U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

78-631 PS 2002

H.R. 3401, H.R. 3954, and

H.R. 3962

LEGISLATIVE HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND

FOREST HEALTH

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

April 10, 2002

Serial No. 107-101

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska,

Vice Chairman

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Joel Hefley, Colorado

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Ken Calvert, California

Scott McInnis, Colorado

Richard W. Pombo, California

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

George Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Mac Thornberry, Texas

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Bob Schaffer, Colorado

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Greg Walden, Oregon

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

C.L. ‘‘Butch’’ Otter, Idaho

Tom Osborne, Nebraska

Jeff Flake, Arizona

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana

George Miller, California

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Calvin M. Dooley, California

Robert A. Underwood, Guam

Adam Smith, Washington

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Jay Inslee, Washington

Grace F. Napolitano, California

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey

James P. McGovern, Massachusetts

Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico

Hilda L. Solis, California

Brad Carson, Oklahoma

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Tim Stewart, Chief of Staff

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel/Deputy Chief of Staff

Steven T. Petersen, Deputy Chief Counsel

Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH

SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado, Chairman

JAY INSLEE, Washington, Ranking Democrat Member

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania,

Vice Chairman

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

C.L. ‘‘Butch’’ Otter, Idaho

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey

Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

(III)

CONTENTS

Page

Hearing held on April 10, 2002 .............................................................................. 1

Statement of Members:

Acevedo-Vila, Hon. Anibal, a Delegate in Congress from Puerto Rico ......... 59

Prepared statement on H.R. 3954 ........................................................... 60

McInnis, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 2

Peterson, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Pennsylvania ................................................................................................. 34

Prepared statement on H.R. 3962 ........................................................... 36

Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California ................................................................................................... 2

Prepared statement on H.R. 3401 ........................................................... 4

Statement of Witnesses:

Bradley, Terry, Ed.D., Deputy Superintendent for Administrative

Services, Clovis Unified School District, Clovis, California ....................... 8

Prepared statement on H.R. 3401 ........................................................... 10

Estill, Elizabeth, Deputy Chief, Programs and Legislation, Forest Service,

U.S. Department of Agriculture ................................................................... 5

Prepared statement on H.R. 3401, H.R. 3962 and H.R. 3954 ............. 7

McCurry, Craig, Elmore County Commissioner ............................................ 38

Prepared statement on H.R. 3962 ........................................................... 40

McDonald, Kristen, Associate Director, Wild and Scenic Rivers Program

for American Rivers ...................................................................................... 62

Prepared statement on H.R. 3954 ........................................................... 63

Additional materials supplied:

Alberswerth, David, Director, Bureau of Land Management Program,

The Wilderness Society, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 3962 .. 50

Cope, Dr. R.E., Commissioner, District 1, Lemhi County, Idaho, Letter

submitted for the record on H.R. 3962 ....................................................... 56

Watson, Rebecca, Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals

Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Letter submitted for

the record on H.R. 3962 ............................................................................... 66

Western Land Group, Inc., Denver, Colorado, Statement submitted for

the record on H.R. 3962 ............................................................................... 52

(1)

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 3401, TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF FOREST

SERVICE FACILITIES AND LANDS COMPRISING THE FIVE MILE REGIONAL LEARNING CENTER IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

TO THE CLOVIS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, TO AUTHORIZE A NEW SPECIAL USE

PERMIT REGARDING THE CONTINUED USE

OF UNCONVEYED LANDS COMPRISING THE

CENTER, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES;

H.R. 3962, TO LIMIT THE AUTHORITY OF

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO ACQUIRE

LAND FOR CERTAIN FEDERAL AGENCIES IN

COUNTIES IN WHICH 50 PERCENT OR MORE

OF THE TOTAL ACREAGE IS OWNED BY THE

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND UNDER THE

ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION OF SUCH

AGENCIES; AND H.R. 3954, TO DESIGNATE

CERTAIN WATERWAYS IN THE CARIBBEAN

NATIONAL FOREST IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO AS COMPONENTS OF THE NATIONAL WILD AND

SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER

PURPOSES.

Wednesday, April 10, 2002

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health

Committee on Resources

Washington, DC

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in

room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Scott McInnis,

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

2

STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT McINNIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

Mr. MCINNIS. The Committee will come to order. I ask unanimous consent that Representative Radanovich have permission to

sit on the dais and participate in the hearing. Congressman, you

are welcome to join us.

The purpose of today’s hearing is to hear testimony on three

bills: H.R. 3401, by the Chairman of the Subcommittee on National

Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands, Mr. Radanovich, to provide

for conveyance of Forest Service facilities and lands comprising the

Five Mile Regional Learning Center in the State of California to

the Clovis Unified School District, and to authorize a new special

use permit for the continued use of unconveyed lands used by the

Center; H.R. 3962, introduced by the Vice Chairman of this Subcommittee, Mr. Peterson, to limit the authority of the Federal Government to acquire land in counties in which 50 percent or more

of the total acreage is owned by the Federal Government; and finally, H.R. 3954, offered by my colleague from Puerto Rico, to designate certain waterways in the Caribbean National Forest in the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as components of the National Wild

and Scenic Rivers System.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. There are no opening remarks. They can be incorporated in the record, obviously.

Mr. MCINNIS. OK. Let’s go ahead and we will proceed with the

witnesses on the first panel, for H.R. 3401. I have already introduced the Congressman. We have Elizabeth Estill, Deputy Chief,

Programs and Legislation, U.S. Forest Service; and Dr. Terry Bradley, the Deputy Superintendent for Administrative Services, Clovis

Unified School District.

I am going to remind the witnesses that, under our Committee

rules, we have a 5-minute rule. You will see the light there. To our

witnesses, thank you very much for attending the Committee hearing today. Obviously, your comments will go onto the record. Don’t

be discouraged by the lack of participation. We have got lots of conflicts this morning, and they will be coming in and out as your testimony continues.

So you may proceed with your testimony. Do you have an opening remark?

Mr. RADANOVICH. I do, if I can, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MCINNIS. Go ahead, Mr. Radanovich.

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hearing this

bill. This bill transfers 27.1 acres of National Forest Service property from the Stanislaus National Forest to the Clovis Unified

School District. And by so doing, this legislation will permit the

school district to continue to operate the Five Mile Regional Learning Center on this National Forest land.

And more specifically, the bill would allow the school district to

fund necessary capital improvements to the Learning Center facilities. Without this legislation, these improvements and non-Federal

expenditures are not permitted, and the Learning Center could not

continue, due to its current disrepair.

3

The Five Mile Regional Learning Center is an outdoor environmental educational school that benefits youth from all over the

State of California. The Regional Learning Center serves 138

schools from approximately 60 school districts in California, and

approximately 14,000 students participated in this educational program last year.

A variety of classes is offered, with an emphasis on natural resource conservation. In addition to the environmental education

program, the school district offers course work on character development, team building, and individualized challenge activities such

as high ropes. During the summer, this site is used by a variety

of groups. In addition, a number of counties in conjunction with

local and state agencies bring at-risk kids to the program’s Life’s

Alternatives Involving Risks, or LAIR, Adventure Academy.

The 120-acre Five Mile Regional Learning Center has been operated by the Clovis Unified School District since 1989. And prior to

that, the Fresno County Office of Education started in 1969 operating the project.

While the Five Mile Regional Learning Center is located on

National Forest land, the Federal Government plays no role in the

operation or maintenance of the facilities or in the delivery of educational programs. The National Forest Service merely permits the

use of these facilities and public lands to the Clovis Unified School

District, and monitors the program to ensure the district adheres

to permit requirements.

The Forest Service has not funded or appropriated monies to

maintain or operate these buildings. According to Forest Service

documents, the Regional Learning Center facility has outlived its

life by years and, if it were not for the efforts of the Clovis Unified

School District, the buildings would be in a state of disrepair, no

longer usable.

The Clovis Unified School District has, on average, spent more

than $1 million per year over the last 12 years on operation and

maintenance. And without the transfer of ownership, the Clovis

Unified School District is prohibited by law from spending its

money on capital improvements to ensure that these facilities do

not fall into disrepair.

In addition to the ongoing commitment of spending more than $1

million per year in operating costs, the Clovis Unified School District is willing to invest $5 million over 5 years in capital improvements and renovations to the existing facilities.

I understand that there are concerns regarding the fair market

value of this property, but Clovis Unified is not a private-sector,

for-profit institution. It is a school district, and the school district

does not intend to use this acreage for marketplace purposes. Instead, Clovis Unified is committed to maintaining the public value

in this land and these facilities out of its own pocket.

Additionally, in the 106th Congress, H.R. 150 was signed into

law, which provides the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to

convey Forest Service land for educational purposes. The Forest

Service has yet to make any conveyances under H.R. 150, and has

yet to write regulations to implement the Act, which is why

H.R. 3401 is before us today.

4

In addition to the transfer, H.R. 3401 authorizes a new special

use permit that would continue to authorize Clovis Unified’s use of

the adjacent 100 acres. There are no structures in need of capital

improvements on these 100 acres.

The Federal costs of this transfer are administrative only, and

are negligible to the amount that the school district will be spending to increase the value of the property and run this valuable educational program for the benefit of the children of California.

In conclusion, this legislation is a positive effort in effective local,

state, and Federal Government cooperation.

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today. And thank

you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing this bill to be heard.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]

Statement of The Honorable George P. Radanovich, a Representative in

Congress from the State of California

Mr. Chairman, thank you for considering H.R. 3401 today, the California Five

Mile Regional Learning Center Transfer Act.

This bill transfers 27.1 acres of National Forest Service property from the

Stanislaus Forest to the Clovis Unified School District. By so doing, this legislation

will permit the school district to continue to operate the Five Mile Regional Learning Center on this National Forest land and, more specifically, the bill would allow

the school district to fund necessary capital improvements to the Learning Center

facilities. Without this legislation, these improvements and non-federal expenditures

would not be permitted and the Learning Center could not continue due to dilapidation.

The Five Mile Regional Learning Center is an Outdoor Environmental Education

School that benefits youth from all over the state of California. The Regional Learning Center serves 138 schools from approximately 60 school districts in California.

Approximately 14,000 students participated in this educational program last year.

A variety of classes are offered with an emphasis on natural resource conservation.

In addition to the environmental education program, the school district offers course

work on character development, team building, and individualized challenge activities such as high ropes. During the summer the site is used by a variety of groups.

In addition, a number of counties in conjunction with local and state agencies bring

‘‘At risk kids’’ to the program’s Life’s Alternatives Involving Risks (LAIR) Adventure

Academy.

The 120-acre Five Mile Regional Learning Center has been operated by the Clovis

Unified School District since 1989. Prior to that the Fresno County Office of Education starting in 1969 operated the project.

While the Five Mile Regional Learning Center is located on National Forest Land,

the Federal Government plays no role in the operation or maintenance of the facilities used by the program or in delivery of the educational program. The National

Forest Service merely permits the use of these facilities and public land to the Clovis Unified School District, and monitors the program to ensure the District adheres

to permit requirements. The Forest Service has not funded or appropriated monies

to maintain or operate these buildings. According to Forest Service documents the,

‘‘Regional Learning Center facility has outlived its life by years, and, if it were not

for the efforts of the Clovis Unified School District, the buildings would be in a state

of disrepair useable to no one.’’

The Clovis Unified School District has—on average—spent more that $1 million

per year over the last 12 years on operation and maintenance. Without transfer of

ownership, the Clovis Unified School District is prohibited by law from spending its

money on capital improvements to ensure that these facilities do not fall into disrepair.

In addition to the ongoing commitment of spending more than $1 million per year

in operation costs, the Clovis Unified School District is willing to invest $5 million

over 5 years in capital improvements and renovations to the existing facilities.

I understand there are concerns regarding the fair market value of this property.

Clovis Unified is not a private sector, for-profit institution. It is a school district.

The school district does not intend to use this acreage for marketplace purposes. Instead, Clovis Unified is committed maintaining the public value in this land and

these facilities out of its own pocket.

5

Additionally, in the 106th Congress, H.R. 150 was signed into law. It provides the

Secretary of Agriculture the authority to convey Forest Service Land for educational

purposes. The Forest Service has yet to make any conveyances under H.R. 150 and

has yet to write regulations to implement the Act, which is why H.R. 3401 is before

us today.

In addition to the transfer, the H.R. 3401 authorizes a new Special Use permit

that would continue to authorize Clovis Unified’s use of the adjacent 100 acres.

There are no structures in need of capital improvement on the 100 acres.

The Federal costs of this transfer are administrative-only and negligible to the

amount that the school district will be spending to increase the value of the property and run this valuable educational program for the children of California.

In conclusion, this legislation is a positive effort in effective local, state and

Federal Government cooperation. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and

addressing any issues that arise today.

Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing.

Mr. MCINNIS. All right, let’s proceed. My understanding is you

have got some testimony for the other bills, as well, and you wish

to proffer all of that at this point?

Ms. ESTILL. I would like to do all three at once, if I could.

Mr. MCINNIS. And then you will stay around for questioning?

Ms. ESTILL. Sure will.

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH ESTILL, DEPUTY CHIEF,

PROGRAMS AND LEGISLATION, FOREST SERVICE, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Ms. ESTILL. Thank you very much for inviting us to participate,

and for this opportunity to appear before you today. I am Elizabeth

Estill, the Deputy Chief for Programs and Legislation of the USDA

Forest Service, and I am here to provide the Department’s views

on three bills: H.R. 3962, the Good Neighbor Act; H.R. 3401, the

California Five Mile Regional Learning Center Transfer Act; and

H.R. 3954, the Caribbean National Forest Wild and Scenic Rivers

Act.

