. With that in mind, we have some
concerns about the ability of the National Park Service to assume the
costs of acquiring, preserving, and operating the Pemberton
Headquarters property within current budget constraints.
The National Park Service does not yet have an appraisal of the
property, but the agency's land acquisition experts believe that it may
cost around $600,000 to acquire. The Service also does not have an
estimate of the cost of preserving the building and the grounds and
making the site accessible to visitors. Stabilizing the building alone
would cost an estimated $228,000, but the cost of more extensive
preservation would need to be determined through studies. Those studies
would cost an estimated $191,000. The Service has made a preliminary
estimate that the cost of operating and maintaining the site would be
approximately $425,000 annually, but actual costs would depend on a
number of unknown factors, including the extent of preservation done on
the site.
H.R. 3307 includes language that would authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to acquire less than one acre in the environs of
Pemberton's Headquarters to use for off-street parking, as well as
related visitor or administrative facilities. This is a provision that
was recommended by the Department in testimony before the Senate Energy
and Natural Resources Committee last year, as no off-street parking
currently exists at the site. This would increase acquisition,
development, and operational costs of the site.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.
______
Statement of Durand Jones, Deputy Director, National Park Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, on H.R. 3718
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 3718, a bill to authorize a
right-of-way through Joshua Tree National Park, and for other purposes.
The Department supports H.R. 3718 if amended to address the
Administration's concerns. This legislation would provide the necessary
legal authority for the right-of-way.
The legislation will authorize a right-of-way for an existing road
through Joshua Tree National Park for vehicle access to RM
Broadcasting's telecommunication tower site located outside the park.
The right-of-way is located in the rugged southwestern section of the
park known as the Little San Bernardino Mountains. The remoteness of
this area attracts few visitors; however, Congress designated this
portion of the park as wilderness in 1976.
The right-of-way is for an existing, unimproved, roadway that
traverses approximately seven tenths of a mile through Joshua Tree
National Park and park wilderness. In 1987, R Group Management (a
predecessor to RM Broadcasting) entered the park without authorization
to grade a road on National Park Service land. In compliance with the
Wilderness Act, the current superintendent prohibited vehicular use of
the road. Research found that even if the area was not designated
wilderness, the National Park Service still lacked specific authority
to allow this right-of-way.
The legislative solution to authorize the right-of-way is
preferable to eliminating seven tenths of a mile of the road and
requiring the construction of a new road outside the park.
The construction of a new road outside the park would further
impact the surrounding environment and encumber RM Broadcasting.
Generally the amendments would: (1) ensure that the National Park
Service retains the authority to manage parklands and resources; (2)
allow for an annual fee that may go beyond a simple calculation based
on the Federal regulations governing the calculation of compensation
for rights-of-way and that would take into consideration that existing
Federal regulations and policy do not allow private businesses to
obtain rights-of-way for road access in national parks; and, (3) allow
the Secretary to ensure that use of the right-of-way is consistent with
National Park Service regulations and to collect appropriate
compensation for the unauthorized entry and resource damage.
In addition to compensation, the Department recommends Congress
incorporate a provision to address no net loss of wilderness area. As
soon as the Administration completes its review of these amendments, we
will transmit them to the subcommittee.
This legislation would provide the needed legal authority for the
right-of-way, and if amended, would further ensure that the resources
of the park are protected against damage consistent with National Park
Service regulations.
This concludes my testimony. I would be glad to answer any
questions you may have.
______
Mr. Radanovich. I am going to defer any questions at this
time, but I would like to ask Mrs. Christensen if she did have
any.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. I do have some questions.
Mr. Jones, apparently when the National Park Service
officially designated this area as wilderness, described the
area--when President Nixon recommended that the area be made
wilderness, the National Park Service had officially described
the area as roadless. And I wonder if you would describe for me
or detail for me the time line for the following events: the
designation as a National Monument, the designation as a
National Park, and then as a wilderness; and, last, when the
construction of the road and the tower took place.
Mr. Jones. OK.
Mrs. Christensen. So beginning with when was it designated
a National Monument.
Mr. Jones. I am going to have to, unfortunately, provide
those for the record. I don't recall the exact dates offhand.
However, the wilderness, the later dates, was designated by an
Act of Congress in 1976. The trespass took place in 1987.
Mrs. Christensen. I don't think there are any other right-
of-ways or roads, road construction that have been permitted.
Could you tell me if there are any existing examples of right-
of-ways authorized and designated wilderness?
Mr. Jones. I am not aware of any that have happened. This
in many ways, as I mentioned earlier, we think is a unique
situation. Should the road have been built? No. Was it wrong to
build it? Yes, it was wrong. We view it as illegal trespass
upon park property. But we also view that at this point in time
some of the solutions could be worse than recognizing the
continuation of the road, which is why we do feel in this case
it would be appropriate to recognize the road exists and allow
it to continue to exist via right-of-way.
Mrs. Christensen. The Park Service is not concerned that
this is a precedent that you don't want to start by designating
this, allowing this road to continue within the wilderness,
especially since it was done illegally?
Mr. Jones. It is a precedent. It is one we are very
concerned of. It is one of the reasons we feel that there
should be no net loss in wilderness.
There has been one precedent for Congress that I am aware
of, Congress taking an action to correct a mistake of when a
heavily trafficked area into the Arctic National Park was
designated wilderness and it was later removed from wilderness,
and alternate wilderness designated, which is the origin of why
we recommend the no net loss of wilderness concept.
This situation, which is clearly recognizing a trespass
road, is unique in my 30-year career at the National Park
Service.
Mrs. Christensen. Don't you think that the radio station
and the people who trespassed are getting off too easily?
Mr. Jones. Well, we do feel very strongly that damages are
due the United States for the trespass that occurred. One of
the things that has certainly also evolved since the trespass
originally occurred was the very progressive action by the
counties in looking at adjacent lands outside the park, taking
very positive steps to protect and dedicate green spaces and
managing the adjacent lands to the park for conservation
purposes, which is why when we stand back and look at the issue
from the big picture, it would be a simple solution to say
don't let it go through the park, build it somewhere else, but
we really sincerely believe that that would result in bigger
environmental damage.
There is no win-win solution, and it is trying to make the
best of a very awkward situation.
Mrs. Christensen. You had said in your statement--I guess
this is sort of related to what you are saying--that this would
encumber RM Broadcasting to have to relocate. That doesn't seem
to be something that should be our concern. They illegally
built the road. They haven't really been asked to compensate
for the damages. So is your concern that it would put an unfair
burden on trespassers?
Mrs. Bono. Would the gentlelady yield, please? May I
clarify something here? I think we are misunderstanding that it
was not, in fact, these current radio owners or operators who
built the road.
Mrs. Christensen. OK.
Mrs. Bono. It was built years prior, and I think we don't
have definitive dates, and we should wait for them from the
Park Service. But there is even--we are trying to get the maps
from the USGS to see if, in fact, there was an old mining road
there to begin with. So I think it is important to distinguish
that this group is not who was responsible. And thank you for
letting me borrow your time.
Mrs. Christensen. Sure. Just for the record, even if there
were a path there or some footpath, that doesn't constitute a
road. So what was there and compared to what is now there, is
that relevant? It is my understanding that maybe the two new
towers have already been placed there, which just compounds the
issue. And I will just come back on that in the next round.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much.
Were the towers placed--they are not inside the wilderness
area. It was just a portion of the road to the towers, right?
Mr. Jones. That is correct. The towers are outside the
park.
Mr. Radanovich. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Jones. They are not on Federal land.
Mr. Radanovich. There is discussion about whether there was
an old mine road there or that something was there prior to.
Are we going to know this at some point in time?
Mr. Jones. Well, the National Park Service's position at
the time the wilderness was designated believes that this area
was, in fact, roadless.
Mr. Radanovich. That was their knowledge at that time?
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir.
Mr. Radanovich. Does that include abandoned roads, old
roads that were once--
Mr. Jones. What I have been told by the park staff is what
was in this location were trails, not a road standard.
Mr. Radanovich. Any questions, Mr. Gibbons?
Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Jones, thank you for being here today. I
have just two simple questions.
One, when you say no net loss of wilderness, what loss of
wilderness with an existing road is there if you grant these
people an easement?
Mr. Jones. The loss of wilderness as far as wilderness
values and that this area--
Mr. Gibbons. Well, I am talking about area. The road isn't
being taken out of the wilderness area. The land isn't being
removed. The acreage isn't changing one iota. What do you mean
by no net loss?
Mr. Jones. There has been various discussion of the
possibility--that one possible solution here would be the de-
designation of a small area along the road from wilderness. And
should that be the solution, then we would recommend that there
be no net loss and that substitute lands be designated.
Mr. Gibbons. OK. That makes sense now. If you want to avoid
a precedent in this case, it would be to remove this road from
the wilderness area.