The Department supports H.R. 3954, the Caribbean National

Forest Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, with some very minor technical

corrections. The Department would like to work with the

Committee to make a number of improvements to H.R. 3401, the

California Five Mile Regional Learning Center Transfer Act—although I would say right now that we are certainly in favor of the

transfer—and H.R. 3962, the Good Neighbor Act, before these bills

move forward.

H.R. 3962, the Good Neighbor Act: It limits the ability of the

National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land

Management, and the Forest Service, to acquire land within counties already containing 50 percent Federally controlled land.

H.R. 3962 would require the agencies to dispose of land equal to

97 percent of the value of the land to be acquired in those counties.

In addition, the Act requires the agency to notify the Governor,

the chief executive of the county, and members of the House and

Senate, prior to the acquisition. It also requires the agency to hold

a hearing prior to the acquisition, within the county in which the

land is located. If the Federally owned lands in the county exceed

66 percent, H.R. 3962 requires approval of the Federal acquisition

by the governing legislative body of the county.

6

The Department recognizes and supports addressing the needs of

local citizens to participate in decisions regarding Federal lands

within their counties. However, we would like to work with the

Committee to modify, where necessary, some of the limitations of

H.R. 3962. For example, we should ensure that H.R. 3962 is consistent with the existing and individual state enabling acts that authorize and provide conditions on approvals of Forest Service acquisitions as required by the Weeks Act.

H.R. 3962 also requires the Federal agencies to dispose of land

equal in value to lands acquired, without providing a related sales

authority. The Forest Service does not have a general sales authority to accomplish the bill’s purposes.

And finally, we should work to ensure that H.R. 3962 would not

unnecessarily limit the ability of the Forest Service to acquire

lands to further the purposes of land management mandates imposed under other statutes, such as the Federal Land Policy and

Management Act, the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act, and the

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, and the

National Forest Management Act.

We agree that additional Federal acquisitions should, as a rule,

be discussed with local elected officials to communicate both the

public needs, and also have the Forest Service better understand

the communities’ perspective on the impact. And we are committed

to work with the Committee to meet that objective. We look forward to working with the Committee to identify ways to better involve local citizens in land acquisition decisions, while still retaining the authority of the Federal Government to acquire those lands

which are in the broader public’s interest.

H.R. 3401 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey without

consideration 27 acres of National Forest System lands to the Clovis, California Unified School District. This conveyance would also

include the improvements that comprise the Five Mile Regional

Learning Center. In addition, the bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into negotiations on the terms of a special use permit with the school district, to allow their use of an additional 100

acres of National Forest System land.

This bill includes a reversionary clause in which the property

conveyed would revert to the United States if the school district

discontinues its operation of the Learning Center.

The Department does not support the conveyance of land and improvements without consideration. Rather, we would like to work

with the Committee to pursue this transaction in a manner consistent with either the Sisk Act, Public Law 90-171, or the Education Land Grant Act, Public Law 106-577, which both allow conveyance of the National Forest System lands for educational purposes.

Presently, personnel on the Stanislaus National Forest are working with the school district to explore the conveyance of this land

under Public Law 106-577. In addition, we would like to work with

the Committee to ensure that a reversionary interest in the land

would limit the potential liability to the Federal Government.

H.R. 3954, the Caribbean National Forest Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, amends Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, to

designate three rivers in the Caribbean National Forest in the

7

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as components of the National Wild

and Scenic River System.

The segments to be designated include 4.4 miles of the Rio

Mamayes, 2.1 miles of the Rio de la Mina, and 2.3 miles of the Rio

Icacos. H.R. 3954 would allow, subject to the Secretary’s discretion,

installation and maintenance of data collection and transmission

facilities, construction and maintenance of structures to allow monitoring of flora and fauna, and construction and maintenance of

trails for research facilities.

The Department supports H.R. 3954, with a very small number

of technical corrections, which have been discussed with your staff.

This concludes my testimony, and I look forward to answering

any questions that you may have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Estill follows:]

Statement of Elizabeth Estill, Deputy Chief, Programs and Legislation,

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 3962, H.R. 3401,

and H.R. 3954

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity

to appear before you today. I am Elizabeth Estill, Deputy Chief for Programs and

Legislation, USDA Forest Service. I am here today to provide the Department’s

views on three bills: H.R. 3962 Good Neighbor Act, H.R. 3401 California Five Mile

Regional Learning Center Transfer Act, and H.R. 3954 Caribbean National Forest

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

The Department supports H.R. 3954 Caribbean National Forest Wild and Scenic

Rivers Act with some technical corrections. The Department would like to work with

the Committee to make a number of improvements to H.R. 3401 California Five

Mile Regional Learning Center Transfer Act and H.R. 3962 Good Neighbor Act before these bills move forward.

H.R. 3962 Good Neighbor Act

H.R. 3962 Good Neighbor Act limits the ability of the National Park Service, Fish

and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the Forest Service to acquire land within counties already containing 50 percent Federally controlled land.

H.R. 3962 would require the agencies to dispose of land equal to 97 percent of the

value of the land to be acquired in those counties. In addition, H.R. 3962 requires

the Agency to notify the Governor, chief executive of the county, and Members of

the House and Senate prior to the acquisition. H.R. 3962 also requires the Agency

to hold a hearing, prior to the acquisition, within the county in which the land is

located. If the Federally controlled land within the county exceeds 66 percent of the

land area of the county, H.R. 3962 requires approval of the Federal acquisition by

the governing legislative body of the county.

The Department recognizes and supports addressing the needs of local citizens to

participate in decisions regarding Federal lands within their counties. However, we

would like to work with the Committee to modify where necessary limitations imposed on Federal acquisitions by H.R. 3962.

For example, we should ensure that H.R. 3962 is consistent with existing individual state enabling acts that authorize and provide conditions on approvals of

Forest Service acquisitions as required by the Weeks Act (P.L. 61–435).

H.R. 3962 also requires the Federal agencies to dispose of land equal in value to

lands acquired without providing a related sales authority. The Forest Service does

not have a general sales authority to accomplish the bill’s purpose.

Finally, we should work to ensure that H.R. 3962 would not unnecessarily limit

the ability of the Forest Service to acquire lands to further the purposes of land

management mandates imposed under other statutes, such as the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Multiple–Use Sustained Yield Act, the Forest and

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, and the National Forest Management Act.

We agree that additional Federal acquisitions should, as a rule, be discussed with

local elected officials to communicate the needs as well as understand the impacts

on communities and are committed to work with the Committee to meet that objective. We look forward to working with the Committee to identify ways to better involve local citizens in land acquisition decisions while still retaining authority of the

8

Federal Government to acquire those lands which are in the broader public’s interest.

H.R. 3401 California Five Mile Regional Learning Center Transfer Act

H.R. 3401 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey without consideration 27

acres of National Forest System lands to the Clovis, California Unified School District. The conveyance would also include the improvements that comprise the Five

Mile Regional Learning Center. In addition, the bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into negotiations on the terms of a special use permit with the

school district to allow their use of an additional 100 acres of National Forest System land. The bill includes a reversionary clause in which the property conveyed

would revert to the United States if the school district discontinues its operation of

the Learning Center.

The Department does not support the conveyance of land and improvements without consideration. Rather, the Department would like to work with the Committee

to pursue this transaction in a manner consistent with either the Sisk Act, P.L. 90–

171 or the Education Land Grant Act, P.L. 106–577, which both allow conveyance

of National Forest System lands for educational purposes. Presently, personnel on

the Stanislaus National Forest are working with the school district to explore conveyance of this land under P.L. 106–577. In addition, we would like to work with

the Committee to ensure that a reversionary interest in the land would limit potential liabilities to the Government.

H.R. 3954 Caribbean National Forest Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

H.R. 3954 Caribbean National Forest Wild and Scenic Rivers Act amends Section

3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)) to designate three rivers

in the Caribbean National Forest in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as components of the National Wild and Scenic River System. The segments to be designated

by H.R. 3954 include 4.4 miles of the Rio Mameyes, 2.1 miles of the Rio de la Mina,

and 2.3 miles of the Rio Icacos. H.R. 3954 would allow, subject to the Secretary’s

discretion, installation and maintenance of data collection and transmission facilities, construction and maintenance of structures to allow monitoring of threatened

and endangered species, and construction and maintenance of trails for research facilities.

The Department supports H.R. 3954 with a small number of technical corrections. We recommend that subsection 2(c) be eliminated as the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act includes direction for establishing a river corridor boundary, submitting the

resulting map and legal description to Congress, and providing for public inspection

of the map and legal description (16 U.S.C. 1274 (b) and (c)). This matter has been

discussed with your staff, as well as other minor technical corrections.

Conclusion:

This concludes my testimony. I look forward to answering any questions you may

have.

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Ms. Estill.

You may proceed, Dr. Bradley.

STATEMENT OF TERRY BRADLEY, Ed.D., DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, CLOVIS

UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Mr. BRADLEY. Chairman McInnis and members of the House

Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 3401, the California Five

Mile Regional Learning Center Transfer Act. My name is Terry

Bradley, Deputy Superintend for Administrative Services for the

Clovis Unified School District. And it is my honor to represent our

district at today’s hearing in support of H.R. 3401, as introduced

by the Honorable George Radanovich in the House of Representatives on December 4, 2001. As part of my testimony, there are several exhibits that I ask be incorporated as part of the record.

The Clovis Unified School District is located in Fresno County,

in the middle of the great Central Valley in California. Clovis

9

Unified serves approximately 33,500 students in grades K through

12. Clovis students live in the Cities of Clovis and Fresno, plus

parts of the County of Fresno. And I have been a staff member of

Clovis Unified since 1976.

Clovis Unified has leased the Five Mile Regional Learning Center from the Forest Service under a special use permit since 1989.

During this time period, we have established an excellent working

relationship with the Forest Service. We fully expect that this cooperative relationship between the district and the Forest Service will

continue if title to the Regional Learning Center conveys to our

school district.

The Regional Learning Center is located on approximately 27.1

acres in the Stanislaus National Forest, at approximately 4,100

feet in elevation. The nearest city to the Regional Learning Center

is the city of Sonora. The 27.1-acre site was initially developed during the early 1960’s by the Forest Service, and consists of several

barracks, a cafeteria/kitchen building, classrooms, gymnasium, and

shop buildings. In 1999, Clovis Unified and the Forest Service

amended the special use permit to add approximately 93-plus acres

adjacent to the Regional Learning Center for use for outdoor educational purposes.

The center is used as an outdoor educational environmental

school for students in fourth through twelfth grades. During the

2000-2001 school year, the center served more than 14,000 students, from 140 schools and 60 school districts from throughout the

State of California. Since our district assumed management of the

center, more than 160,000 students have benefited from the center’s program.

Classes range from forest to raptor studies, with an emphasis on

national resource conservation. In addition to our environmental

education program, classes are also offered on character development, team building, and individual challenges such as high-rope

climbing. A more thorough description of our educational programs

offered to students at the center is included in our written testimony as an exhibit.

In addition, the Regional Learning Center is also used for conferences, workshops, and athletic camps for both youths and adults.

A sample of the activities hosted by the center during the past year

include a technology conference for teachers, the California Department of Forestry Academy, several summer basketball camps, and

retreats for both youths and adults.

The buildings and structures of the center have been in existence

since the early 1960’s. Because of financial shortfalls, the Forest

Service has not been able to maintain or operate these buildings.

Since taking over the operation of this center in 1989, Clovis Unified has spent more than $1 million each year operating the center.

During the last fiscal year, our operating expenses exceeded $1.2

million. We have invested more than $14 million in the operations

of the Learning Center since 1989.

In addition to the operating costs, Clovis Unified is prepared to

invest funds necessary to modernize and improve the Regional

Learning Center’s facilities. However, because Clovis Unified does

not own the land or buildings, we are prohibited from spending district of state money for capital facility improvements or renovations

10

at the center. Capital investments must be made now to continue

the Regional Learning Center. With title to the center’s lands and

buildings, Clovis Unified can use district and state funds to make

the necessary facility improvements.

H.R. 3401 will transfer ownership of the center to Clovis Unified. Approval of H.R. 3401 is necessary so that the capital renovations and improvements vital to the continued use of the center can

and will be completed.

According to a Forest Service representative, the Regional Learning Center facility has outlived its life by years, and if it were not

for the efforts of the district, the buildings would be in a state of

disrepair, usable to no one. In a letter to our district dated June 5,

2000, by the Stanislaus National Forest Supervisor, it stated, ‘‘We

have considered your request and believe that your acquisition of

the Learning Center would be in the interest of the public and the

Forest Service.’’

Clovis Unified is committed to invest $5 million over 5 years in

capital renovations and improvements, if H.R. 3401 is approved.

This investment is in addition to our $1.2 million annual expenditure provided for operation and routine maintenance.

H.R. 3401 would also authorize a new special use permit to continue the authorization.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Bradley, could you wrap it up, please?

Mr. BRADLEY. Oh, I am sorry. Well, I will just finish up, then.

In closing, we urge your support and approval for this legislation

that should be considered non-controversial and a wonderful example of effective local, state, and Federal Government cooperation.

The Federal costs of this transfer are administrative only, and negligible compared to the investment our district is willing to make

and the improved and continuing educational services provided students throughout our state.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, for

the opportunity to testify today. We look forward to working with

the Committee and the Forest Service on this legislation. Thank

you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bradley follows:]

Statement of Terry Bradley, Ed.D., Deputy Superintendent for

Administrative Services, Clovis Unified School District, City of Clovis,

County of Fresno, State of California, on H.R. 3401

Chairman McInnis and Members of the House Subcommittee on Forests and

Forest Health, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 3401, the

California Five Mile Regional Learning Center Transfer Act.