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gibbons. And then take only that seven-tenths of a mile
of road width and add new wilderness into it. Is that what your
proposal is?
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gibbons. That seems like a reasonable alternative.
Mr. Jones. The land should definitely remain in the park,
in our opinion, but as far as the wilderness designation, this
is on the very edge, very corner of the park.
Mr. Gibbons. And it is only seven-tenths of one mile.
Mr. Jones. That is correct. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gibbons. It is not a very big piece of land.
Mr. Jones. No, sir.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Souder?
Mr. Souder. How far outside the park is the tower?
Mr. Jones. Actually, if I could defer to the member--it is
very close. Less than half a mile, as I recall.
Mrs. Bono. My staff is whispering to me that it is
adjacent. Is that close enough?
Mr. Souder. And the area around the tower is relatively--I
mean, it is in private hands. It is relatively unused,
primitive land?
Mrs. Bono. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Souder. Yes.
Mrs. Bono. It is actually very similar land. It is desert
land. There is nothing geographically significant, culturally
significant about the land. And the radio station owners now
are willing to actually even put a little bit more of their
private land into wilderness in exchange to sort of sweeten the
deal, if you would. And I believe--you talk about fairness.
Seven-tenths of a mile, I mean, Barbara was saying how maybe
she could actually run it. You know, it is a small little bit,
and they are very willing--
Mr. Radanovich. Even Barbara?
Mrs. Bono. Even Barbara.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Bono. Even you, Mr. Chairman.
They are very willing to accommodate, and they, too,
recognize the significance of Joshua Tree National Park for our
community. And I do believe, contrary to what the Deputy
Director has said, I do believe this can be a win-win if we all
work together on this and recognize this was a mistake that
happened a long time ago, and I appreciate the gentleman for
his time. And nobody is saying the mistake was OK or it was
right, but as the Deputy Director has said, the best remedy is
this.
And my own point--was something good and brilliant, I am
sure.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Bono. Well, I will yield back at this point.
Mr. Souder. Is this in the more western hilly part of the
park?
Mrs. Bono. Yes.
Mr. Souder. And is it on the north side or the south side?
Mrs. Bono. It is on the south side, but if--
Mr. Souder. So in the vistas, you are looking out toward
the main cities in the valley if you were standing at the
tower. OK. And if you were to de-designate the seven-tenth of a
mile from wilderness, is the goal of the Park Service to have
whatever compensation, particularly if the company is willing
to do that, be adjacent?
Mr. Jones. There are a couple of options on the wilderness.
There are other parcels in the park that have gone through
public involvement study, environmental assessments, that have
strong local support for designation as wilderness. There is
also the offer that was mentioned by the member. And so as far
as compensation for the damages, it is something we need to sit
down with the company and define what that appropriate
compensation would be. That is something we are very interested
and willing to do.
Mr. Souder. Because I think the only question here is
really not this particular incident at this park. It is what
standard it sets for wilderness and how you adjust when things
like this occur.
One last question. It was unclear to me. Is it the position
of the Park Service--it is implied but not stated--that the
original owner of this tower should have known not to place it
at that location, the road?
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir.
Mr. Souder. In other words, they had the maps because--or
was there any lack of clarity on that part, or were there no
other options, they just went ahead? Did the Park Service
object at the time?
Mr. Jones. When the event occurred, it is my understanding
in talking to park staff that the park staff was first aware of
it approximately 4 months after the road had been bulldozed in.
But it was the park staff's understanding that the company knew
that they should not do it and it was not appropriate and they
did not have permission to do it.
Mr. Souder. Mrs. Bono, do you have any--
Mrs. Bono. Thank you. I just have one question. Is it the
Park Service's position that the superintendent at the time did
have verbal agreements allowing this to exist?
Mr. Jones. Once the road was discovered, the superintendent
at the time did issue a series of special-use permits that
allowed the road to be used.
Mrs. Bono. And he, of course, being a Federal employee,
there is some culpability here for the Federal Government, too.
So let's not--we shouldn't continue to blame the private party,
but this was sort of a wink-and-a-nod policy. And so I do
believe it is in our best interest to recognize that the
superintendent allowed it to continue and, therefore, further
supports this legislation.
Mr. Jones. I do share the view that the superintendent did
not have the authority to issue those special-use permits. They
should not have been done, and I think it is--I wish I had an
eloquent answer to explain why this has taken 15 years to come
before this Committee to try to find an equitable solution to
the issue, but I have no answer.
Mrs. Bono. So when we look at reprimanding, do we also go
back and reprimand the Federal Government's part in this as
well? That is the only question--
Mr. Jones. The Federal Government did not commit the
trespass.
Mrs. Bono. No, just had a wink-and-a-nod policy.
Mr. Jones. We did not approve the trespass from occurring.
It was a matter of how we managed and dealt with the issue
after it occurred.
Mrs. Bono. Correct. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. I am really not clear about this now, but
did the Park Service permit the owners of the radio station to
have access to their tower through this property?
Mr. Jones. The National Park Service did not approve the
road before it was built. We had no knowledge that it was going
to be done. It was done by the company.
Mr. Radanovich. No, I mean prior to that time, did they
permit them access to the tower across this property?
Mr. Jones. No, sir; to the best of my knowledge, we did
not.
Mr. Radanovich. Mary, what was the--
Mr. Souder. Was the road built at the time the tower was
built? That is one of the--
Mr. Radanovich. No. What I am wondering is: Did the Park
Service allow this company to have access to the tower prior to
the time that the existing road that is there now was cut?
Mr. Jones. Not be vehicles. I do not know if there was
hiking access or stock access.
Mr. Radanovich. So the question was: After the road was
cut, the Park Service did allow the radio station access to
that road?
Mr. Jones. That is correct. After it was built.
Mrs. Bono. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the
record a letter from the Department of the Interior that
actually puts in writing specific requirements that would allow
them to continue if they would install a fence or a gate across
the wash, maintained by R Group Management Company as
necessary, and the gate will be designed so that a National
Park Service lock may be installed.
You know, I agree there are a lot of questions that don't
necessarily come to the same conclusion here, but I will submit
this for the record that does prove that perhaps they didn't
allow--or have prior knowledge of the bulldozing, but once it
was in, they did allow it and didn't address the problem.
Mr. Souder. If the gentlelady would yield, what is the date
on the letter?
Mr. Radanovich. There being no objection, no problem with
your testimony submitted.
Mr. Radanovich. Go ahead.
Mrs. Bono. It is November 24, 1987.
[The letter submitted for the record by Mrs. Bono follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8660.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8660.005
------
Mr. Radanovich. Whose time are we on here?
Mrs. Bono. Yours, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Donna? I yield to Mrs. Christensen.
Mrs. Christensen. I know recently I have been trying to get
my park superintendent to do something for me, and that is out
of his authority. So I am not sure that the park superintendent
had the authority to write the letter and give that permission.
Mr. Radanovich. Mary, you have not been recognized during
this whole time, so I want to give you the time to go ahead and
question the witness or make any statement that you would like.
Mrs. Bono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I feel like I have been
recognized, so thank you all for yielding time to me. And I
would like to actually thank the Deputy Director for your help
with this and, again, state that it is not my--I do not want to
see roads cut in wilderness area. I believe this is a very
difficult problem, but as you have so well stated, too, if we
go in and tear all of this up, it is going to damage the land
further, and that is not an answer.
What is important to me, I guess, is that we recognize
this, I don't want to set precedent, but I do want to address
the policy issues. And I want to thank also the people from the
Park Service on the local level, John Reynolds from the
regional office and Superintendent Quintana who came to my
office to work on this issue. You have been very responsive and
helpful, and I appreciate this.
I look forward to continuing to work with the environmental
community as well. As you have also said, this land is adjacent
to other lands that are trying to be preserved, and so this
whole sort of mess has happened. But I believe this is a good
answer, and I look forward to working with the ranking member
toward resolving it.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much. We do have another
panel. If there are no other questions, we will move on to the
next panel. Mr. Jones, thank--oh, one more question.
Mrs. Christensen. You talked about expanding the
wilderness, and I am not--how much additional land will have to
be taken in for it to constitute a wilderness? Because you
shouldn't see a road--it wouldn't just be a matter of a small
portion of land, would it?
Mr. Jones. As a result of the wilderness studies we have
been doing in the park, we would be happy to provide the
Committee with several tracts that have been identified that
have wilderness potential, that have gone through a formal
study and public review process, a total of several thousand
acres, potential acreage that could be identified.
Mrs. Christensen. I wanted to just explore another
alternative. Could the park boundary be altered so that that
road was not in the park and then make up for it?
Mr. Jones. That is where we get into feeling that that
would be a very bad precedent, because we would hate to think
that by someone committing a trespass as a way to have national
park lands removed from the National Park System.
Mrs. Christensen. If it is indeed true that the two towers,
the new two towers are already up there, would that change your
position with regard to allowing the road to remain there?
Mr. Jones. I guess I--
Mrs. Christensen. My original information was that there is
one old tower; they were asking for permission to put up two
new towers. That permission was granted by--I guess it is
Riverside County--Riverside County but with the condition that
they receive the Park Service's allowance to go ahead and do
that. But I have also heard that the two new towers are already
put up and the old one is down.
Mr. Jones. The concern, I think, as I understand it, as far
as the reason for the condition of approval, gets at the
fundamental issue of having potentially even greater resource
impact if they were to build new roads outside the park. And
that is a view we share.
Mrs. Christensen. Why is there more damage by building new
roads outside of the park than inside of the park? And why is
the Park Service concerned about that?
Mr. Jones. We are concerned because we have worked very
carefully with the local county in its zoning and its land-use
planning, and we feel that they have been extremely responsive
to protecting park values and interests and providing valuable
buffers to the park. And for us then to turn around after
advocating that they protect those lands to say, well, we don't
want an existing road on our land but we think it is all right
for you to start building new roads on yours is not a good
position to take at this point. It would be inconsistent with a
decade's worth of cooperation with the county.
Mrs. Christensen. I do have concerns, but if there is a way
to work it out, I am willing to be a part of that.
Mr. Radanovich. Any other questions? Mr. Souder? Please be
aware we have got another panel coming up here.
Mr. Souder. If the road is used, would there be an
agreement of limitation just to the people who are doing
repairs on the tower?
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir, and that is recommended as part of--I
believe it is part of the legislation already.
Mr. Souder. And I am going to ask them when they come, but
how do they do their current repairs? Do they use a helicopter
to get there or walk now?
Mr. Jones. Access to the towers. They have been using the
road up until when we told them that they could not do it until
this issue was resolved.
Mr. Souder. And so what has been done since 1997?
Mr. Jones. I honestly don't know.
Mr. Souder. OK, because if it is being done by helicopter,
that doesn't help wilderness values either.
Mr. Jones. No.
Mr. Souder. So I think we are all looking for how to do
this, but in a way that doesn't establish a precedent in
wilderness areas.
Mr. Jones. We share that concern. As I said, we are trying
to find what is the best way to solve a very awkward and, we
think, very unique situation.
Mr. Radanovich. Any other questions of the panel?
[No response.]
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Jones.
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. With that I will call up the next panel:
Mr. Eric Myers, who is the executive director of TelROW
Coalition, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Terry Boss, Senior Vice
President, Environment, Safety and Operations, Interstate
Natural Gas Association of America; Mr. Kenneth P'Pool, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer, Mississippi Department of
Archives; and Mr. Todd Marker, General Manager of RM
Broadcasting, from Palm Springs, California.
Gentlemen, welcome, and, Mr. Myers, if you would like to
begin your testimony, that would be greatly appreciated. We are
going to start the clocks at 5 minutes, so please wrap it up as
quickly as you can when coming to that. We are going to have
votes at around 3:30, so we would like to get this done before
then. So feel free to summarize if you want to.
STATEMENT OF ERIC D. MYERS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TELROW
COALITION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Myers. Thank you, Chairman Radanovich, and hopefully we
can all take a cold glass of water and move on from trespass
for a little while, moving back to rights-of-way.
Good afternoon. My name is Eric Myers, and I am testifying
today in my capacity as executive director of the
Telecommunications Right-of-Way Coalition, or TelROW. On behalf
of TelROW, I would like to thank Chairman Radanovich, Ranking
Member Christensen, Representative Cubin, and members of the
Subcommittee for convening today's hearing to address important
issues covered by H.R. 3258, the Reasonable Right-of-Way Fees
Act.
TelROW's members, including companies and trade
associations in the telecommunications and energy sectors,
operate a network of more than 100,000 miles of fiber-optic
cable and more than 700,000 miles of electric transmission line
across the United States. Some of this critical infrastructure
crosses Federal public lands.
Commission providers and other users of rights-of-way pay
the Federal Government for the use. In the past, these fees
have been based on the land value and the physical impact of
the utility project. Recently, however, the BLM and the U.S.
Forest Service proposed to increase right-of-way fees by
changing the basis of their calculation and abandoning existing
regulations. These interim proposed policies capture neither
the fair market value of the land nor the impact on Federal
lands and resources. Instead, the proposed policies attempt to
capture a portion of project revenues by collecting rates
specific to the technology or economic value of the facilities
themselves.
These first instances in which new policies were
implemented resulted in fees 150 times those published in the
established legitimate Federal fee schedules. These increases
were implemented overnight, with no formal notice or
opportunity for comment. Currently, after much congressional
inquiry and stern oversight, the agencies have indefinitely
delayed implementation of new fees, but maintain their
discretion to do so.
Federal Government appraisers recognize the inappropriate
nature of these fee increases in their own internal appraisal
handbooks. They state that the Federal Government should not
pay inflated technology-based prices when acquiring rights-of-
way over lands owned by private citizens or other entities.
However, in addressing what a Federal agency may charge for the
use of an easement, the participating agencies indicated, quite
inconsistently, that they saw no reason why Federal agencies
could not charge the public these much higher technology-based
rates.
The agencies currently administer rights-of-way through a
single, consistent linear fee schedule and have indicated their
intention to increase fees for fiber-optic rights-of-way first
and then proceed to reissue fees for other facilities, such as
pipelines, power lines, wire lines, et cetera. Past practice to
increase these fees was done simultaneously consistent with any
change in the value of the underlying land or inflation. The
impacts of such fees on our Nation's energy infrastructure
could be devastating for commodities and for companies that
supply and deliver these services and commodities.
The U.S. Forest Service and BLM have initiated a trend
among Federal agencies that manage public lands. The National
Park Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration have implemented or are considering similar
policies, charging even higher fees for the right to cross
these lands--in some cases, 4 to 10 times higher than the
highest fees we have seen in the BLM and Forest Service
context, or 600 to 1,000 times higher in the existing linear
fee schedules.
As a matter of fact, this week I learned that one company
has been charged $120,000 a year to go 3 miles across the
Golden Gate National Recreation Area.
Clearly, these policies have nothing to do with land
impact. It is important to note that none of these rights-of-
way are established until extensive NEPA analyses have been
conducted and deliberate and due care has been taken to prevent
and monitor impacts to the environment.
Despite the conclusions of Government studies indicating
little or no ecological harm, these agencies have followed the
lead of the BLM and the Forest Service in pursuing exorbitant
increases in fees for the right to cross public lands. Rights-
of-way are an important use of Federal lands whose impact on
the underlying value and other uses is minimal. To paraphrase
FLPMA, rent for rights of way should be no greater than the
value of the rights and privileges authorized by the right-of-
way grant or permit and should reflect a public interest in the
construction of such facilities.
We recognize that agencies may have in good faith
misinterpreted the intent of Congress in determining these new
right-of-way fees, and we believe that through the additional
guidance provided by H.R. 3258 and the public rulemaking
process, with adequate opportunity for notice and comment, the
existing fee schedule can be revised, if necessary, to promote
accurate reflections of the value of these rights-of-way.
We look forward to working with Mrs. Cubin, this Committee,
Federal land management agencies, and other interested
stakeholders pursuant to what we believe is a common goal in
the public interest.
I thank you for inviting me to testify today, and I would
be happy now to answer or provide written answers to any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Myers follows:]
Statement of Eric D. Myers, Executive Director, Telecommunications
Right-of-Way Coalition, on H.R. 3258
Good Afternoon. My name is Eric Myers, and I am testifying today in
my capacity as the Executive Director of the Telecommunications Right-
of-Way Coalition, or TelROW. On Behalf of TelROW, I would like to thank
Chairman Radanovich, Ranking Member Christensen, Representative Cubin,
and members of the Subcommittee for convening today's hearing to
address the important issues covered by H.R. 3258, the Reasonable
Right-of-Way Fees Act.
TelROW's members, including companies and trade associations in the
communications and energy sectors, operate a network of more than
100,000 miles of fiber optic cable, and more than 700,000 miles of
electric transmission lines, across the United States. Some of this
critical infrastructure, especially in the west, crosses Federal public
lands. The companies who formed this coalition were motivated by
several interim and proposed policies developed by the Bureau of Land
Management and U.S. Forest Service (See Attachments). We support H.R.
3258 as a necessary amendment to the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act (FLPMA), to ensure a reasonable approach to collecting right-of-way
rents. H.R. 3258 ensures that right-of-way rents are consistent with
the fair value of the right to cross Federal lands, thus promoting
sound management of these public resources, and advancing the public's
interest in these lands.