My name is Terry Bradley; Deputy Superintendent for Administrative Services for

the Clovis Unified School District and it is my honor to represent our school district

at today’s hearing in support of H.R. 3401, the ‘‘California Five Mile Regional

Learning Center Transfer Act’’ introduced by the Honorable George Radanovich in

the House of Representatives on December 4, 2001. As part of my testimony, there

are several exhibits that I ask be incorporated as part of the record.

The Clovis Unified School District is located in Fresno County, which is the heart

of the great Central Valley in California. Clovis Unified serves approximately 33,500

students in grades K–12. Clovis students live in the cities of Clovis and Fresno plus

parts of the County of Fresno. I have been on the staff of Clovis Unified since 1976.

Clovis Unified has leased the Five Mile Regional Learning Center from the Forest

Service under a Special Use Permit since 1989. During this time period, we have

established an excellent working relationship with the Forest Service. We fully expect that this cooperative relationship between the Clovis Unified School District

11

and the Forest Service will continue if title to the Five Mile Regional Learning Center conveys to our school district.

The Regional Learning Center is located on approximately 27.1 acres in the

Miwok Ranger District of the Stanislaus National Forest at approximately 4,100

feet in elevation. The nearest city to the Regional Learning Center is the City of

Sonora. The 27.1-acre site was initially developed during the early 1960’s by the

Forest Service and consists of several barracks, a cafeteria/kitchen building, classrooms, and gymnasium and shop buildings. In 1999 Clovis Unified and the Forest

Service amended the Special Use Permit to add approximately 93 acres adjacent to

the Regional Learning Center for use for outdoor educational purposes.

The Regional Learning Center is used as an Outdoor Environmental Educational

School for students in fourth through twelfth grade. During the 2000–01 school

year, the Regional Learning Center served more than 14,000 students from 140

schools and 60 school districts from throughout the State of California. Since CUSD

assumed management of the Center, more than 160,000 students have benefited

from the Center’s programs. Classes range from forest to raptor studies with an emphasis on natural resource conservation. In addition to our environmental education

program, classes are also offered on character development, team building and individual challenge activities such as high rope climbing. A more thorough description

of educational programs offered to students at the Regional Learning Center is included in our written testimony as an exhibit.

The Regional Learning Center is also used for conferences, workshops and athletic

camps for both our youth and adults. A sample of the activities hosted by the Center

during the past year include a technology conference for educators, the California

Department of Forestry Academy, several summer basketball camps and retreats for

both youth and adults.

The buildings and structures at the Regional Learning Center have been in existence since the early 1960’s. Because of financial shortfalls, the Forest Service has

not been able to maintain or operate these buildings. Since taking over the operation of the Regional Learning Center in 1989, Clovis Unified School District has

spent more than $1 million each year operating the Center. During the last fiscal

year, our operating expenses exceeded $1.2 million. Clovis has invested more than

$14 million in the operations of the Learning Center.

In addition to the operating costs, Clovis is prepared to invest the funds necessary

to modernize and improve the Regional Learning Center’s facilities. However, because Clovis Unified does not own the land or buildings, we are prohibited from

spending District or State money for capital facility renovations or improvements at

the Regional Learning Center. Capital investments must be made now to continue

the Regional Learning Center. With title to the Center’s land and buildings Clovis

can use District and State funds to make the necessary facility improvements.

H.R. 3401 will transfer ownership of the Regional Learning Center to the Clovis

Unified School District. Approval of H.R. 3401 is necessary so that capital renovations and improvements vital to the continued use of the Regional Learning Center

can and will be completed. Otherwise the condition of the Center’s buildings and

infrastructure will result in the discontinuation of the Regional Center’s operation.

According to a Forest Service representative, the Regional Learning Center facility has outlived its life by years and if it were not for the efforts of the Clovis Unified School District, the buildings would be in a state of disrepair useable to no one.

In a letter to our District dated June 5, 2000, Ben Del Villar, the Stanislaus

National Forest Supervisor, stated that, ‘‘We have considered your request and believe that your acquisition of the Learning Center would be in the interest of the

public and the Forest Service.’’

Clovis Unified is committed to invest $5 million over 5 years in capital renovations and improvements to the Regional Learning Center if H.R. 3401 is approved.

This investment is in addition to the $1.2 million annual expenditure provided by

CUSD for operations and routine maintenance. Also, we are committed to continuing to expand and enhance our outdoor educational curriculum to provide students from throughout California with the best experience possible during their stay

at our facility.

H.R. 3401 would also authorize a new Special Use permit to continue the authorization for our school district to use the adjacent 93+ acres as presently used for

environmental program activities. H.R. 3401 provides that title to the real property

conveyed under the Act would revert if the Clovis Unified School District discontinues its operation of the Five Mile Regional Learning Center.

Included with our written testimony is a full description of the educational program offered at the Regional Learning Center along with maps that identify the location of the Regional Learning Center and adjacent property that is affected by

H.R. 3401. Also, we have attached as exhibits several letters sent to members of

12

the California Congressional delegation from schools throughout the State of California. These letters are from school districts that have utilized the Regional Learning Center and express support for the proposed legislation.

In closing, we urge your support and approval for this legislation that should be

considered non-controversial and a wonderful example of effective local, state and

Federal Government cooperation. The Federal costs of this transfer are administrative only and negligible compared to the investment Clovis Unified is willing to

make in both operational expenditures and capital facility improvements. The result

will be the continuation and enhancement of this valuable outdoor educational program and the continuation of Outdoor Environmental programs utilized and appreciated by school and community groups throughout California.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee for the opportunity to

testify and for your consideration of H.R. 3401. We look forward to working with

the Committee and the Forest Service on this legislation.

[Attachments to Mr. Bradley’s statement follow:]

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Mr. MCINNIS. All right. We will open it up for questions on the

witnesses. Our primary focus here is Mr. Radanovich’s bill, so that

is where I would like to restrict the questions to, specifically to that

bill. After we have those questions, then we will move on to the

next bill. Are there any questions?

Mr. RADANOVICH. If I may, Mr. Chairman, just a couple of questions?

Mr. MCINNIS. Yes.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Elizabeth, thank you for being here to testify.

And I notice in your testimony that you mentioned support of the

bill. But there are some circumstances regarding the bill, and one

of the issues mentioned was the issue of liability.

I am familiar with some of these issues, when you had mentioned some of your public law. And I am not sure how they match

up against H.R. 150, which was the law that allowed Forest Service transfer to educational groups. I am aware that this is the first

law to be implemented by that, and there are no regulations that

have been set up by the Department. And sometimes the first bill

implementing a bill previously passed is sometimes laborious. But

you had mentioned a liability issue that I am not quite familiar

with.

Ms. ESTILL. Pretty unlikely, considering the use of this facility.

However, we would like to protect ourselves so that the Secretary

could not take the land back if it should be contaminated with

whatever contamination might exist out there.

Mr. RADANOVICH. The area of liability that you are concerned

with, then, is basically environmental clean-up possibilities?

Ms. ESTILL. Exactly.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Those kinds of things?

Ms. ESTILL. Exactly.

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK.

Ms. ESTILL. The real issue, if I might, that we have is that the

Education Land Grant Act really will suffice. And it does require

a nominal fee of $10 an acre.

Mr. RADANOVICH. They are more than willing to pay that $10.

Ms. ESTILL. And we think we can do it, just under that authority.

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK. Good. I am not sure there are any other

questions that I have. Well, Mr. Bradley, let me ask a couple of

quick questions. Do you plan to harvest trees on this property?

Mr. BRADLEY. No. No.

Mr. RADANOVICH. No? OK. And do you have any plans to restrict

public access to any of the roads there?

Mr. BRADLEY. No. We would like as many people to enjoy the facility as possible.

Mr. RADANOVICH. All right. OK. Those are all the questions that

I have, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much, Mr. Bradley for being here.

Mr. BRADLEY. Thank you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. And thank you, Elizabeth.

Mr. MCINNIS. Are there any further questions in regards to this

bill? Go ahead.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Yes, good morning. To Mr. Bradley, you

quote in your testimony a Forest Service reply to your request, and

I quote, ‘‘We have considered your request and believe that the

33

acquisition of the Learning Center would be in the public interest.’’

Are we still talking about a purchase? That was the original request, to buy the land? Or what is your position right now with regard to that?

Mr. BRADLEY. That was a letter that we received from the Forest

Service supervisor when we started discussions about the purchase

of the property under the old Sisk Act, in the late 1990’s. And we

were not aware of the issue related to fair market value. We

thought because of the educational values that our district is bringing to the full state, along with the Forest Service, by the use of

that property, there would not be a fair market value issue; especially with the commitment the district was willing to make and

capital facility improvements.

Subsequent to that, when we had some meetings with the Forest

supervisor, that issue came up not only for the 27.1 acres where

the center is located, that certainly has a lot of trees on it, that

that fair market value would include the value of the trees for logging purposes, for which we would have really no private interest

in doing that.

You know, we are a public educational agency, not in the

business—although some of our taxpayers don’t think so—but not

in the business of making money.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Thank you.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. MCINNIS. Go ahead, Mr. Holt.

Mr. HOLT. Thank you. With regard to the Five Mile Regional

Learning Center, Ms. Estill, what is the fair market value of this

parcel that taxpayers would be conveying?

Ms. ESTILL. The last time that it was actually valued was in ’94,

I believe, and that was about $1 million. We think it is probably

worth about $2 million now.

Mr. HOLT. Thank you.

Mr. MCINNIS. Any further questions?

[No response.]

Mr. MCINNIS. If there are no further questions, I would like to

thank the witnesses. Ms. Estill, if you will stay here, obviously, for

the other bills?

Mr. Bradley, thank you for your attendance in front of the

Committee.

Mr. BRADLEY. Thank you.

Mr. MCINNIS. Your exhibits will be incorporated into the record.

Mr. BRADLEY. Thank you.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Acevedo-Vila, we were going to take you next

in order, but Mr. Peterson’s witness has arrived, so we will stick

with our schedule, if there is no objection.

Our next panel would be Mr. Craig McCurry, the Elmore County

Commissioner. And I think, Mr. Peterson, that is your only witness; is that correct?

Mr. PETERSON. Yes.

Mr. MCINNIS. OK. Mr. Peterson, we are on your bill, H.R. 3962.

Do you have an opening statement?

Mr. PETERSON. Yes.

Mr. MCINNIS. You may proceed.

34

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. PETERSON. I would like to thank the Chairman for scheduling this hearing and allowing this bill to be heard. The Good

Neighbor Act of 2002, H.R. 3962, is exactly that: a bill to make

sure the Federal Government is a good neighbor in communities

where they own the majority of the land in a county. A good neighbor is a part of the community, and supports the community

through taxes from the land base. A good neighbor does not take

away more acreage from the tax base, unless there is agreement

within the county that it is in the best interests of the agency and

the county.

Let me simply explain how the bill works. If 50 percent or more

of a county’s land base is owned in total by the Bureau of Land

Management, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife

Service, and the Forest Service, before an agency can acquire more

land the agency must first sell land of equal value. Also, the agency

can do land exchanges of equal value.

In counties in which these agencies own 50 to 66 percent of the

land, the agency can still acquire land, by giving notice to county,

state, and Federal elected officials; holding a hearing; and getting

the Governor to approve. When total agency ownership is above 66

percent, the elected county officials must approve purchases as

well. So you would have the Governor approve and the county approve. And in all cases, the 40-acre inholdings can be purchased by

giving notice.

In large measure, counties with high percentages of Federal

lands are in less populated, rural areas with small ownerships adjacent to, or interdispersed among, the Federal owner. These areas

are characteristically strapped for cash and struggling to fund the

basic infrastructure crucial to the quality of life.

The bill is about fairness: making it fair for counties that have

large Federal land holdings to maintain a tax roll to provide basic

services just like other counties throughout the United States.

I, personally, do not oppose all land acquisitions by the Federal

Government; and neither does H.R. 3962. I fully understand that

there are many cases in which land acquisition by the Federal Government is appropriate. I just want counties to have the option to

maintain their tax base.

I am advocating for the Federal Government to take greater responsibility for land acquisition decisions, to work with their neighbors on these decisions, and make more efficient use of these funds.

I am promoting greater accountability to Congress and to local and

state governments when the Federal Government buys land.

My position and the intent of this bill is to leave land on the local

property tax rolls and promote cooperative alliances. The Federal

Government needs to be a better neighbor when it comes to Federal land acquisitions. The Good Neighbor Act specifically has been

designed to only affect counties who have a major encroachment,

while leaving a small regulatory footprint. The bill only affects 171

counties at the 50-percent factor, out of 3,066. This is less than 6

percent of all counties. There would be no harness placed on the

Federal land purchased in the remaining 2,895 counties.

35

Currently, a hole exists in regulation and statute which allows

the Federal Government to buy land without notice or comment

provided to local people. A broad cooperation and coordination obligation is specified under the law. This obligation is toothless. When

the acquisition happens outside a management plan, no regulation

exists that specifies the Federal Government must give state and

local governments notice and comment. The Forest Service does not

routinely conduct environmental assessments on land acquisitions

that would allow for local input.

I acknowledge that some local land managers work well with

their communities coordinating land acquisitions. Unfortunately,

others do not meaningfully consult with local governments; leaving

them powerless with such important decisions affecting their tax

rolls. Unless the law is amended, a patchwork will persist, with a

few bright squares of coordination existing with far too many areas

where counties are locked out of the process.

Now, the President articulated his policy on the Federal land acquisition in his budget this year, and he speaks of: To make the

most efficient use of these funds; to promote cooperative alliances;

and to leave land on the state tax rolls. And the request emphasizes innovative alternatives to fee title purchases, such as conservation easements and land exchanges. We think our bill works

right along with those priorities of the President.

The Good Neighbor Act makes the most efficient use of funds by

keeping the tax rolls stable—in other words, if you buy, you sell— allowing the Federal Government to use funds to take care of their

land, while keeping PILT acres stable in those counties.