Introduction and Background
Communications providers and other operators and owners of linear
infrastructure pay the Federal Government for the use of rights-of-way
(ROW) over lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and other Federal agencies. Currently,
the fees for rights-of-way on Federal lands have been based on a proxy
for the market value of the land, the size of the right-of-way, and the
number of cables, pipes, or other distinct facilities. These
calculations are reasonably equivalent to the land value and the
physical impact of the utility project.
Recently, however, the BLM and USFS proposed to increase ROW fees,
by changing the basis of the calculation for ``fiberoptic projects,''
based on data they believed demonstrated a special, separate ``value of
fiberoptic use and occupancy.'' These interim and proposed policies,
however, capture neither the fair market value of the land over which
fiberoptic cable is conveyed, nor the consequent impact on Federal
lands and resources. Instead, the proposed policies attempt to capture
a portion of telecommunications revenues, by charging for uses not
based on the value of land to the Federal Government or impacts
thereto, but by rates specific to the technology or economic value of
the facilities themselves. We believe these policies are based on
arbitrary assumptions and anecdotal evidence regarding the ``market''
value of telecommunications easements across private, state, and
municipal lands, sometimes in distant, urban settings. The first
instances in which these proposed and interim policies were implemented
resulted in fees 150 times those in the published, established, and
legitimate Federal fee schedules. The USFS and BLM have failed to
justify such large increases based either on actual land value or on
land impact. Currently, after much Congressional inquiry and stern
oversight, the agencies have indefinitely delayed implementation of new
fees.
The Proposed Methodologies are Unjust
The methodologies proposed by the BLM and USFS are inconsistent
with current regulations and policies applied to other infrastructure
providers. Forcing critical infrastructure providers to pay
dramatically increased fees for the use of Federal lands, particularly
where the new use is similar or compatible to other existing uses,
involving impacts identical to or less than uses for which a lower fee
is charged, is inconsistent. Such policies protect neither the public
land nor the public interest. Such policies do not accomplish the goals
of protecting the value of Federal lands or natural resources. They
amount to a tax on the services conveyed by these facilities.
Furthermore, under such policies, Federal lands and other reservations
become roadblocks or toll booths to interstate and international
commerce.
Agency Officials Have Recognized the Inequity of These Policies
The Interagency Land Acquisition Conference, an ad hoc group of
appraisers and real estate professionals in the Federal Government,
recognized the inappropriate nature of these technology-based
valuations in their most recent revision to the Uniform Appraisal
Standards for Federal Land Acquisition (see Attachment). The Conference
indicated that the Federal Government should not pay inflated
technology-based prices when acquiring rights-of-way over lands owned
by private citizens or other entities. However, in addressing what a
Federal agency may charge for the use of an easement on Federal land,
the participating agencies indicated, quite inconsistently, that they
saw no reason why Federal agencies could not charge private easement
holders these technology-specific rates. Thus, the agencies made clear
that, technology-based prices for leasing rights of way are
inappropriate when a Federal agency has to pay such inflated rates, but
may be perfectly appropriate when the Federal agencies are the
recipient of such fees. In both cases, we are talking about definitions
of ``fair market value.'' It is important to note that many of the same
appraisers who crafted this inconsistent internal agency policy are the
same individuals advising the new fiberoptic fee schedules.
The Proposed Methodology is Contrary to Real Estate Appraisal
Principles
Generally speaking, easement values are determined to be somewhat
less than the fee value of the land upon which the easement is
established, since these rights-of-way consist of a limited contract to
use lands for a specific purpose. These valuations are guided by two
basic principles, 1) ``before and after'' value, which ascribes a value
to easements equal or similar to the reduction of value or utility
resulting from an easement use, and 2) ``willing buyer-willing
seller,'' a principle which suggests that the parties to an easement
transaction enter as willing and equal participants, with an array of
possible options. The approach taken by Federal agencies focuses on
situations where cities or other entities have incorporated franchise-
like fees into required easement payments, or where individual
landowners have leveraged their ability to ``hold out'' or obstruct
established rights across adjacent lands to obtain higher payments for
easements on their land. These cases are exceptional, and should not
alter the established principles, which base easement payments on the
underlying property value.
Land Value Is the Proper Measure of Fair Market Value for Rights-of-Way
Since there is no true market in Federal land, overall valuation,
as well as the cost of the land impact, must be estimated. While it is
appropriate for the government to come up with some methodology to
estimate values, in this case, we believe they have chosen to apply
inappropriate principles. An estimation of ROW value must be based on
the estimated value of the land, and on the estimated impact of the
project on the value of the remaining land, not on the value of
technology installed or associated commerce. A cost or impact-based
principle is the universal methodology used by right-of-way project
developers to determine constitutional levels of payment for rights-of-
way obtained from private parties in condemnation proceedings. This is
how the Federal Government determines how much to pay private land
owners when they acquire rights-of-way for roads or other public
projects.
The Market Value of Most Federal Land is Low
Government-held land is subject to far more restrictions than is
similar private property. This is because Federal statutes restrict
activities on Federal lands to accomplish other public objectives. For
instance, Federal easement holders cannot obtain permanent rights-of-
way, and must obtain Federal regulatory approval to engage in routine
maintenance. Such restrictions increase operating costs, and thus
dramatically decrease the value of the Federal land easements.
Furthermore, development of Federal lands is limited, as they are not
made available for many of the competing uses possible on private
lands, and therefore Federal lands are generally of lower real estate
value than similar privately-held lands. As a result, any policy that
attempts to draw direct associations between right-of-way fees on
private lands and fair equivalents on Federal lands must take into
account factors which reduce the utility and value of Federal land
easements, and which limit the value of Federal lands.
The Agency Proposals are Inefficient and Environmentally Unsound
These new fee schedules, proposed to increase fees incrementally
based on the number of users, or are based on the type of technology
rather than the land value and use, discourage the construction of
dark-fiber or additional unused capacity, which can be utilized at a
later date. Discouraging the installation of fiber that may be
currently unused simply means that additional capacity needed in the
future may require additional complete installations, with the related
economic costs and environmental impacts of re-accessing Federal lands
and resource areas. Such additional installations would be unnecessary
if large numbers of fibers, cables, or ducts, even though
underutilized, were installed all at one time, at one fee.
The USFS and BLM, which currently administer ROW through a single,
consistent linear fee schedule, have indicated their intention to
increase fees for fiber optic rights-of-way first, and then proceed to
reissue fees for other facilities, such as pipelines, power lines,
water lines, et cetera. As I noted earlier, and as you will hear from
my colleague from the Interstate Natural Gas Association of the
Americas, the impacts of such fees on our nations energy infrastructure
could be devastating for companies that supply or deliver these
services and commodities.
USFS and BLM have initiated a trend among other Federal agencies
that manage public lands. Through authorizing statutes other than
FLPMA, the National Park Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration have drafted or are considering similar policies
charging fees for the right to cross parks and marine sanctuaries with
fiber optic cables. It is important to note that none of these rights-
of-way are established until extensive NEPA analyses have been
conducted, and deliberate and due care has been taken to prevent and
monitor impacts to the environment. Despite the conclusions of
government studies, indicating little or no ecological harm, these
agencies have followed the lead of the BLM and USFS in pursuing
exorbitant increases in right-of-way rents and other compensation for
the right to cross Federal lands.
Conclusion
Rights-of-way for fiber-optic telecommunications and other linear
facilities are an important use of Federal lands, whose impact on the
underlying value, and other uses of those lands is minimal. To
paraphrase FLPMA, rent for rights-of-way should be no greater than the
value of the rights and privileges authorized by the right-of-way grant
or permit, and should reflect a public interest in the construction of
such facilities. Furthermore, we believe that valid, established real
estate principles should underlie any regulatory decisions made as to
the value of rights-of-way.--TelROW supports passage of H.R. 3258, as
well as other regulatory and legislative processes through which a
reasonable, practical, and consistent linear right-of-way fee schedule
can be developed.
We recognize that these agencies may have, in good faith,
misinterpreted the intent of Congress in charging ROW fees, and believe
that through the additional guidance provided by H.R. 3258, and a
public rule making process with adequate opportunity for notice and
comment from all stakeholders (the process through which the existing
fee schedule was established), the existing fee schedule can be
revised, if necessary, to more accurately reflect the value of these
rights-of-way. Prompt resolution of this issue will provide certainty
to the purveyors of our Nation's critical infrastructure, who are
committed to delivering reliable, secure, and vital products,
utilities, and services to America's consumers and growing economy. We
look forward to working with Ms. Cubin, this Committee, Federal Land
Management Agencies, and other interested stakeholders pursuant to what
we believe is a common goal, in the public interest. Thank you again
for inviting met to testify today. I would be happy to answer now, or
provide written answers, to any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Myers.