H.R. 3962 promotes cooperative alliances by plugging the existing hole in the law and requiring land management agencies to

seek for local input. I think that most counties and states will be

more than willing to work with the Federal agencies in meeting

agency goals through land acquisitions in their county. Most importantly, the bill is in complete harmony with the President’s policy

to leave land on the tax rolls. The land management agencies can

still acquire land by exchange or purchase, after selling the needed

land acreage to maintain the tax base.

The bill also provides for an exception where the Federal Government limits its power by allowing for state and local governments’

approval of land acquisition. This places the approval with local

lawmakers who know the most about the needs of their communities. They live there; they have been elected, and must meet payrolls, provide services, and fund local initiatives on a potentially decreasing tax base. But more importantly, the bill provides for a

process where dialog is needed, and where decisions are weighted

with input.

Finally, the bill promotes innovative alternatives to fee title purchases by promoting land exchanges. The Administration has taken

responsible steps, and I look forward to working with them.

When the Federal Government owns over half of a county, it can

deal a crushing blow to local communities who rely on a solid tax

base. Compounding the Federal presence is the fact that the Government does not pay its fair share of taxes; the agencies have not

been able to provide revenue from timber, minerals, and grazing;

and PILT payments continue to be under-funded.

36

It is an embarrassment that we pay our arrearages to the United

Nations, but we do not pay our arrearages to our own people. From

1996 to the year 2000, the U.S. Government is approximately $650

million in arrearages to its own citizens who live adjacent to public

lands. In other words, we have not paid the authorized amount for

PILT.

Historically, we, the Federal Government, paid less than a quarter per acre. Last year we increased the amount to 33 cents an

acre, if you include all Federal ownership. Yet if that acre were left

on the local tax roll, it would value between $1.25 to $3 an acre.

BLM did a study on their land, and came up with a nationwide average, if land were left on the tax rolls, of $1.48 for the same land

that they pay 33 cents for.

A good neighbor does not move into your house and take over,

especially when they are not invited. County commissioners have

been forced to increase local millage rates to compensate for the

lack of Federal funds. In some states, increases in the millage rate

is not allowed, and they are forced to cut programs.

An example is found in the statement of a county administrator

for Marshall County, Mississippi, who recently appeared before a

Forest Counties Payments Committee public listening session. He

said, ‘‘We have approximately 45,000 acres of public land, and

30,000 of those are national forest, and the balance is the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers down the Tallahatchie River toward the

reservoir area. No personal property taxes are collected on these

lands, and it is left as a burden to the taxpayers to make up the

difference in the form of a millage rate.’’ While Federal land plays an important role in preserving our national heritage and our rich environment, the land acquisition process should not occur at the expense of local communities. I ask this

Committee, as a person concerned for rural America: Let us work

together and try to have the Federal Government be a good neighbor.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]

Statement of The Honorable John Peterson, a Representative in Congress

from the State of Pennsylvania

Mr. Chairmen.

The Good Neighbor Act of 2002, H.R. 3962, is exactly that—a bill to make sure

the Federal Government is a good neighbor in communities where they own the majority of land in a county. A good neighbor is a part of the community and supports

the community through taxes from the land base. A good neighbor does not take

away more acreage from the tax base, unless there is agreement within the county

that is the best for the Agency and for the county.

Let me simply explain how this bill works. If 50% or more of a county’s land base

is owned, in total, by BLM, NPS, F&WS, and FS, before an agency can acquire more

land, the agency must first sell land of equal value. Also, the agency can do land

exchanges of equal value. In counties in which these agencies own 50–66% of the

land, the agency can still acquire land by giving notice to county, state, and Federal

elected officials, hold a hearing, and get governor approval. When total agency ownership is above 66%, the elected county officials must approve purchases as well.

In all cases, 40-acre inholdings can be purchased by giving notice.

In large measure, counties with high percent of Federal land are in less populated, rural areas with small ownerships adjacent to or interdispersed among the

larger Federal owner. These areas are characteristically strapped for cash and

struggling to fund the basic infrastructure crucial to quality of life. This bill is about

fairness—making it fair for counties that have large Federal land holdings to maintain a tax roll to provide basic services just like other counties throughout the US.

I, personally, do not oppose all land acquisition by the Federal Government and

37

neither does H.R. 3962. I fully understand that there are many cases in which land

acquisition by the Federal Government is appropriate. I just want the counties to

have the option to maintain (not even asking they increase, just maintain) their tax

roll base.

I am advocating for the Federal Government to take greater responsibility for the

land acquisition decisions, to work with their neighbors on these decisions, and

make more efficient use of those funds! I am promoting greater accountability to

congress and to local and state governments when the Federal Government buys

land! My position and the intent of this bill is to leave land on the local property

tax rolls and promote cooperative alliances! The Federal Government needs to be

a better neighbor when it comes to Federal land acquisitions. The good neighbor act

specifically has been designed to only affect counties who have a major Federal encroachment while leaving a small regulatory footprint. The bill only affects 171

counties out of a total of 3066, this is less then 6% of all counties. There would be

no harness placed on the Federal land purchases in the remaining 2895 counties.

Currently, a hole exists in regulation and statute that allows the Federal Government to buy land without notice or comment provided to local people. A broad cooperation and coordination obligation is specified under current law. This obligation

is toothless. When the acquisition happens outside a management plan, no regulation exists that specifies the Federal Government must give state and local governments notice and comment. The Forest Service does not routinely conduct environmental assessments on land acquisitions that would allow for local input. I acknowledge that some local land managers work well with their communities coordinating

land acquisitions. Unfortunately, others do not meaningfully consult with local government, leaving them powerless with such important decisions affecting their tax

rolls. Unless, the law is amended, a patchwork will persist with a few bright

squares of coordination co-existing with far to many dull patches where counties are

locked out of the process.

The President articulated his policy on Federal land acquisition in The Fiscal

Year 2003, The Interior Budget in Brief. The bill follows tenets of the President’s vision for Federal land acquisition programs as outlined in The Budget Brief. The

vision is summarized as follows:

I. To make the most efficient use of these funds

II. Promote cooperative alliances and

III. Leave land on state tax rolls

IV. The request emphasizes innovative alternatives to fee title purchases such as

conservation easements and land exchanges

Let me take each of these policy standards and apply provisions of the good neighbor act. • The good neighbor act makes the most efficient use of funds by keeping the tax

rolls stable allowing the Federal Government to use funds to take care of their

land while keeping pilt acres stable in those counties.

• H.R. 3962 promotes cooperative alliances by plugging the existing hole in the

law and requiring land management agencies to allow for local input. I think

most counties and states will be more than willing to work with Federal agencies in meeting agency goals through land acquisitions in their county.

• Most importantly the bill is in complete harmony with the President’s policy to

leave land on the local tax rolls. The land management agencies can still acquire land by exchange or purchase after selling the needed land acreage to

maintain the tax base. The bill also provides for an exception where the Federal

Government limits its’ power by allowing for state and local governments approval of land acquisition. This places the approval with local lawmakers who

know the most about the needs of their communities. They live there, have been

elected, and must meet payrolls, provide services, and fund local initiatives on

a potentially decreasing tax base. But more importantly, the bill provides for a

process where dialogue is needed, and where decisions are weighted with more

input.

• Finally, the bill promotes innovative alternatives to fee title purchases by promoting land exchanges. The administration is taking responsible steps and I

look forward to working with them on this approach.

When the Federal Government owns over half the county it can deal a crushing

blow to local communities who rely on a solid tax base. Compounding the Federal

presence is the fact that the government does not pay it’s fair share of taxes, the

agencies have not been able to provide revenue from timber, minerals, and grazing,

and pilt payments continue to be under funded. It is an embarrassment that we pay

our arrearages to the United Nations but we do not pay our arrearages to our own

people! From 1996 to 2000 the United States Government is approximately 650 million dollars in arrearages to our own citizens who live adjacent to public lands. HisVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:28 Jan 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 78631.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
38

torically, ‘‘we’’ the Federal Government paid less then a quarter per acre. Last year

we increased the amount to 33 cents an acre yet if that acre were left on the local

tax roll it would valued between $1.25 and 3.00 dollars an acre. BLM did a study

and came up with a nation wide average if land were left on the tax roll of $1.48

for the same land that we pay 33 cents. A good neighbor does not move into your

house and take over, especially when they are not invited.

County commissioners have been forced to increase local millage rates to compensate for the lack of Federal funds. In some states increases in the millage rate

is not allowed and they are forced to cut vital programs. An example is found in

the statement of a county administrator for Marshall County, Mississippi who recently appeared before a Forest Counties Payments Committee public listening session. He said, ‘‘we have approximately 45,000 acres of public land, and 30,000 of

those are national forest land and the balance is U.S. Army Corps of Engineers land

down in the Tallahatchie River towards the reservoir area. No personal property

taxes are collected on these lands, and it is left as a burden to the taxpayers to

make up the difference in the form of a millage rate.’’ While Federal lands play an

important role in preserving our national heritage and our rich environment, the

land acquisition process should not occur at the expense of local communities.

I asked you, as a person concerned for rural America, let us work together to be

a good neighbor!

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. McCurry, you may proceed. You have 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF CRAIG McCURRY, COUNTY COMMISSIONER,

ELMORE COUNTY, IDAHO

Mr. MCCURRY. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the

Committee, thank you for the opportunity to voice my support for

H.R. 3962. My name is Craig McCurry, and I am the Chairman of

the Elmore County Board of Commissioners in Elmore County,

Idaho. I am here on behalf of the citizens of my county, and the

Idaho Association of Counties.

Elmore County is home to 30,000 people and Mountain Home Air

Force Base. Elmore County and IAC applaud the efforts of Congress to address the fundamental issue of land acquisition by the

Federal Government, and ask your overwhelming support of

H.R. 3962. H.R. 3962 presents an excellent opportunity to minimize the impact of land acquisition on the 44 counties in Idaho and

countless counties around the Nation affected by Federal land in

their counties.

We appreciate the actions of Idaho’s congressional delegation to

begin a much needed discussion of land acquisition by the Federal

Government. The position of the Idaho Association of Counties, of

which Elmore County is a member, has always been that Federal

and state real property holdings should be maintained at a minimum level. Acquisition of new land by Federal or state agencies

should be subject to the agreement of the county within which the

property is located. If additional acquisitions are necessary and

agreed to, local political subdivisions should be compensated for

lands or facilities so acquired.

The Federal Government currently owns 62 percent of Idaho,

placing us third in the Nation for Federal land ownership. Elmore

County is 67 percent Federally owned. Federal lands, although

positive in some aspects, do negatively impact the gateway communities surrounding the Federal land. The acquisition of Federal

land causes a property tax shift to our citizens, who are already

facing difficult economic times.

39

In addition to providing services to the residents within the confines of a tight budget, counties must also bear the additional costs

of providing services to the non-residents recreating on Federal

land, whether it be road upkeep or search and rescue, all without

full funding of PILT.

In the last fiscal year, Idaho received only 59 percent of what

Congress is authorized to appropriate for PILT. Elmore County received a little over $1 million in PILT for fiscal year 2001, more

than $760,000 less than authorized. This payment of $1 million— a tax payment for 67 percent of our county—amounts to only 10

percent of our current budget. That tax shift that this represents

to the citizens is obvious.

Let me add that even if Congress did fund PILT at the full authorization level, it would still be less than what could be generated if the lands were on the private tax rolls. Additionally, if

private citizens owned these lands, they would have no choice but

to pay their taxes.

Congress should meet their tax obligations prior to engaging in

discretionary spending. It is the fundamental belief of Elmore

County and the Idaho Association of Counties that the Federal

Government should not acquire more land until it fulfills its responsibility to the land it already owns by fully funding PILT and

using proper management techniques to ensure the health of the

Federal land.

A great number of Elmore County residents make their living off

the land, and wish these lands preserved for generations to come.

The Federal Government has a responsibility to protect the land it

currently owns, prior to taking more off the tax rolls.

Let me take a moment to thank those of you that have supported

PILT payments in the past. And we hope you would continue to do

so in the future.

One example of the impact of Federal land on a county budget

is the amount of time and resources that are spent to cover search

and rescue and law enforcement needs on public lands. In a slow

year, the Elmore County sheriff’s department spends $15,000 on

search and rescue services, and is usually rebuffed by Federal

agencies when asking for assistance, whether it be the use of a helicopter or financial reimbursement.

The Forest Service pays the sheriff’s department $16,000 a year

to patrol the Forest Service lands within my county. That comes

nowhere close to full reimbursement for services provided. The

county sheriff also helps maintain and patrol the waterways in our

county.

Our citizens appreciate the opportunity to recreate close to home,

but are tired of carrying the financial burden for all of the non-residents traveling to Elmore County to enjoy all we have to offer.

H.R. 3962 is not perfect; nor does it solve all of our problems.

But it does offer opportunities to improve upon the current system.

H.R. 3962 limits the acquisition of land by the Federal Government in counties in which the Federal Government owns 50 percent or more of the acreage within that county, by requiring an almost equal land trade.

In closing, I would like to cover one of the last aspects that we

feel is important. Local government officials are closest to the

40

people and to the communities they serve, and should be an integral part of any discussion of Federal land acquisitions. Local government officials are currently treated as stakeholders, and not as

elected officials with the statutory responsibility to provide for the

health, safety, and welfare of the citizens within our boundaries.

I thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and thank you

for your exemplary service.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McCurry follows:]

Statement of Craig McCurry, Elmore County Commissioner

Honorable Chairman and Committee Members:

Thank you for the opportunity to voice my support for H.R. 3962. My name is

Craig McCurry and I am a County Commissioner representing Elmore County,

Idaho. I am here on behalf of the Elmore County Board of County Commissioners

and the Idaho Association of Counties (IAC). Elmore County is home to almost

30,000 people and Mountain Home Air Force Base.

Elmore County and IAC applaud the efforts of Congress to address the fundamental issue of land acquisition by the Federal Government and ask for your overwhelming support of H.R. 3962. H.R. 3962, the ‘‘Good Neighbor Act of 2002’’, presents an excellent opportunity to minimize the impacts of land acquisition on the

forty-four counties in Idaho and the countless counties around the nation affected

by the Federal land in their county. We appreciate the actions of Idaho’s Congressional Delegation, especially Congressman Otter, to begin a much-needed discussion

of land acquisition by the Federal Government.

The position of the Idaho Association of Counties, of which Elmore County is a

member, has always been that:

‘‘Federal and state real property holdings should be maintained at a minimum

level. Acquisition of new land by a Federal or state agency should be subject to...the

agreement of the county within which the property is located. If additional...acquisitions are necessary, and agreed to, local political subdivisions should

be compensated for lands and/or facilities so acquired’’ (Idaho Association of Counties Public Lands Book 2001).

The Federal Government currently owns sixty-two percent (62%) of Idaho, placing

us third in the nation for Federal land ownership. Elmore County is sixty-seven percent (67%) Federally owned. Federal lands, although positive in some aspects, do

negatively impact the gateway communities surrounding the Federal land. The acquisition of Federal lands causes a property tax shift to our citizens, who are already facing difficult economic times.

Tourism is not the panacea some think it might be. In addition to providing services to their residents within the confines of a tight budget—Idaho counties are subject to budget limitations—counties must also bear the additional costs of providing

services to the non-residents recreating on Federal land, whether it be road upkeep

or search and rescue, all without full funding of Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT).

In the last fiscal year, Idaho received only 59% of what Congress is authorized to

appropriate for PILT. Elmore County received a little over $1 million in PILT for

fiscal year 2001, more than $760,000 less than authorized. This payment of $1 million, a tax payment for 67% of the county is only 10% of our current budget. The

tax shift that represents to the citizens is obvious. Let me say that even if Congress

did fund PILT at the full authorization level, it would still be less than what could

be generated if the lands were on the tax rolls. Additionally, if private citizens

owned these lands, they would have no choice but to pay their taxes. Congress

should meet their tax obligation prior to engaging in ‘‘discretionary spending.’’

To add insult to injury, after recommending cutting the PILT budget by $45 million, the President’s proposal calls for approximately $531 million for land acquisition. It is the fundamental belief of Elmore County and the Idaho Association of

Counties that the Federal Government should not acquire more lands until it fulfills

its responsibility to the land it already owns, by fully-funding PILT and using proper management techniques to ensure the health of that Federal land. A great number of Elmore County residents make their living off the land and wish these lands

preserved for generations to come. The Federal Government has a responsibility to

protect the lands currently under its jurisdiction prior to taking more off the tax

rolls.

Let me take a moment to thank you to those of you that have supported PILT

increases in the past and we hope that you would continue to do so in the future.

One example of the impact of Federal lands on a county budget is apparent in how

41

much time and resources is needed to cover the search and rescue and law enforcement needs of those public lands. In a slow year, Elmore County’s Sheriff Department spends at least $15,000 each year on search and rescue services and is usually

rebuffed by the Federal agencies when asking for assistance, whether it be the use

of a helicopter or some financial reimbursement. The Forest Service pays the Sheriff’s Department $16,000 a year to patrol the forest service lands within my county.

That comes nowhere close to full reimbursement for services provided. The County

Sheriff also helps maintain and patrol the waterways within our county. Not only

do the Federal agencies not offer labor or resources to perform those services, the

Federal agencies charge campground fees and the county never sees any of those

revenues. Our citizens appreciate the opportunity to recreate close to home but are

tired of carrying the financial burden for the non-residents traveling to Elmore

County to enjoy all we have to offer.

H.R. 3962 is not perfect, nor does it solve all of our problems, but it does offer

opportunities to improve upon the current system. H.R. 3962 limits the acquisition

of land by the Federal Government in counties in which the Federal Government

owns 50% or more of the acreage within that county by requiring an almost equal

land trade. Of the forty-four counties in Idaho, 22 are more than 50% Federal lands.

This legislation also prevents the Federal Government from acquiring land, without

the permission of local decision-makers, within counties that are currently 66% or

more Federally owned. Twelve counties in Idaho are more than 66% Federal ownership.

One of the crucial aspects of this legislation is the cooperation and consultation

with local governments. Local government officials are closest to the people and to

the community they serve and should be an integral part of the discussion of any

action by the Federal Government affecting their county. Local government officials

are currently treated as stakeholders and not as elected officials with the statutory

responsibility to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the citizens within

their boundaries. It is essential that we are part of the discussion process when decisions are made affecting our constituents.

Thank you for the opportunity to voice our support for H.R. 3962. It is our desire

that the Federal Government work toward becoming a good neighbor by taking this

opportunity to right a wrong. The passage of H.R. 3962 would represent an auspicious occasion for the counties in America with Federal lands within their borders.

Thank you for your exemplary service to this great nation.

Mr. MCINNIS. As a courtesy, I am going to yield my question

time to either of the gentleman from Idaho. Mr. Simpson? I said

either of the gentlemen.

Mr. SIMPSON. I will go, then. I appreciate it. I appreciate the bill

that you have introduced, Mr. Peterson, and I support it.

Elizabeth, I would like to ask you a couple of questions. I know

the Administration is concerned about the acquisition of private

land, and becoming more and more Federal land. But in many of

the western states, as testimony has indicated—67 percent of

Elmore County. At Challis County it is 96 percent Federal land.

That means 4 percent of the property is paying the taxes there.

And many of us, with the Carroll legislation and things that

have many good provisions in them that we would like to see enacted, our biggest problem is the funding of the Federal Land and

Water Conservation Fund that takes $450 million annually, and

the acquisition of land without really any provision that it does not

impact these counties in an adverse way.

Mr. Peterson here has introduced a bill, I think, that tries to address that. You mentioned that we should look at this. In your testimony you said we should look at this to make sure that it would

not unnecessarily limit the ability of the Forest Service to acquire

lands to further purposes of land management mandates imposed

under statutes such as the Federal Land Policy and Management

Act, the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act, the Forest and

42

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, and the National

Forest Management Act.

Those are all acts dealing with Federal land, not with private

land. And what we are talking about here is the acquisition of private land. How does the Forest Service acquire private land to further the purposes of a statute meant to deal with Federal lands?

Ms. ESTILL. A number of ways. But typically, we are talking

about lands that are within the designated boundary of a national

forest. So that it is within the boundary. It has been studied. And

in some way—either through an earmark by Congress, through

LWCF—it has been viewed to be in the public’s interest to acquire

that.

It might be for example an inholding in a wilderness area that

we have all agreed we need to try to acquire to further the purposes of the public lands. So that would be an example of acquiring

private land in the public interest.

Mr. SIMPSON. If you already own half of the land in the county,

or two-thirds of the land in the county, and you decided to acquire

an inholding, there are no other lands within that county which we

can give up for private use?

Ms. ESTILL. Well, there certainly could be. And our typical process, actually, we don’t have an authority to dispose of lands, just

a general authority to dispose of lands. We can do it through an

exchange, which requires evaluation and environmental review and

so forth. But our disposal authority is really quite limited.

Mr. SIMPSON. Is that the only way you can dispose of it, is

through exchange?

Ms. ESTILL. We can dispose of it. No, there are about five different ways that we can dispose if it. The Schools Act, that we

talked about previously, is one. The Sisk Act. Each of those has a

limitation on the numbers of acres and the purposes for which we

could dispose of it.

So, yes, there are some authorities. We don’t have a general authority. It is usually a very time consuming process. And what is

problematic about going through a very lengthy process—finding

the appropriate vehicle, if there is one, and then going through a

lengthy process—is the opportunity to acquire that. For example,

inholding is open for a very short window, and then it is closed. So

the opportunity sometimes dissipates.

Mr. SIMPSON. Could you tell me what the Administration has requested in PILT funding this year?

Ms. ESTILL. I am sorry, I don’t have that information. We can

certainly get it for you.

Mr. SIMPSON. OK. I appreciate that. Would the Forest Service,

just out of curiosity, consider waiving its sovereign immunity for

new land purchases and paying property taxes at the level compared to those paid by private properties?

Ms. ESTILL. I would not be ready to answer that question for the

Administration today. I can get back with you on that.

Mr. SIMPSON. OK. I appreciate that. And I am just talking about

the addition of the new acquisitions of land.

Ms. ESTILL. Yes. Yes.

Mr. SIMPSON. And you know that there are a lot of private organizations out there that work on that assumption, such as the

43

Nature Conservancy, that acquires lands but doesn’t take it off of

the tax rolls.

Ms. ESTILL. Right.

Mr. SIMPSON. My time is just about up, but I want to thank you,

Commissioner McCurry, for coming. It is good to see you again.

This is a county in my district, and he is doing a great job making sure that we try and protect the property owners and the budgets of those counties that are severely impacted by Federal lands.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Inslee?

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just would like to ask Ms. Estill, how would this impact any

land exchange programs that the Service had? What would be the

impact on that program?

Ms. ESTILL. It would be a pretty dominant impact on those land

exchange programs; in that we would certainly have to go back

through consideration. I mean, currently it is policy, even if it is

not always done, that the forest supervisors and the rangers and

the staff at each local level consult with county officials. And certainly, under the Sisk Act we are required to have state approval

for any land transactions within a state, according to state law.

This could be pretty burdensome on the Federal process, particularly if we go through hearings, for example. I have heard not only

from the Forest Service that it could be quite a difficult situation,

but from some private land owners, that they really don’t want

their affairs subjected to a hearing and their ability to sell the land

scrutinized and decided by the county government.

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. Mr. McCurry, I appreciate your making

the trip here. And I am empathetic with your county’s financial situation of limited tax base. And you talked about the services you

have to provide associated with some of these Federal lands, and

I can understand that.

Do you think the best approach to this is a financial one, to help

your county deal with it; for instance, by increasing PILT payments

to help you financially weather this storm? Or is it better just to

have an absolute limitation of Federal ownership in a particular

county, as this bill would propose?

And I guess what I am really asking is, do you have a philosophical objection to the Federal Government owning over a certain

percentage in any county? Or is it more just that this imposes a

financial burden on you, and if we fix this financial burden, there

shouldn’t be any sort of ideological objection to having a certain

percentage in Federal ownership?

Mr. MCCURRY. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, I would probably

answer that two ways. The financial impact, in my current elected

capacity, is my primary concern; although as a private citizen,

philosophically, I believe that the Federal Government should be

careful about owning too much land.

As Congressman Simpson mentioned, we have a couple of counties in our state that are over 95 percent Federally owned, and that

creates some additional problems. So as a citizen, I philosophically

am opposed to higher land ownership by the Federal Government.

But my primary concern here is the financial impact on rural counties in Idaho.

44

Mr. INSLEE. So let me ask you, if you had a choice between increasing PILT payments to counties such as yours, or giving a tax

cut to the Enron Corporation of $254 million, what do you think

would be a more important policy in the United States?

Mr. MCCURRY. I think the Federal Government should pay its

fair share of taxes, Congressman.

Mr. INSLEE. Well, let me just come back to my question. If you

had a choice to urge Congress to increase PILT payments or, instead of doing that, to give Enron a $254 million tax cut, what do

you think would be more important, in your view?

Mr. MCCURRY. I believe that fully funding PILT is more important to the local counties.

Mr. INSLEE. I agree with you. We, you and I, are in the minority

on this issue. I will just give you that bad news in that regard.

But it is a serious issue. Because I think you sit, like a lot of

counties do, with extreme financial problems associated with this.

And I agree with you, that we ought to increase these payments.

I tend to think that is a better approach than an absolute limitation, some numerical limitation, associated with Federal ownership,

at least in my view. And I thank you, and thank Mr. Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, could I just ask, I am curious: Is

life truly a zero-sum game?

Mr. MCINNIS. Now, now, now, now, now. We are going to move

on.

Mr. INSLEE. No, but the Federal budget is.

Mr. MCINNIS. Let’s see, Mr. Otter?

Mr. OTTER. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You

know, I think more important than the numbers is good faith. And

I think in Mr. Peterson’s opening testimony—and this is my first

year here—the fact that those who would now decry where money

is being spent have not lived up to their obligation throughout the

history. Otherwise, we would not be over $660 million behind in PILT

payments. We would not be over $48 million behind in Idaho in

IDEA education payments. We wouldn’t be near the financial problems that we have, had we kept promise, let alone worrying about

the figures. And I think if you make a promise, you ought to worry

more about keeping that promise than playing some zero-sum

game all the time.

One of the problems that we have, Ms. Estill, is not just of ownership; although I will admit, in my 19-county district in Idaho I

have double-digit unemployment in six of those counties, and all

six of those counties are the ones where there is a predominant

ownership by the Federal Government, and therefore control by the

Federal Government, and therefore confusion on land management.

One of the other major problems that we have is that we find

that much Federal ownership is disuse of land. In other words, we

have probably the predominant source of invasive species. We have

noxious weeds. And one of the things that obviously concerns us is

that most of the seed genesis for noxious weeds that end up on

state land or private land in Idaho comes from the Federal land.

And it always concerns me that if I, as a private property owner,

have a patch of noxious weeds on my property, the local government can come in and, if I refuse to eradicate that problem, the

45

local government can come in and eradicate it for me, and then put

a lien against my land that says, ‘‘If you ever want to transfer ownership of this land, you are going to have to satisfy this financial

obligation to the rest of the community.’’ And so it is most appropriate, I think, that this is called the ‘‘Good Neighbor Act’’; if we could go much further in making the

Federal ownership be a good neighbor in terms of what is happening on the land, as well as the ownership of the land, and their

inability or their lack of desire to be good neighbors by paying their

fair share of the taxes. And so it is the very management problems

that you were talking about that this would cause. That is what

is causing us some problems.