Mr. Terry Boss, Senior Vice President of Environment,
Safety and Operations with the Interstate Natural Gas
Association of America. Mr. Boss, welcome, and please proceed
with your testimony. Feel free to sum up, and please keep it
under 5.
STATEMENT OF TERRY BOSS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENT,
SAFETY AND OPERATIONS, INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS ASSOCIATION OF
AMERICA; WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Boss. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify this afternoon. INGAA
is the trade association that represents interstate natural gas
transmission pipelines in the United States, Canada, and
Mexico. Our members deliver over 90 percent of the natural gas
consumed in the U.S. via more than 200,000 miles of
transmission pipeline systems.
Many of our pipelines in the Western U.S. do traverse
either Bureau of Land Management or U.S. Forest Service lands,
and we have had a good relationship with those agencies.
Therefore, we have a keen interest in how right-of-way fees are
assessed by these agencies. The BLM/USFS proposals that we have
seen regarding possible new fee schedules for fiber-optic
systems have given us great cause for concern. While to date
the proposals have dealt only with fiber-optic systems, we are
concerned about the precedent that might happen on our right-
of-ways, including pipelines. INGAA does support the idea of
paying reasonable fees for right-of-way on public lands. We
believe H.R. 3258, introduced by Representative Cubin, sets
forth reasonable criteria for assessing these fees, and we urge
its adoption.
Before describing right-of-way fees, I want to take a
moment to talk about the natural as pipeline industry and why
our access to the right-of-way is important. One of the key
reasons our industry is focused on this issue is the fact that
natural gas demand in this country is growing at a rapid rate,
and as a result, the pipeline industry will need to grow
significantly in order to meet this anticipated opportunity, as
demonstrated in this report.
For example, population growth in areas such as Southern
California, Arizona, and the Pacific Northwest translates into
a need for more pipeline infrastructure, mainly to supply fuel
for new clean power generation facilities. It is in the West
where the vast majority of this land is located that any
significant change in the right-of-way policy is likely to have
the greatest effect on consumers. When the pipeline industry
heard about the proposed changes in fees on fiber-optic lines,
we realized that our own industry might be next.
With this in mind, the INGAA Foundation commissioned a
study to examine this issue. I have provided copies of the
study to the Subcommittee membership, and I ask that it be made
part of today's hearing record.
According to our data, there are about 15,600 miles of
pipelines in Federal lands and about 7 percent of the total
mileage in the U.S. and more to be built in the future. Most of
this pipeline mileage is located on BLM or USFS lands, with
about 28 percent of it located on other Federal lands.
The annual fees to use right-of-ways through these Federal
lands are currently about $1.6 million for our industry. If we
look at some of the potential alternatives for assessing these
fees now under consideration, natural gas industry fees could
go from $1.6 million to approximately $40 to $150 million per
year. This would assume that BLM and USFS would attempt to
place an economic value on that gas moving through there.
As you can see, these would be stunning increases, and they
would be borne largely by consumers in the Western U.S..
Of course, assigning economic value to natural gas in our
pipelines would not be easy. First, the pipeline operators do
not own the natural gas in most of our pipelines. We, as
pipelines, are transporters only, just like a trucking company.
Customers purchase gas directly from producers or market and
pay a set fee to transport it over our system. Therefore, the
economic value of the commodity is no longer tied or tracked by
the pipeline operator.
Second, the natural gas has become a true commodity. It is
traded on open markets, and prices move on a daily basis. The
price of natural gas can and does fluctuate significantly over
the course of a single year, as we have seen in recent history.
Just last year, natural gas prices moved from highs of around
$10 to lower than $2 per million cubic feet. Assigning an
annual economic value to a commodity which experiences such
daily fluctuations would be extremely difficult, if not
altogether impractical. As any experienced energy analyst would
tell you, predicting natural gas prices for an upcoming year is
even more difficult than predicting the weather.
Let me make one final point about basing right-of-way fees
on such a concept as commercial value or technology employed.
We are concerned that such a fee system would put pressure on
the BLM to give priority for new right-of-ways only to those
entities that would pay the highest fees. We have witnessed
other Federal agencies, namely, the FCC in the case of spectrum
auctions, push aside other worthy applications in favor of
producing greatest perceived dollars for the treasury. A more
balanced approach is needed, one that removes the incentive to
assign right-of-way only to the highest bidder and which fairly
compensates the Government.
As Representative Cubin has pointed out, the proposed fee
structure would harm development of telecommunications and
energy infrastructure in rural areas, particularly in the West.
Consumers in these areas would bear the cost both in terms of
higher prices and in access to critical infrastructure.
INGAA supports a real-world criteria for determining and
collecting these fees for a reasonable amount of money, and we
believe the bill proposed will help that sort of thing.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Boss follows:]
Statement of Terry Boss, Senior Vice President, Environment, Safety and
Operations, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, on H.R. 3258
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this afternoon. I am Terry
Boss, Senior Vice President for Environment, Safety and Operations for
the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA). INGAA is the
trade association that represents interstate natural gas pipelines in
the United States, Canada and Mexico. Our members deliver over 90
percent of the natural gas consumed in the US, via more than 200,000
miles of transmission pipeline systems.
Many of our pipelines in the Western U.S. do traverse either Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) or U.S. National Forest Service (USFS) lands,
and therefore we have a keen interest in how right-of-way fees are
assessed by these agencies. The BLM/USFS proposals we have seen,
regarding possible new fee schedules for fiber optic systems, have
given us great cause for concern. While to date the proposals have
dealt only with fiber optic systems, we are concerned about the
precedent that might be established for other rights-of-way, including
pipelines. INGAA does support the idea of paying reasonable fees for
right-of-way on public lands. We believe H.R. 3258, introduced by Rep.
Barbara Cubin, sets forth reasonable criteria for assessing these fees,
and we urge its adoption.
IMPORTANCE OF PIPELINES
Before describing right-of-way fees, I wanted to take a moment to
talk about the natural gas pipeline industry, and why our access to
right-of-way is important. One of the key reasons our industry is
focused on this issue is the fact that natural gas demand in this
country is growing at a rapid rate, and as a result, the pipeline
infrastructure will need to grow significantly in order to meet
anticipated demand. Pipelines are the only practical method for
transporting our product. Small amounts of liquefied natural gas (LNG)
are imported into the U.S. via tankers from abroad 1, but in
general, the natural gas we consume is produced in North America
2, and transported through pipelines from the wellhead all
the way to homes, businesses and power plants. Since natural gas
represents 25 percent of all the energy consumed in the United States,
pipelines are a critical part of the energy infrastructure we need to
fuel our economy and provide the quality of life we expect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than 1 percent of total natural gas consumed in the U.S.
annually is imported as LNG.
\2\ Eighty five percent of the natural gas consumed in the U.S. is
produced domestically, while about 15 percent of U.S. consumption is
imported from Canada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States currently consumes about 23 Trillion cubic feet
(TCF) of natural gas annually. According to a recent analysis done for
the INGAA Foundation 3, that number is expected to grow to
31.3 TCF by 2015, which represents a 34 percent increase in demand in
just 13 years. Much of this demand increase is being driven by the
growth in gas-fired power generation. Over 90 percent of all new,
installed power generation is gas-fired, and the amount of natural gas
used to generate electricity is projected to increase by 106 percent
between now and 2015. In addition, we are experiencing growth in
industrial demand from such major consumers of natural gas as glass,
fertilizer and chemical manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Pipeline and Storage Infrastructure for a 30 TFC Market--An
Updated Assessment,'' prepared for the INGAA Foundation by Energy and
Environmental Analysis, Inc., January 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All this growth translates into the urgent need for more pipeline
infrastructure as well as the continued maximum use of the existing
infrastructure. The current network of pipelines is simply not
sufficient to meet the demands of the 30 TCF market. Our analysis
estimates that the natural gas industry will require $67.9 billion of
investment in pipeline transmission and storage infrastructure from
2001 to 2015 in both the United States and Canada 4. In
total, natural gas pipeline companies will need to install more than
74,000 miles of transmission pipe to meet the growing market for
natural gas in the United States (49,500 miles) and Canada (25,000
miles) during this period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ $47.7 billion in the U.S., and $16.8 billion in Canada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a significant challenge for our industry under any
circumstances. Because of the growth that the West has experienced in
the last decade, and will continue to experience in the decades to
come, our industry will have to expand in that region. Areas such as
Southern California, Arizona and the Pacific Northwest will all need to
construct new natural gas pipeline capacity in the next few years in
order to supply fuel to new power generation facilities. It is in the
West, where the vast majority of BLM/USFS land is located, that any
significant change in right-of-way policy is likely to have the
greatest affect on consumers.
BLM/NFS PROPOSALS
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA)
authorizes the BLM to issue permits for the use of rights-of-way across
jurisdictional lands. The Act also gives the BLM the authority to
collect the ``fair market value'' for the use of such lands, ``using
comparable commercial practices.'' The BLM developed criteria for
determining the fair market value for these rights-of-way, and these
processes have been the core of the BLM fee structure since 1987. The
policy allows BLM to collect the ``reasonable costs'' associated with a
right-of-way.
Beginning in the mid-1990s, both the USFS and the BLM began looking
at establishing a new set of criteria for determining fair market
value, based in part on assessing the technology or commercial value of
the linear facility in question. These efforts have clearly been
focused on fiber optic lines, moving beyond questions regarding the
implications of land use, and looking more at the commerce associated
with a right-of-way. This would represent a major policy shift, and
would significantly increase both fees, and the amount of information
that would be required to determine what might constitute a right-of-
way's appropriate fee level. INGAA joins with the members of TeleROW in
strongly opposing these proposals.
POTENTIAL IMPACT ON PIPELINES
When the pipeline industry reviewed the proposed changes in fees
for fiber optic lines, we realized that our own industry might be next.
With this in mind, the INGAA Foundation commissioned a study
5 to examine this issue, and assess the potential impact on
our business. I have provided copies of the study to the Subcommittee
membership, and I ask that it be made a part of today's hearing record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``BLM & U.S. Forest Service Rental Valuation Impact Study,''
prepared for the INGAA Foundation by Houston Energy Group, LLC,
November, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, let me provide some background. Interstate natural gas
pipelines must first obtain approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) before any major construction or expansion can begin.
The FERC strongly encourages pipeline operators to work with both
private landowners, and with Federal/state agencies, in order to
resolve any questions about pipeline route, construction practices and
land-use compensation. The FERC coordinates the permitting process
required for the pipeline, included approval of necessary rights-of-way
through Federal lands. During construction, the right-of-wide may be
from 75 to 100 feet wide, in order to accommodate workers and
machinery, but pipeline operators are usually required to reduce the
right-of-wide width and restore the area to a generally original
condition once construction is complete. After construction, a pipeline
right-of-way is typically 50 feet wide, and must be kept clear of trees
and permanent structures primarily for safety reasons.
One of the key issues associated with new pipeline construction is
working fairly and equitably with private landowners. As I mentioned,
the FERC strongly encourages pipeline operators to negotiate directly
with private landowners about questions of pipeline route and land-use
compensation. Some of the criteria generally used to determine
compensation include the diminution of property value associated with
the right-of-way, and costs associated with restoring the right-of-way
to a usable condition. Using the power of eminent domain, the FERC can
grant condemnation authority to the pipeline if a landowner is
unwilling or unable to negotiate, but more than 90 percent of pipeline
right-of-way is typically obtained without using this authority.
According to our data, there are currently about 15,600 miles of
interstate natural gas transmission pipeline on Federal lands, or about
seven percent of the total mileage in the U.S. Most of this pipeline
mileage is located on BLM or USFS lands, 6 with about 28
percent of the total located on other Federal lands. The annual fees to
use rights-of-way through these Federal lands are currently about $1.6
million for our industry. Again, let me make the point that, in
general, aboveground usage of the land is not restricted by a pipeline
right-of-way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ About 6840 miles on BLM lands, and 4,350 miles on NFS lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we look at some of the potential alternatives for assessing
right-of-way fees now under consideration, the natural gas pipeline
industry's fees could go for $1.6 million per year to $40-$150 million
per year. This would assume that the BLM and USFS would attempt to
place an economic value on the natural gas moving through our systems
on an annual basis, and then tie fees to some percentage of that
economic value. As you can see, these would be stunning increases, and
they would by and large be borne by consumers living in Western states.
Of course, assigning an economic value to the natural gas in our
pipelines would not be easy. First, the pipeline operators do not own
the natural gas that moves through their pipelines. As a result of the
restructuring of our industry in the 1980s and 90s, interstate
pipelines no longer purchase natural gas at one end of their system,
and sell it at the other end. The interstate transportation function
has been ``unbundled'' from the gas commodity. We as pipelines are
transporters only, just like a trucking company. Customers purchase
their natural gas directly from producers or marketers, and pay a set
fee to transport their gas over our pipelines. Therefore, the economic
value of the commodity (the natural gas itself) is no longer tied to
the pipeline operator.
Second, natural gas has become a true commodity. It is traded on
open markets and prices move on a daily basis. The price of natural gas
can and does fluctuate significantly over the course of a single year,
as we have seen in recent history. Just last year, natural gas prices
moved from highs of around $10 per Mcf to lower than $2 per Mcf.
Assigning an annual economic value to a commodity which experiences
such daily price fluctuations would be extremely difficult, if not
altogether impractical. As any experienced energy analyst would tell
you, predicting natural gas prices for an upcoming year is even more
difficult than predicting the weather. Building an expensive right-of-
way fee schedule around such predictions would be a recipe for failure.
Let me make one final point about basing right-of-way fees on such
concepts as commercial value or technology employed. We are concerned
that such a fee system would put pressure on the BLM and USFS to give
priority for new rights-of-way only to those entities that could pay
the highest fees. We have witnessed other Federal agencies--namely the
Federal Communications Commission, in the case of spectrum auctions--
push aside other worthy applications in favor of producing the greatest
perceived dollars for the Treasury. Just like with radio frequency
spectrum, however, there are plenty of legitimate uses for rights-of-
way across Federal lands, and they don't always involve applications
associated with the highest fees that can be generated. A more balanced
approach is needed--one that removes the incentive to assign right-of-
way only to the highest bidder, AND which fairly compensates the
government.
NEED FOR LEGISLATION
As Representative Cubin has pointed out, the proposed BLM/USFS fee
structure would harm the development of telecommunications and energy
infrastructure in rural areas, particularly in the West. Consumers in
these areas would bear the costs, both in terms of higher prices and in
access (or lack thereof) to critical infrastructure.
INGAA supports the development of real-world criteria for
determining and collecting reasonable right-of-way fees on BLM and USFS
lands. We believe the Cubin bill, H.R. 3258, represents the best
approach to developing these fees. The legislation would determine a
fair market value for right-of-way in question by looking at some of
the same criteria we currently use in the pipeline industry for
valuation of right-of-way on private land, such as the value of the
land encumbered, the diminution of value associated with the right-of-
way, or the costs associated with restoring the land to its original
use. H.R. 3258 also puts to rest the idea of trying to determine an
economic or commercial value of the commodity or service being moved
over a right-of-way, and instead clarifies that any fee should be based
on the value of the land in question.
CONCLUSION
As our industry expands over the next 20 years, we will be
maintaining and expanding our pipeline rights-of-way on Federal lands
in order to serve energy consumers in the Western U.S. The members of
INGAA are willing to pay their fair share of the costs associated with
Federal right-of-way usage, and we believe H.R. 3258 provides a fair
and reasonable process for developing these fees. I want to thank you
once again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify today, and I
would be happy to answer any questions.
NOTE; A report accompanying Mr. Boss' statement entitled ``BLM &
U.S. Forest Service Rental Valuation Impact Statement'' has been
retained in the Committee's official files.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Boss.
Mr. Kenneth P'Pool, the Deputy State Historic Preservation
Officer with the Mississippi Department of Archives. Welcome
and please begin your testimony. Please keep it within 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH H. P'POOL, DEPUTY STATE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION OFFICER, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF ARCHIVES AND
HISTORY, JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI
Mr. P'Pool. I am very grateful to be here to testify on
behalf of H.R. 3307. I will try to summarize my comments as
submitted in my written testimony.
Sites associated with the Civil War speak profoundly to the
struggles that transformed our diverse States and peoples into
a cohesive Nation. As Southern author Robert Penn Warren
rightly stated, ``America became a nation only with the Civil
War.'' No sites tell that compelling story better than those
associated with the Vicksburg campaign.
General Grant's Vicksburg campaign is believed by many
historians to be the most decisive of the Civil War. It was the
most complex, combined operation ever undertaken by American
armed forces prior to World War II. The great significance in
this issue of acquiring Pemberton's Headquarters is that it was
the intent of both Union and Confederate veterans who planned
the Vicksburg National Military Park back in the 1890's that
the headquarters of both Grant and Pemberton be included within
the park. Because there was not a willing seller at that time
for Pemberton's Headquarters since it was in private ownership,
acquisition was not pursued. Now the owner of Pemberton's
Headquarters is a willing seller, and we have an opportunity to
fully interpret the siege of Vicksburg as envisioned by the
veterans themselves and to accomplish the expanded interpretive
mission assigned to the Vicksburg Military Park by Congress in
1990.