And I want to know what is present in the Administration’s philosophy to be a good neighbor, with or without this bill? What

about eradicating the noxious weeds? What about managing the

lands in such a way so that we are a good neighbor? Is there any

general purpose in the Administration, or do we just want to buy

more land because we have got an inholder and we think we need

to own it?

Ms. ESTILL. No, I think, clearly, we do want to be good stewards

of the land, and we do want to be good neighbors. We are as concerned about things like noxious weeds spreading outside, or southern pine beetle in the southern states spreading outside from a national forest. And I know you have heard from us many times that

we feel somewhat hamstrung or gridlocked, in analysis paralysis

sometimes, to be able to get out and do active management in a

rapid kind of way. That is a problem.

Then, just simply a scarcity of resources to put on the ground,

which any agency will probably argue is a consideration. But we

would like very much to be better neighbors than we are. And I

think every one of our district rangers who live in those local communities certainly is sensitive to the needs of local people, and

wants to do the best that they can.

Mr. OTTER. Well, my time is about up, but I just want to tell you

how disappointed I was in the Administration during the discussions on CARA and their mute response to the problems that we

have; where we admitted, and in this Committee, we have got

$1,200,000,000 in backlog maintenance on noxious and invasive

weeds on Federal ground through all of the agencies.

We have got over $10 billion in maintenance that is due in order

to bring Federal facilities and Federal lands up to the standards

that the Federal Government imposes on everybody else in Clean

Water, Clean Air, the ADA, all of the other Federal mandates, that

the Federal Government then absolves itself from any—It is such

a good idea for everybody else, except a Federal agency.

And I just want to tell you how frustrating it is to have the Administration now come in here and tell us that, even though while

we were going through all the debate on CARA and $1 billion—

$450,000,000 for the Federal Government, $450,000,000 for the

states—to go out and buy up more land; and then resist, or at least

stand silent, while we ask, ‘‘Why don’t you just bring your facilities

and bring your lands that you now own up to the standards that

you are requiring of states and that you are requiring of the private land owner?’’

46

And I guess that is the end of my statement, because my light

is red. And Craig, welcome to Washington, D.C., I think.

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Congressman.

Mr. OTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Udall? Any other questions on this side? Mr.

Udall?

Mr. UDALL OF COLORADO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just to review a little bit of the background with you, and then

ask a couple of questions, the total acreage under the management

of the BLM, the Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife, and National

Park Service, has actually decreased from about 700 million acres

in 1964, to 60,200,000 acres. So we are talking about 80 million

acres less of Federal land from ’64 to ’94, in 30 years. And that is

in the GAO report.

Of the four agencies that acquired land in that 30-year period,

about half of that was done by either gift or donation, or by exchange. So on the acquisition, it is a little bit over 10 million acres.

So almost half of that. So we are only talking about five million

that was actually done, where we have gone out and there was an

acquisition.

I am wondering how many circumstances are in your states, circumstances or cases that you can point to, where a land acquisition

went forward without support of the local congressional delegation

and against the wishes of local county officials? Were there a lot

of those circumstances? I mean, is that what we are trying to solve

with this bill?

You know, the local congressional delegations running over the

county? Or what is the big problem here that we are trying to address?

Ms. ESTILL. Well, as I think most of you are aware, most of the

acquisitions come through LWCF, and they usually are congressionally earmarked. So there has been ample public discussion before the appropriations arrive at all levels, typically.

Mr. UDALL OF COLORADO. And in the new CARA bill, doesn’t it,

have many requirements, in terms of local notification and involving local people? And there are many protections that we put in

there to make sure that there weren’t problems at the local level.

You are aware of those, I guess?

Ms. ESTILL. There certainly are measures. In fact, in virtually all

of the bills, there are measures that require public notification.

Again, how much notification and how quickly it goes out, and the

individual land owner who might wish to dispose of his property

to the Federal Government, becomes a sensitive issue. But typically, all of the acquisitions have been subjected to public scrutiny

before they go through.

Mr. UDALL OF COLORADO. And what you said earlier is that land

exchanges would be severely hampered by this.

Ms. ESTILL. Well, yes. It would certainly put more process and

requirement on us. And again, as I mentioned, there is some

unease that I am hearing from in the field about how the private

land owners and those who acquire land on behalf of the Federal

Government would feel about having to go before a public hearing.

So it cuts both ways, it seems.

47

Mr. UDALL OF COLORADO. Craig, do you have any egregious examples of where the congressional delegation has run over local

folks in acquisitions in your state?

Mr. MCCURRY. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, I don’t have any examples where our congressional delegation has run over people in

our state. We’re pretty pleased with our congressional delegation

from Idaho.

Mr. UDALL OF COLORADO. So what are we trying to fix here?

What is the problem?

Mr. MCCURRY. Well, there are instances in my county and in

neighboring counties in the past few years where some of the government officials in charge of these Federally owned lands, or acquiring these Federally owned lands, seem to push the limits of

public notification as far as they can push them. In other words,

the publication may or may not be in a very conspicuous spot; or

the time lines are pushed to the extreme. And we have a lot of

problems with, at the last moment, citizens being asked for comment without time to prepare, when we have a government-funded

agency that has people that are schooled in these things, having

ample time to prepare.

We also object to the fact that local government officials, as I

mentioned in my testimony, are treated as stakeholders, and not

as a government agency. We testify along with everybody else as

a stakeholder, and not as a government agency that should be

treated as a partner in this; when we are the elected officials closest to the people in those areas. And that is one of the things that

we object to.

Mr. UDALL OF COLORADO. Do you have a specific case you are

talking about?

Mr. MCCURRY. I can get that information, Congressman. I don’t

have it right now off the top of my head.

Mr. UDALL OF COLORADO. You don’t?

Mr. MCCURRY. But I recall the instances.

Mr. UDALL OF COLORADO. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. PETERSON. [Presiding.] The Chairman temporarily left and

gave me the gavel. I think it was my turn anyway, so I will proceed.

I would like to comment that there is a huge difference between

public notification—and you talked about sometimes that being

kind of at the very end of the process—and approval. I mean, those

are two different things. We think, when your predominant ownership is the Federal Government through these four agencies, local

governments when it is two-thirds ought to have approval; not notification, approval.

Because you are a huge stakeholder. You are the big dog. You

are the big property owner. You control the area. And to expand

even further, local folks ought to have approval. I will be on the

side of the local folks any time.

In speaking about the decrease that a previous speaker spoke

about in Federal land, here is the explanation. Between ’64 and ’94,

the Federal estate decreased. This decrease, however, was only in

lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, with a

substantial amount of lands being transferred to Alaska and

48

Native Alaskans. It still went into public ownership. They pay no

taxes.

The amount of lands managed by the Forest Service, Fish and

Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, all increased between

’64 and ’94. And in fact, the amount of land managed by the

National Park Service increased 179 percent, and the amount of

land managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service increased by 285

percent over the 30-year period. This increase in land managed by

the Federal agencies has led to conflicts in certain areas between

the Federal land managers and local governments.

Our bill doesn’t stop the Federal Government from buying anything. It just says, ‘‘If it is 50 percent, you have this process; if it

is excess of 67 percent, you have this process.’’ And it is about local

Governor approval, or local county commissioner approval.

Now, personally, I have been involved at all levels of government: I have served in borough government; I have served in the

state legislature; I have served in the state senate; and I have

served in the Federal Government. And I want to tell you, the

power belongs at the local level. You don’t want a Federal Government that has dominant control or power over you. I have worked

in all of them.

And then the Ranking Member talked about comparing PILT

payments to some tax cuts for somebody. But let me tell you what

PILT payments compete with. I am on the Appropriations Interior

Subcommittee. They get an amount allocation. And you know what

prevents PILT payments from going up every year? Land acquisition funds.

Every year, we allocate from a half a billion to a billion dollars

in land acquisition funds. Most of the Interior budget is set. It is

agencies; it is things that are pretty constant. There is a little bit

of money at the top—they call that the cream—that can get moved

around. That is land acquisition. It wins every time.

We will buy land before we will pay our taxes, because we have

been able to get away with it, as a government. We have never

paid our taxes. Thirty-three cents an acre, which was last year’s

payment—it has only been 24 cents an acre before that—is a travesty to the local folks.

In Pennsylvania, the State owns a lot of land; more land than

most states. One of the last bills I got passed was, we now pay

$1.20, flat. Part of it goes to the school district; part of it goes to

the county; and part of it goes to local governments. It is allocated.

We pay $1.20 for every acre.

Now, the game commission was very unhappy about that, but

they were buying a lot of land. It is fair that they pay their fair

share of taxes. And if the Federal Government paid its fair share

of taxes, we wouldn’t be holding this hearing today.

Because what we are doing is, these agencies are growing, and

the amount of land outside the tax base is growing. States are buying; the Federal Government is buying. The only reason our total

aggregate went down is, we transferred it to states and to tribes.

So I think that this whole issue today is about to make sensitivity. I think it should be less than 50 percent where some rules

come in, but I tried to be fair. It only affects 177 counties currently,

out of 3,066. We are saying, ‘‘Be sensitive where you own a lot of

49

land.’’ If a Federal agency can’t be sensitive in 177 counties, then

I think they need to have a brain transplant.

Mr. MCINNIS. Any other questions? Mr. Holt?

Mr. HOLT. I thank the Chair.

First, before I begin, I would ask the Chair if we might have permission to insert in the record at this point a letter and a statement; a letter dated April 8th, to the Chairman and the Ranking

Member, from Mr. David Alberswerth, Director of the Bureau of

Land Management Program at the Wilderness Society in

Washington, D.C.; and also, a statement dated April 10th from the

Western Land Group in Denver, Colorado.

Mr. MCINNIS. Without objection, so ordered.

[The information submitted for the record by Mr. Holt follows:]

50

51

52

Statement of Western Land Group, Inc.

in opposition to H.R. 3962

The Good Neighbor Act of 2002

submitted to the

U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health

April 10, 2002

Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,

Thank you for inviting us to comment on H.R. 3962. Western Land Group, Inc.

is a small public lands consulting firm based in Denver, Colorado, which specializes

in assisting public and private clients who wish to sell or exchange lands to the

United States. Since our establishment in 1981, we have successfully assisted a variety of clients in completing more than 100 land exchanges and Land and Water

Conservation Fund sales to the Forest Service, BLM and Park Service, including assisting on numerous legislated land exchanges.

While we appreciate the intention of H.R. 3962 that land exchanges and sales be

closely coordinated with units of local and state government, we believe that close

coordination and consultation already occurs, and that many of the provisions of

H.R. 3962 unnecessarily duplicate or complicate existing law and regulation.

As the Subcommittee is well aware, the ownership of property comes with certain

so-called ‘‘property rights’’. One of those property rights is the right to sell or exchange lands to the U.S. Government on a willing-seller, willing-buyer basis. Many

of our clients own lands within the National Forest, BLM or National Park Systems,

and because of deeply felt feelings for the land, wish to convey it to one of the Federal agencies, so that it can forever be preserved for open space and public enjoyment. Therefore, sale in the private sector is not an option they wish to pursue.

H.R. 3962 would complicate private landowners efforts to convey private land to

the United States by adding new steps to the already time consuming and complex

sale or exchange process. For example, all Congressional (legislated) land exchanges

and sales involve hearings, markups and the opportunity for floor debate in either

the authorizing or appropriating Committee processes, on in floor consideration in

both the House and Senate. In short, they receive careful Congressional scrutiny.

The process is a deliberate one, and provides ample opportunity for input from the

Senators or Congressmen representing the areas concerned. Additional notification

and review is unnecessary.

Further, Forest Service and BLM exchange regulations (36 CFR 254.8 for the

Forest Service, and 43 CFR 2201.2 for the BLM) already require notification to

States, Counties, Congressional delegations and the general public at the beginning

of the land exchange process, so that there is no need to legislate on the matter.

In addition, land exchanges that are processed by the Federal agencies in-house,

must undergo a full NEPA analysis, which must be accompanied by public notification, meetings and/or public hearings. Thus, as we have indicated, the land exchange or sale process is already very complex, and additional steps and protections

are not needed.

We also strongly object to giving Governors or Counties effective veto power over

Federal sales or land exchanges. Governor or County approval is not required for

private sector land sales or exchanges, and should not be required for Federal transactions. The consultation and coordination with State and local government required

by existing law and policy is extensive, and is sufficient.

A few additional points:

• The 97% exchange value criteria of subparagraph 2(a)(1)(B) of H.R. 3962 conflicts with the existing FLPMA requirement (43 U.S.C. 1716(b)) that lands to be exchanged must be within 25% of each other in value. Finding exchange lands that

are as close in value as 3% of each other would be extremely difficult in most cases,

and we believe the existing FLPMA requirement of 25% is well advised and realistic. The 97% requirement would significantly reduce the level of flexibility necessary to complete a land exchange and would reduce the ability of the agencies to

use this important tool to accomplish land tenure objectives.

• Requiring that exchange lands be mostly in the same county is not realistic in

some cases. Many land exchanges involve lands in more than one county because

the lands desired for acquisition by the Forest Service and/or BLM may not be in

the exact same county as the lands being disposed, or because county jurisdictional

lines do not always follow lines that make sense from a watershed, topographic or

53

ecological standpoint. So, the best exchange may involve giving up lands that are

non-essential for public use in one county in order to acquire publicly beneficial

lands in another. Again, this and other provisions of H.R. 3962 would unwisely

limit the use of land exchanges to serve the public interest.

• We believe the House and Senate Appropriations Committees do an excellent

job of soliciting input on land sales from the various state Congressional delegations. In fact, in our experience, it is virtually unheard of for the Appropriations

Committees to proceed with an LWCF project without approval from the Senators

or Congressmen involved. Therefore, we see no need to for additional approval procedures.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, for the reasons outlined above, we believe that

H.R. 3962 is unnecessary and unwise legislation, and urge that it not be enacted.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Mr. MCINNIS. Also, if the member would provide members copies,

and would you give me a copy of that?

Mr. HOLT. We will be happy to do that.

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you. You may proceed.

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would say, first of all, that I had never heard a real answer to

Mr. Udall’s question of: Well, what is the problem here? Can anybody show us some specific examples where this bill would have

prevented some egregious behavior? And so I would ask the

sponsor of this legislation to compile for us a list of cases where

the Congressional action to acquire land has run roughshod over

local concerns.

Now, I do understand the burden that some local jurisdictions

feel. And I think many of us would say the PILT payments probably are insufficient. I am not sure that this is the time to go into

a discourse on the problems that we face in Congress in so many

areas, and the disconnect between the budget resolution process

and the authorization process and the appropriations process. I

wish we could get the three of those in much better coordination

in a lot of areas, including the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, special education, as well as PILT.

But it seems to me that this bill is really misdirected to solving

that problem. Perhaps this is motivated by some philosophical concern that the Federal Government simply shouldn’t own so much

land and we shouldn’t have national parks and national forests.

And if so, we should debate it on those grounds; but not on the

basis of PILT payments.

But I do have a specific question for the Forest Service. Your testimony, Ms. Estill, says that H.R. 3962 could limit the ability of

the Forest Service to acquire lands to meet the purposes of several

statutes. Could you explain more specifically how this would limit

the ability of the Forest Service to acquire lands?

Let me, though, before I ask you to do that, point out that I don’t

want us to get sidetracked on a myth here. And the myth is that

the Federal Government is acquiring more and more and more

land here. I mean, data from the BLM shows that there not only

has been no significant increase in the total amount of land owned

by the Federal Government; but in fact, this total has decreased in

recent years.

You know, Federal land holdings between ’79 and ’89 decreased

by more than 75 million acres. So I don’t want us to get too far

on this, away on a myth here that the Federal Government is just

54

getting more and more and more. But in those places where the

Federal Government does seek to acquire lands, how would this bill

limit the ability of the Forest Service to do so?

Ms. ESTILL. Well, typically, our acquisitions, our list of acquisitions, the things that we desire to acquire, come through our land

management and planning process, which you know is a very open

process with a great deal of public input. And then, typically, what

we like to do is strike while the iron is hot, either through a land

trust or the Nature Conservancy or someone else acquiring on our

behalf, until we get an appropriation; or just through a trade. And

many of our acquisitions also are done through land trades.

And what this would do, in fact, would require, in those counties

that have 66 percent or greater, that we would go through a public

hearing process at the county level and actually acquire county approval before we could move forward. So it would be a process that

would add more process; and in fact, in some cases we would lose

the opportunity to acquire the land, and it just appears once.

Mr. HOLT. Well, since my time has expired here, perhaps the

Forest Service, for the record, would like to extend the testimony

a little bit more about how this would limit the ability to meet the

purposes of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and the

Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act, and the Forest Management Act,

and so forth.

Ms. ESTILL. Certainly.

Mr. PETERSON. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOLT. My time has expired. I would be happy to yield if I

had it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MCINNIS. We need to move on, because we have another bill,

and I need to complete this before noon, and we are not making

very good progress. But I do want to point out, Mr. Holt, you made

a comment about a decrease in Federal land. There was an earlier

paragraph. I just want to make sure of the clarification. The only

significant decrease of Federal land holdings was the Bureau of

Land Management, and that was primarily transfers to the Native

Americans.

And I just want to make sure we are all clear on this. Because

if you take a look at the acquisitions by Federal agencies, they

have gone up substantially. With that one exception or trade or

giving land to the Native Americans, I guess the testimony would

kind of give the implication that the Government is giving away all

this land. We are not. We are acquiring land by the thousands of

acres. So I just want that clarified.

Mr. UDALL OF COLORADO. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MCINNIS. Sure, I’d be happy to. I think we should clarify

this.

Mr. UDALL OF COLORADO. The land that goes to the Native corporations is going out into the private sector. So I mean, I don’t

know to argue that land that is going to Alaskan natives is somehow now public land.

And the second point is, Mr. Chairman, that it seems to me that

then the argument you are making is: The increases happened in

parks, so we have more parks, which are very much supported by

the American people. So if the purpose of this bill is saying, ‘‘We

55

don’t want any more parks,’’ then let’s announce it, that that is the

purpose of the bill.

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Udall, I don’t think that is the purpose of the

bill.

Mr. UDALL OF COLORADO. Well, I don’t know where the bill is directed.

Mr. MCINNIS. I control the time, Mr. Udall.

Mr. UDALL OF COLORADO. Well, OK.

Mr. MCINNIS. I control the time. I just want this very clarified,

because I don’t want it misleading.

Mr. UDALL OF COLORADO. Maybe you need to come to the State

of Colorado, and I’ll show you about Federal land acquisition.

Maybe you need to go to some of the other mountain states, perhaps even New Mexico, and find out about land acquisition. You

are talking about one specific example, and that deals with the

Alaskan Native Tribes.

Mr. MCINNIS. I want to make sure that we have it very clear,

especially to our listening audience here, that there has not been

a significant decrease—in fact, no decrease at all—with most of

those Federal agencies, with that one specific example with Alaska

and the natives.

Now, in regards to the bill, I was addressing the specific point.

The merits of the bill can stand on their own.

We will go ahead and proceed. Any further witnesses? Everybody

on this side? Well, we need to move on. I am giving everybody an

opportunity.

Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I neglected in my initial round to ask

that a letter that I have received from other county commissioners

and other counties in Idaho be submitted for the record, on the loss

of private ground.

Mr. MCINNIS. If there is no objection, so ordered.

[The letter submitted for the record by Mr. Otter follows:]

56

57

58

Mr. PETERSON. Can I make just one quick statement?

Mr. MCINNIS. You can close it up.

Mr. PETERSON. OK. There is an implication here that we are

against land acquisitions. We are saying in 171 counties.

If the gentleman from Colorado would listen—from New Mexico

would listen? Yes. OK.

But we are talking about 171 counties, out of 3,066. What we are

saying is, if you are going to acquire land, and you don’t want to

get approval locally, you have got almost 3,000 counties you have

to do it. Do some of it in New Jersey, where you may need more

public land.

We have states in the West that are totally hamstrung with public ownership. The have no economies left, because of public policies

by agencies, who are people who are not elected. And we are saying, when you own half of it, then you go through a process to buy

more. There is no process asked in all of those other counties.

Mr. HOLT. If the gentleman would yield?

Mr. PETERSON. I would be glad to.

Mr. HOLT. You know, in fact, there is a process. Whether the

Federal Government owns 50 percent or less, or more, there is a

process to go through. And I am not sure why this arbitrary cutoff

at 50 percent.

And indeed, I would like to take you up on this. New Jersey

would jump at the chance to have more LWCF money for land acquisition.

Mr. PETERSON. Raise your own money. You know, take it all.

[Laughter.]

Mr. PETERSON. But I mean, I want to tell you something. If you

think Federal agencies are sensitive to locals, think again. Do you

think the Fish and Wildlife Service is sensitive to local governments? Come on! They are not sensitive. They buy land— Mr. HOLT. That is one of your—

Mr. PETERSON. No, let me finish. They buy land without us even

approving it. The Fish and Wildlife Service is the only agency in

the world that gets no legislative approval to buy land. That is an

outrage. That ought to be stopped. No agency should be able to buy

land without legislative approval. And the Fish and Wildlife Service does it every year.

They are getting us into hock all over this country, where we are

going to have to maintain land, and we never put the money in.

Every one of these agencies has a huge maintenance backlog, because we take those few dollars at the top of the Interior budget

to buy more land, instead of maintaining what we have. And you

have almost 2,080-some counties that there’s no additional requirements.

All we are saying, we just want you to have a process to increase

the sensitivity to the impact at the local level. That’s all this is

about. It only affects less than 6 percent of the counties; 94 percent, nothing changes. It is not catastrophic, in any way, positive

or negative. It is just asking the Federal Government to be sensitive.

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. I think the members

have been allowed to vent here, and it is good. But we need to

move on, as a courtesy to Mr. Acevedo-Vila.

59

Mr. HOLT. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MCINNIS. Not on this bill. We need to move on, so that our

fellow member, as a courtesy, has time to present his bill.

Mr. MCINNIS. I appreciate your patience. I guess we have one

witness, is that right, on the next panel for your bill?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Yes.

Mr. MCINNIS. And that is Kristen McDonald, Associate Director,

Wild and Scenic Rivers, with the American Rivers. Mr. AcevedoVila, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. ANIBAL ACEVEDO-VILA, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF

PUERTO RICO

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for

this opportunity.

Many of you are familiar with the Caribbean National Forest,

commonly known in Puerto Rico as ‘‘El Yunque.’’ If you are not familiar, I encourage you to visit El Yunque on your next visit to

Puerto Rico. I am sure you will agree that El Yunque, the only

tropical rain forest within the U.S. National Forest System, is a

natural wonder and a unique resource that we must preserve and

protect forever. El Yunque is the only managed rain forest on

Earth. And with this distinction comes heightened responsibility, in

my opinion, to fully protect this important resource.

The enactment of this bill, along with the wilderness legislation,

H.R. 3955, approved by the Full Committee last month, will help

ensure that the natural integrity of El Yunque is preserved not

only for Puerto Ricans, but also for the one million annual visitors

to the CNF for generations to come.

H.R. 3954 will preserve and protect three rivers that flow within

the boundaries of El Yunque. It is the intent of the Wild and Scenic

Rivers Act of 1968 to preserve rivers and sections thereof to protect

the water quality of such rivers, and to fulfill other vital national

conservation purposes. It is within this intent that I have introduced this bill. And I am fully committed to the preservation of

these beautiful rivers.

While there are additional rivers within El Yunque that have received wild and scenic designation recommendations, the areas of

these rivers are covered under H.R. 3955, which was approved by

the Full Committee last month, through wilderness designation, or

are within the existing ‘‘Bano de Oro’’ natural area. Therefore, I

have followed recommendations to focus on rivers running outside

of the proposed El Toro Wilderness Area, and outside of existing

natural areas.

The three rivers that will be designated under this Act were all

recommended for inclusion under the National Wild and Scenic

Rivers System by the revised land and resources management plan

for the CNF, approved April 17, 1997. This management plan was

the basis for the introduction of this bill, and I ask for your support

in its consideration.

The three rivers include the Rio Mamayes, the Rio Icacos, and

the Rio de la Mina. All three have outstanding characteristics, and

make up an integral part of the experience when visiting the forest.

60

The Rio Mamayes offers outstanding scenic, biological, and recreational values to visitors. It flows over large boulders and numerous waterfalls, forming enjoyable pools. Trails run along gorges

that descend through the forest. The water quality along the upper

segment is optimum, with no interference from human encroachment.

The Rio Mamayes provides important habitat for the Puerto

Rican Parrot and Puerto Rican Boa, both endangered species. Furthermore, the endangered Broad-Winged and Sharp-Skinned

Hawks and the threatened Peregrine Falcon are also known to use

this area. The Mamayes system enjoys the highest natural aquatic

diversity and species richness of any forest watershed. The

Mamayes remains the only uninterrupted, free-flowing river in

Puerto Rico.

The Rio de la Mina is judged as eligible based on its outstanding

scenic, recreational, biological, and historic values. Like the

Mamayes, the Rio de la Mina descends over boulders and waterfalls, forming rapids and pools. Trails parallel the river and provide

for numerous recreation areas.

The most spectacular waterfalls in the forest exist along the Rio

de la Mina. These falls, known as ‘‘La Mina Falls,’’ play an important role in promoting Puerto Rico as a prime vacation destination.

The water quality is good within the proposed designation area.

The Rio de la Mina also provides habitat for endangered animal

and plant species.

The Rio Icacos is judged as eligible based on its outstanding scenic, historic value, and ecological values. The Rio Icacos has some

of the most varied terrain of El Yunque’s rivers. Near the headwaters, the gradient is less steep than further downstream, where

it also descends over boulders and waterfalls.

In the upper section the stream bed exhibits a unique sandy bed

due to its origin in the upper, flatter section. The palm forest is

very striking along the bank; more so than in any other areas of

the forest. Water quality is high within the proposed designation

area. Endangered animal and plant species are present within the

proposed area.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on these wild and

scenic river designations in El Yunque. Please let me know when

and if you will visit the Caribbean National Forest. Puerto Ricans

take great pride in El Yunque, and I assure you that it is worth

the trip to visit. And I think you all have copies of some of the pictures of the scenic beauty of the three rivers. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Acevedo-Vila follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Anı ́bal Acevedo–Vila ́, a Delegate in Congress

from Puerto Rico, on H.R. 3954

I want to thank Chairman McInnis, Ranking Member Inslee and all of my colleagues on the Subcommittee for this opportunity to testify in support of the Caribbean National Forest Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 2002.

Many of you are familiar with the Caribbean National Forest, commonly known

in Puerto Rico as ‘‘El Yunque.’’ Should you not yet be familiar, I encourage you to

visit El Yunque upon your next visit to the Puerto Rico. I am sure you will agree

that El Yunque, the only tropical rain forest within the U.S. National Forest System, is a natural wonder and unique resource that we must preserve and protect

forever. El Yunque is the only managed rain forest on earth, and with this distinction comes heightened responsibility in my opinion, to fully protect this important

61

resource. The enactment of this bill, along with the wilderness legislation

(H.R. 3955) approved by the Committee last month, will help ensure that the natural integrity of El Yunque is preserved for the 1 million annual visitors to the CNF

for generations to come.