Because of the location of Pemberton's Headquarters at the
same general area in which the Union Army administered the
occupation of the city of Vicksburg during the Reconstruction
Era, Pemberton's Headquarters provides an ideal location within
the heart of Vicksburg to interpret not only the siege but also
the occupation and Reconstruction period, including the
significant roles played by African Americans during those
periods.
Economic development is another important aspect of this.
The National Park Service presence in downtown Vicksburg at
Pemberton's Headquarters will no doubt attract more visitors
from the park into the city, generating an important economic
impact on the city's heritage tourism economy.
A study in Virginia a few years ago indicated that visitors
to Virginia's Civil War sites expended almost twice as much
money as other visitors to their State. We expect that similar
statistics can be expected for Vicksburg as well.
Pemberton's Headquarters was restored about 3 years ago, so
additional renovation costs for the building should be modest.
Also, real estate and construction costs in Mississippi are
also modest in comparison with most other States.
Passage of H.R. 3307 is strongly supported by the city, the
county, and State governments. Therefore, I respectfully
request that the Subcommittee recommend authorization of H.R.
3307.
I would be happy to answer any questions that you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. P'Pool follows:]
Statement of Kenneth H. P'Pool, Deputy State Historic Preservation
Officer, Mississippi Department of Archives and History, on H.R. 3307
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the House Subcommittee on
National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands:
I am Kenneth H. P'Pool, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
for Mississippi and Director of the Historic Preservation Division of
the Mississippi Department of Archives and History. I am very pleased
to have the opportunity to present testimony to you in support of H. R.
3307, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire the
property known as Pemberton's Headquarters and to modify the boundary
of the Vicksburg National Military Park to include that property.
Although our country is blessed with many places of great historic
value, those associated with the Civil War speak most profoundly and
eloquently to the struggles that shaped our American democracy and
transformed our diverse states and peoples into a cohesive union. As
author Robert Penn Warren wrote, ``America became a nation only with
the Civil War.'' No Civil War sites tell the stories of valor,
commitment, and sacrifice exhibited by Northerners and Southerners,
blacks and whites, during that conflict better than those associated
with the Vicksburg Campaign.
Early in the war, Abraham Lincoln recognized Vicksburg, the
``Gibraltar of the Confederacy,'' as ``the key'' to controlling the
Mississippi River and severing the Confederacy in half. As the
Vicksburg Campaign developed, it resulted in a regional operation
involving major military actions in Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana,
as well as Mississippi.
During the winter of 1862-63, Union commander Major Gen. Ulysses S.
Grant conducted a series of amphibious operations, referred to as Bayou
Expeditions, against Vicksburg, but all failed. Finding it impossible
to approach Vicksburg through the bayous of the Mississippi Delta, in
the spring of 1863, Grant embarked upon a bold and risky strategy to
march his army of 45,000 men down the Louisiana side of the
Mississippi, cross the river below Vicksburg, and attack the city from
the south. Repulsed by the Confederate forts at Grand Gulf in his first
attempt to cross, Grant undauntedly marched his troops further south
and stormed across the river at Bruinsburg. Rapidly advancing on a 200-
mile-long triangular route (first northeastward then westward), along
sunken roads, over rugged terrain, and through dense forest and
farmlands, Grant engaged and decisively defeated the Confederates in
fierce battles near Port Gibson on May 1, 1863, Raymond on May 12,
Jackson (the state capital) on May 14, Champion Hill on May 16, and Big
Black River Bridge on May 17. After two failed attempts to take
``fortress Vicksburg'' by storm, Grant laid siege to the city for six
weeks. Cut off from supplies and reinforcements and pounded mercilessly
by Union land batteries and gunboats, Confederate commander Lt. Gen.
John C. Pemberton was forced to surrender Vicksburg on July 4, 1863.
Grant's Vicksburg Campaign is believed by many historians to be the
most decisive of the Civil War and, perhaps, the most brilliant
offensive campaign ever undertaken in North America. It was also the
most complex combined operation ever attempted by American armed forces
prior to World War II. The loss of Vicksburg, perhaps more than any
other single event of the war, spelled doom for the Confederacy.
Pemberton's Headquarters, also known as the Willis-Cowan House, is
a two-story Classical-Revival mansion located in the heart of
Vicksburg, Mississippi. Constructed in the 1830s, the house was used
during the 1863 Siege of Vicksburg as the headquarters of Confederate
Lt. Gen. John C. Pemberton. It was from this building that Pemberton
directed the doomed defense of Vicksburg, and here also on July 3,
1863, that he held a council of war with his subordinates to discuss
plans for surrendering the city to General Grant. On the next day,
Pemberton's army, which had managed to defend Vicksburg through forty-
seven days of bloody siege, solemnly surrendered. Grant's success in
capturing the ``Gibraltar of the Confederacy'' ended the dramatic
Vicksburg Campaign, securing the Mississippi River for the Union and
splitting the Confederacy in half. As historian Bruce Catton noted, the
loss of Vicksburg was ``a mortal wound to the Confederacy.''
Pemberton's Headquarters is situated in an area of the city that
suffered severely under the relentless Union siege bombardment. Its
acquisition for inclusion in the Vicksburg National Military Park would
add a greater dimension to the interpretation and understanding of what
was perhaps the most horrific siege ever inflicted upon an American
city. In planning for creation of the Vicksburg National Military Park
in the 1890s, it was the desire and recommendation of both Union and
Confederate veterans of the Siege of Vicksburg that the headquarters of
both commanders be included in the park. While Grant's headquarters
site was included in the confines of the park as established in 1899,
Pemberton's Headquarters was at the time in private ownership and
unavailable for public acquisition. Because the current property owner
is a willing seller, however, we now have the opportunity to fully
interpret the Siege of Vicksburg as originally envisioned by the
veterans of the conflict.
In 1976, Pemberton's Headquarters was designated a National
Historic Landmark, primarily for its important role in the Siege of
Vicksburg. However, the building is believed to have also been used by
Union officers during their subsequent occupation of the city, as they
did other adjacent and nearby structures. For example, Pemberton's
Headquarters is located next door to the Balfour House, which served as
Major Gen. James B. McPherson's headquarters during the Union
occupation of Vicksburg. Across the street from Pemberton's
Headquarters is the former Sisters of Mercy Convent, which was also
converted to military use after the surrender of the city. The Sister's
of Mercy are renowned for having organized one of Mississippi's first
schools for the education of African Americans. The historic Warren
County Courthouse, where the military administration of the occupied
city was conducted throughout the period of Reconstruction, is only
four blocks away, as is also the site of the 1865 to 1869 state
headquarters of the Bureau of Freedmen's Affairs.
In 1990, P.L. 101-442 charged the Vicksburg Military Park ``'to
interpret the campaign and siege of Vicksburg from April 1862 to July
4, 1863, and the history of Vicksburg under Union occupation during the
Civil War and Reconstruction.'' Located within one of Vicksburg's most
historic districts and adjacent to the command center of the Union
occupation of the city, Pemberton's Headquarters is ideally situated
for the Park to address both the siege and occupation aspects of this
expanded interpretive mandate, as well as to interpret the significant
roles played by African Americans during the Vicksburg Campaign and the
period of Reconstruction.
Finally, the inclusion of Pemberton's Headquarters in the Vicksburg
National Military Park would provide a mechanism for attracting more of
the approximately one million battlefield visitors annually from the
park on the edge of town into Vicksburg's historic downtown districts.
The economic benefits of increased tourism to the downtown area would
be tremendous, as many visitors would no doubt enjoy the many museums,
tour homes, bed-and-breakfast accommodations, shops, restaurants and
other amenities that are within easy walking distance of Pemberton's
Headquarters.
Linkage between the Vicksburg National Military Park and
Vicksburg's historic downtown has been cited as vital to the city's
economy by several economic impact studies, and is strongly supported
by local leaders, including the present mayor, the Honorable Laurence
Leyens, and his predecessor, the Honorable Robert Walker, the city's
first African American mayor. Acquisition of Pemberton's Headquarters
by the Vicksburg National Military Park would establish a National Park
Service presence in downtown Vicksburg, which would further enhance the
park's role as a good citizen of Vicksburg and Warren County.
For these reasons, I am happy to support H. R. 3307, which will
authorize acquisition and incorporation of Pemberton's Headquarters
into the Vicksburg National Military Park. Passage of this bill will
provide further protection and interpretation for one of America's most
important historic places.
Therefore, I respectfully request that the Subcommittee recommend
authorization of H. R. 3307
Thank you.
______
[Attachments to Mr. P'Pool's statement follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8660.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8660.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8660.003
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. P'Pool
Now, that bell you heard was a vote call. We have got about
5 more minutes. I am not sure--I think that everybody has been
polled--that we are going to have a lot of time for questions
afterwards. So, Mr. Marker, if you want to give your testimony,
I think that we are then going to conclude the hearing, but
allow for members to submit written questions for you to
answer.