H.R. 3954 would preserve and protect three rivers that flow within the boundaries of El Yunque. It is the intent of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 to

preserve rivers and sections thereof to protect the water quality of such rivers and

to fulfill other vital national conservation purposes. It is within this intent that I

have introduced this bill, and I am fully committed to the preservation of these

beautiful rivers. While there are additional rivers within El Yunque that have received wild and scenic designation recommendations, the areas of these rivers are

covered under H.R. 3955 through wilderness designation, or are within the existing

Bano de Oro Natural Area. Therefore, I have followed recommendations to focus on

rivers running outside of the proposed El Toro Wilderness Area and outside of existing natural areas.

The three rivers that would be designated under this act were all recommended

for inclusion under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System by the revised land

and resource management plan for the CNF, approved April 17, 1997. This management plan was the basis for the introduction of this bill, and I ask for your support

during its consideration.

The three rivers include the Rio Mameyes, the Rio Icacos, and the Rio de La

Mina. All three have outstanding characteristics and make up an integral part of

the experience when visiting the forest.

The Rio Mameyes offers outstanding scenic, biological and recreational values to

visitors. It flows over large boulders and numerous waterfalls, forming enjoyable

pools. Trails run along gorges that descend through the forest. The water quality

along the upper segment is optimum, with no interference from human encroachment.

The Rio Mameyes provides important habitat for the Puerto Rican Parrot and

Puerto Rican Boa, both endangered species. Furthermore, the endangered Broadwinged and Sharp-shinned Hawks, and the threatened Peregrine Falcon, are also

known to use this area. The Mameyes system enjoys the highest natural aquatic diversity and species richness of any forest watershed. The Mameyes remains the only

uninterrupted, free flowing river in Puerto Rico.

The Rio de la Mina is judged as eligible based on its outstanding scenic, recreation, biological and historic values. Like the Mameyes, the Rio de La Mina descends over boulders and waterfalls, forming rapids and pools. Trails parallel the

river and provide for numerous recreation areas. The most spectacular waterfalls in

the forest exist along the Rio de la Mina. These falls, known as La Mina Falls, play

an important role in promoting Puerto Rico as a prime vacation destination. The

water quality is good within the proposed designation area. The Rio de la Mina also

provides habitat for endangered animal and plant species.

The Rio Icacos is judged as eligible based on its outstanding scenic, historic, cultural and ecological values. The Rio Icacos has some of the most varied terrain of

any of El Yunque’s rivers. Near the headwaters, the gradient is less steep than further downstream where it also descends over boulders and waterfalls. In the upper

section, the streambed exhibits a unique sandy bed due to its origin in the upper,

flatter section. The palm forest is very striking along the bank, more so than in any

other area of the forest. Water quality is high within the proposed designation area.

Endangered animal and plant species are present within the proposed area.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on these wild and scenic river designations in El Yunque. Please let me know when and if you will visit the Caribbean

National Forest. Puerto Ricans take great pride in El Yunque, and I assure you it

is worth the trip to visit.

Mr. MCINNIS. Congressman, in the picture, is that you in the

swimming suit?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Excuse me?

Mr. MCINNIS. Is that you in the swimming suit in the picture you

gave us?

[Laughter.]

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Let me check. [Laughs.] No. Although I have

swum there.

62

Mr. MCINNIS. OK. We will proceed to the witness. Ms. McDonald,

we appreciate your coming today. You have 5 minutes. Thank you

for your testimony.

STATEMENT OF KRISTEN McDONALD, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS PROGRAM, AMERICAN RIVERS, INC.

Ms. MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee,

thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the Caribbean

National Forest Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. With your permission,

I will summarize my comments now, and ask that my entire testimony be submitted to the record.

My name is Kristen McDonald. I am the Associate Director of the

Wild and Scenic Rivers Program for American Rivers, a national,

non-profit river conservation organization. Since our founding in

1973, American Rivers has worked with state and local groups and

local, state, and Federal agencies to protect rivers using the Wild

and Scenic Rivers Act.

I would like to thank Commissioner Acevedo-Vila for introducing

this landmark bill to protect three outstanding rivers in the Caribbean National Forest as wild and scenic rivers. These rivers would

not only be the first wild and scenic rivers designated in Puerto

Rico; they would be the first tropical rivers in the system as a

whole.

As you know, one of the goals of Congress in passing the Wild

and Scenic Rivers Act in 1968 was to create a system of rivers that

were representative of the Nation’s diversity of rivers. By designating these rivers, the 107th Congress would make a significant

mark in the history of the wild and scenic rivers system.

The Rio Mamayes is the only free-flowing river that remains in

Puerto Rico, and is known for its beautiful waterfall. It supports

the highest aquatic biodiversity of any river in the forest, with all

five species of native fish, all nine species of the unusual freshwater shrimp, and the only freshwater crab.

The Rio Icacos is remarkable for its unusual geology and endangered and sensitive tropical plant species. The upper part of the

river has sandy-bottomed pools and is sinuous and lower in gradient than the other rivers in the forest. It is known to provide

habitat for the sensitive Burrow Coqui, a rare tree frog that only

occurs in the high cloud forest of Puerto Rico.

The Rio de la Mina was likely named after a mid-1800’s Spanish

gold mining complex, the remains of which are within the river’s

scenic corridor. The Rio de la Mina is a reminder that these rivers

are part of one of the oldest protected areas in the Western Hemisphere. They were set aside in 1876 for special protection, and

there are still 1,000-year-old trees along the banks of these rivers.

Unfortunately, other things in the forest have changed over time.

The Puerto Rican Parrot, which used to flourish throughout the island, is now in danger of becoming extinct. And the some 40 birds

left in the wild all live within the Caribbean National Forest. Designating these rivers would help protect the last areas where the

Puerto Rican Parrot has a chance of recovery.

These rivers would make excellent additions to the national wild

and scenic rivers system. They are free-flowing; possess outstanding scenic, historic, cultural, geologic, wildlife, and research

63

values; and there is substantial local support in Puerto Rico for

their designation.

We do have two concerns with the bill as currently drafted, but

the Commissioner has drafted an amendment to the bill that will

alleviate our concerns. The amendment will correct Section 2(c)

dealing with the establishment of boundaries, to be consistent with

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Second, the amendment will correct Section 2(d), ‘‘Special Management Considerations,’’ to ensure that any scientific research facilities do not harm the free flow or the values for which the rivers

have been designated.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that the Caribbean

National Forest is the source of drinking water for 20 percent of

Puerto Rico’s population. By designating the headwater areas of

these rivers, Congress will ensure that existing water uses can be

maintained and that future water use is balanced with the need to

protect valuable tropical habitat, scientific research sites, and recreational resources.

Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today.

[The prepared statement of Ms. McDonald follows:]

Statement of Kristen McDonald, Wild and Scenic Rivers Program Associate

Director, American Rivers, Inc., on H.R. 3954

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to

testify on H.R. 3954, the Caribbean National Forest Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. My

name is Kristen McDonald, and I am the Associate Director of the Wild and Scenic

Rivers Program for American Rivers. American Rivers is a national river conservation organization with over 30,000 members. Since its founding in 1973, American

Rivers has worked with our grassroots partners to protect rivers under the Wild and

Scenic Rivers Act and has actively assisted Federal agencies, states and local groups

with river conservation efforts.

I would like to thank Resident Commissioner Anφbal Acevedo–Vila for introducing

H.R. 3954, which would designate three outstanding rivers in the Caribbean

National Forest in Puerto Rico as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. These rivers would not only be the first wild and scenic rivers designated in Puerto Rico, they would be the first tropical rivers in the System as a

whole. One of the goals of Congress in passing the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in

1968 was to create a system of rivers that were representative of the nation’s diversity of rivers, and by designating the Rio Mameyes, Rio Icacas, and Rio de la Mina,

this Congress would make a significant mark in the history of the Wild and Scenic

Rivers System.

The Rio Mameyes is the only free-flowing river that remains in Puerto Rico. The

portion found eligible and suitable for designation is entirely within the National

Forest boundary, from its headwaters in the Bano de Oro Research National Area

to the Forest Boundary. This remote area is known for its beautiful waterfalls, and

hiking trails and swimming holes make it a popular recreational destination. The

Rio Mameyes has unique stands of buttress-rooted trees that are uncommon not

only in Puerto Rico but throughout the Caribbean. In addition, the river provides

important habitat for the endangered Puerto Rican Parrot, Puerto Rican Boa, and

Broad-winged and Sharp-shinned Hawks.

The Rio Icacas is remarkable for its variety of terrain, unusual geology, and numerous endangered and sensitive tropical plant species. The upper part of the river

has sandy-bottomed pools and is sinuous and lower in gradient than the other rivers

in the Forest. It is known to provide habitat for the sensitive Burrow coquφ, a rare

tree frog that only occurs in the cloudforest area of the National Forest.

The picnic areas in the headwaters of the Rio de la Mina are the most popular

tourist destinations within the Caribbean National Forest; in addition La Mina

Falls is a spectacular scenic attraction and a popular hiking destination. The river

was likely named after a mid–1800s Spanish gold mining complex, the remains of

which are within the scenic corridor; the old mine shaft and some of the homestead

sites can still be enjoyed by hikers along the La Mina Trail. The Puerto Rican parVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:28 Jan 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 78631.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
64

rot, Puerto Rican Boa, and two endangered plant species are known to occur along

the Rio de la Mina.

All three of these rivers are important to the survival of the endangered Puerto

Rican Parrot. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates there are only about 100

known Puerto Rican Parrots left today, and the 40 of these that live in the wild

all live in the Caribbean National Forest. It is the last protected area where these

birds have a chance at recovery. Protecting these three river corridors would help

ensure desired tree habitat for the parrot is left intact.

The three rivers are eligible and suitable for designation, and the Forest Service

has demonstrated there is substantial local support for their designation. American

Rivers supports passing H.R. 3954 but we do have three concerns with the bill as

currently drafted and we are working with the Regional Commissioner’s staff to address these issues.

First, section 2(c) dealing with establishment of boundaries should be corrected

to be consistent with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, which states that boundaries

must be established within one year of designation, not ‘‘as soon as practicable,’’ as

currently required in the bill. This is an important correction, as boundary establishment will determine the area that the Forest Service must protect and enhance

as a wild and scenic river, which must average ′ mile from the ordinary high water

mark on each side of the river.

Our second concern involves section 2(d), ‘‘Special Management Considerations.’’

While American Rivers agrees that the research activities within the Caribbean

National Forest are vital to the American people, installation and maintenance of

such facilities, if they occur within designated wild and scenic rivers, must be consistent with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. In particular, we would suggest amending the bill to require the Forest Service to ensure that any such facilities do not

harm the free flow or values for which the rivers have been designated.

Finally, the bill should include an authorization of appropriations as necessary for

the Forest Service to protect and enhance the Rio Mameyes, Rio de la Mina, and

Rio Icacas Wild and Scenic Rivers.

In conclusion I would like to point out that the Caribbean National Forest is the

source of drinking water for 20% of Puerto Rico’s population. There are already a

dozen dams in the National Forest that divert water for public use. By designating

the headwater areas of the Rio Mameyes and Rio Icacas as wild and scenic rivers,

Congress will ensure that these existing water uses can be maintained and that future pressure to build more dams in the area is balanced with the need to protect

valuable tropical habitat, valuable scientific research sites, and recreational resources.

I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony to the Subcommittee today.

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you. I will begin the questions. First of all,

since I am not familiar, Congressman, with the boundaries, just

the headwaters are protected under the wild and scenic designation? So that your diversion points for the drinking water will not

be impacted in a negative fashion by this bill? Is that correct?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. That is right. And I can assure the

Committee that in the process of drafting the bill, we discussed it

with everybody down there in Puerto Rico, just to be sure that

water supply and all of the needs for the population were protected. Yes.

Mr. MCINNIS. And that would also apply in the case of low water

flow?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Yes.

Mr. MCINNIS. For example, right now in the West we are experiencing a huge drought.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Yes.

Mr. MCINNIS. Fine. And Ms. Estill, how does the wild and scenic

river designation modify a river’s uses? Can you help me on that

a little, or do you have that background? I know you have got some

background in Puerto Rico, so you could even apply it to this, as

well; but just generally.

65

Ms. ESTILL. Well, it protects the outstanding values of the river.

It would prohibit any additional structures going in the river;

would not in any way limit recreation use, unless it started contaminating the streams.

Mr. MCINNIS. Would it allow repair of existing structures?

Ms. ESTILL. Yes, it would. We see this as a real ‘‘win-win’’ all the

way around: protecting the water quality, the scenic and the biotic

resources of all three of these corridors.

Mr. MCINNIS. All right, thank you.

Mr. Inslee?

Mr. INSLEE. I have no questions, I think, for the sponsor for this

great work. Thank you.

Mr. MCINNIS. Any other questions of the panel? Mr. Kildee?

Mr. KILDEE. Just a statement. I had the opportunity of visiting

and enjoying these rivers. And I commend my colleague, Mr.

Acevedo-Vila, for the introduction of this bill. I look forward to its

passage.

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. It is time to go back.

Mr. KILDEE. It is time.

[Laughter.]

Mr. MCINNIS. Mr. Acevedo-Vila?

Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Yes, I just wanted to thank both of them for

the testimony and their support. And thanks to the Committee.

Mr. MCINNIS. Thank you. And I thank the panel. Thank you for

your time. I appreciate your being here. Mr. Acevedo-Vila, thank

you for the bill.

The Committee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[A letter submitted for the record by Rebecca Watson, Assistant

Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, U.S. Department of

the Interior, on H.R. 3962 follows:]

66

67

Æ