Mr. Marker, if you want to begin, and please keep it under
5, that would be great.
STATEMENT OF TODD MARKER, GENERAL MANAGER, RM BROADCASTING,
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Marker. My name is Todd Marker. I am managing partner
of RM Broadcasting, a California corporation which owns and
operates two FM radio broadcast stations in the Palm Springs,
California, area--KPLM and KJJZ. These two stations, plus
another FM radio station, KMRJ, and the University of Southern
California's Classical Music/National Public Radio Station,
KPSC, transmit their broadcast signals from a radio tower
facility on land which RM Broadcasting owns in an area called
Indio Hills, located in the little San Bernardino Mountains.
This site is accessed by a road, a portion of which,
approximately seven-tenths of a mile, crosses into the Joshua
Tree National Park zoned wilderness area. RM Broadcasting is
seeking permission to continue using this short portion of the
road because: the area is remote and inhospitable to the extent
that it is not utilized by the public; permission has
previously been given by the Park Service to use the road
subject to certain conditions which were fulfilled; no harm has
been done or is being done to the environment; the road has
been used without other complaints, difficulties, or problems
for nearly 20 years; the road is used by the National Park
Service, the Imperial Irrigation District, the Metropolitan
Water District for official businesses; the incursion is
insignificant in length; no further incursion into the
wilderness area will occur; elimination of the incursion is not
possible due to the unsuitable terrain.
The RM Broadcasting tower site, along with its access road,
have been used by KPLM since the station was put on the air in
1983. The site and the access road were built by KPLM's
original owners, RTC Broadcasting. In 1986, KPLM was acquired
by R Group Management Company. In 1987, the original road was
improved by the R Group Management Company. At that time,
National Park Service Superintendent Rick Anderson, since
retired, notified R Group Management that the road was
trespassing on the wilderness area. R Group Management
subsequently agreed that there was trespass but was able to
negotiate an agreement with former Superintendent Anderson. See
Exhibits A, B, and C which I have got attached to the written
testimony.
This agreement stated that the R Group Management would be
able to continue to use the road subject to the conditions that
a gate and a fence be constructed and maintained, that grading
would be contoured to appear as natural as possible, and that
public service announcements for the National Park Service
would be broadcast by KPLM. R Group Management complied with
these conditions, and RM Broadcasting, which is the present
owner of KPLM and the tower site property, has continued to
maintain the road, gate, fence, and continues to broadcast
public service announcements for the National Park Service.
This is where the matter stood until March 1997 when RM
Broadcasting was notified by the new superintendent of the
National Park Service's Joshua Tree office, Mr. Ernest
Quintana, that he was reopening the issue of the tower site
access road's incursion into the wilderness area. Mr.
Quintana's position was that the road needed to be removed and
that access through the wilderness area could only take place
on foot or by mule.
Unfortunately, accessing the tower site on foot or by mule
are not practical. Distances involved on either side of the
contested area, the weight of the necessary equipment, and the
need to get to the site quickly and on short notice preclude
these options. Reworking the road to avoid wilderness area land
would require construction on unsuitable terrain which the
local zoning authority would not permit.
For these reasons, RM Broadcasting saw no other solution
than to respectfully ask Congresswoman Mary Bono, in whose
district RM Broadcasting maintains its offices, to intercede on
its behalf. Congresswoman Bono, after carefully considering the
situation, agreed that it would be onerous and unreasonable for
RM Broadcasting to discontinue using the disputed portion of
the tower site access road. Congresswoman Bono then arranged a
meeting between the principal parties in the matter on August
27, 2001, in her Palm Springs office.
The co-owners of RM Broadcasting, Robert Rivkin and Todd
Marker, met with Ernest Quintana and Mr. John Reynolds, the
regional director of the National Park Service, Congresswoman
Bono and her staff. After all parties were heard and after
carefully considering the situation, Mr. Reynolds recommended
that Congresswoman Bono sponsor a bill which would allow RM
Broadcasting to continue to use the access road to its tower
site, and he affirmed the National Park Service would have no
objection to such a bill.
This is the bill, H.R. 3718, which is now before you for
your vote. RM Broadcasting hopes that you will allow it to
continue to enjoy the use of the tower site access road as it
has for almost the past 20 years.
Attached you will see three different maps as well.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Marker follows:]
Statement of Todd Marker, RM Broadcasting, Palm Springs, California, on
H.R. 3718
synopsis
RM Broadcasting, a California corporation, owns and operates two FM
radio broadcast stations in Palm Springs California, KPLM and KJJZ.
These two stations, another FM radio station, KMRJ, and the University
of Southern California's Classical Music/National Public Radio FM
station, KPSC, transmit their broadcast signals from a radio tower
facility on land which RM Broadcasting owns in an area called Indio
Hills located in the Little San Bernardino Mountains. This site is
accessed by a road, a portion of which (approximately 7/10ths.of a
mile) crosses into The Joshua Tree National Park zoned Wilderness Area.
RM Broadcasting is seeking permission to continue using this short
portion of the road because:
Lthe area is remote and inhospitable to the extent that it
is not utilized by the public
Lpermission has previously been granted by the Park
Service to use the road subject to certain conditions which were
fulfilled
Lno harm has been done or is being done to the environment
Lthe road has been used without other complaints,
difficulties or problems for nearly twenty years
Lthe road is used by the National Park Service, the
Imperial Irrigation District, the Metropolitan Water District for
official business
Lthe incursion is insignificant in length
Lno further incursion into the Wilderness Area will occur
Lelimination of the incursion is not possible due to
unsuitable terrain.
background
The RM Broadcasting tower site along with its access road have been
used by KPLM since the station was put on the air in 1983. The site and
access road were built by KPLM's original owner, RTC Broadcasting. In
1986 KPLM was acquired by the R Group Management Company. In 1987 the
original road was improved by the R Group Management Company. At that
time, National Park Service Superintendent Rick Anderson, since
retired, notified R Group Management that the road was trespassing on
the Wilderness Area. R Group Management subsequently agreed that there
was trespass but was able to negotiate an agreement with former
Superintendent Anderson (exhibits A, B, C). This agreement stated that
R Group Management would be able to continue to use the road subject to
the conditions that a gate and fence be constructed and maintained,
that grading would be contoured to appear as natural as possible, and
that Public Service Announcements for the National Park Service would
be broadcast by KPLM. R Group Management complied with these conditions
and RM Broadcasting (the present owner of KPLM and the tower site
property) has continued to maintain the road, gate and fence and
continues to broadcast Public Service Announcements for the National
Park Service.
This is where matters stood until March of 1997 when RM
Broadcasting was notified by the new Superintendent of the National
Park Service's Joshua Tree Office, Mr. Ernest Quintana, that he was
reopening the issue of the tower site access road's incursion into the
Wilderness Area. Mr. Quintana's position was that the road needed to be
removed and that access through the Wilderness Area could only take
place on foot or by mule.
Unfortunately, accessing the tower site on foot or by mule are not
practical. Distances involved on either side of the contested area, the
weight of necessary equipment, and the need to get to the site quickly
and on short notice preclude these options. Reworking the road to avoid
Wilderness Area land would require construction on unsuitable terrain
which the local zoning authority would not permit.
For these reasons, RM Broadcasting, saw no other solution than to
respectfully ask Congresswoman Mary Bono (44th. Congressional
District), in whose district RM Broadcasting maintains its offices, to
intercede on its behalf. Congresswoman Bono, after carefully
considering the situation, agreed that it would be onerous and
unreasonable for RM Broadcasting to discontinue using the disputed
portion of the tower site access road. Congresswoman Bono then arranged
a meeting between the principal parties in the matter.
On August 27th., 2001, in her Palm Springs Office, the co-owners of
RM Broadcasting, Robert Rivkin and Todd Marker, met with Mr. Ernest
Quintana, Mr. John Reynolds, the regional director of The National Park
Service, Congresswoman Bono, and her staff. After all parties were
heard and after carefully considering the situation, Mr. Reynolds
recommended that Congresswoman Bono sponsor a bill which would allow RM
Broadcasting to continue to use the access road to its tower site and
he affirmed that the National Park Service would have no objection to
such a bill.
This is the bill, H.R. 3718 which is now before you for your vote.
RM Broadcasting hopes that you will allow it to continue to enjoy the
use of the tower site access road as it has in the past.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
testimony. Again, we have got 6 minutes left to vote, so I
think with that, we will conclude this hearing. But members are
encouraged to submit questions that they might have asked to
each one of these witnesses, and I am sure they will be happy
to respond to any one of those, which will contribute to making
this hearing complete.
I want to thank every witness for being here, and your
testimony was much appreciated. Thank you, and with that, this
hearing is closed.
[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
-