TRENDS IN FEDERAL LANDOWNERSHIP AND 

MANAGEMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

THE EFFECT THAT FEDERAL OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS AND THE CONDEMNATION AND RESTRICTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY 

HAS ON LOCAL AREAS 

90-167cx: .. 

MARCH 2, 1995--WASHINGTON, DC 

Serial No. 104-3 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1995 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Office, Washington. DC 20402 

ISBN 0·16-04 7112 -5 
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

ELTONGALLEGLY,Califurrua 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

KEN CALVERT, California 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

WES COOLEY, Oregon 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas 

RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington 

JACK METCALF, Washington 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, JR., Maine 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

GEORGE MILLER, California 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Californi~ 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM FARR, California 

DANIEL V 1tL KISH, Chief of Staff 

DAVID DYE, Chief Counsel 

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held March 2, 1995 .............. oo •• oo· · · •• oo• oo · ··oo·· · · ··· •• •• • •••••• • •• • •••••• • •• • ••• · ···oo ·· ···· · 

Statement of Members: Cremeans, Hon. Frank, a U.S. Representative from Ohio 00 00 oooooooooooooooo oo 00 00 00 

Hansen, Hon. James, a U.S. Representative from Utah 000000 00 000000 00 00 0000000000000 

Miller, Hon. George, a U.S. Representative from California oooo oooooo oooooooo oooooo 

Young, Hon. Don, a U.S. Representative from Alaska oooooooooo oo oooooooo oooooooo oooo oo 

Statement of Witnesses: Anderson, John H., Jr., Associate Director, Natural Resources Management Issues, Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division, General Accounting Office 0000 oo oo oo 00 00 000000 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0000 0000 00 00 00 00 00 00 . 

Prepared statement OOOOoo ooo o•oo··· · ··oo · oo •• oo·· •••••• •• ••• •• oo • • oo •• ••• •• oo •• oooo• · · ··oo·· · · oo •• oo • · 

Anderson, Terry L., Professor of Economics and Senior Associate, PERC, Bozeman, MT, currently John M. Olin Visiting Scholar, Cornell Law 

School • oo·oo····· ··oo· · ·· oo·· · · ·· · oo · · oo••oo••• oooo • •oo··· · ·oo······ ·· oo ·oo·• oo· · ·· · · · ·· ··oo ··· · oo·· oo···oo···· ·oo· 

Prepared statement 00 0000 • •• • •••• • •• •• • ••• • •••• 00 •• 00 • • • 00 0 .00 ••• • 00 00 . 00 00 ••• • 00 •• 00 00 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 • • 

Baranek, John, President and General Manager of a family corporation, Courtland, CA · ·oo ······ •• oo.oo •• •••• • ••• ••• •• oo ••• oo . oo . oo •• oo .· oo ·· oo • •• oo • • oo •• ooooooo., • •••• • oo. oooo • • oo . 

Prepared statement oo •• • •••• oo •• oo •• oo •• ••• oo •• oo • • oo •• • •• • ••• · · · · ·· oo····· · · oo ·· •• ••• oo oo •••••• oo • ••• 

Johnson, Ron, General Accounting Office oooooooooooo oo oooooooo oo oo oooooooooooooo oo oooooooooooo 

Lamoreaux, Ralph, General Accounting Office oooooooooooooooooooooo oo oo 00000000000000000000 

Lessard, Hon. Bob, a State Senator in Minnesota oooooo oooooooo oo oooooooo oooooooooooooo oo• 

Prepared statement oo oo oooo•oo••oo••oo· · · · ·oo••oo• • oo oo ooooooooooooo ooooo••· •oo ooo o ooo oooo •• oo •• oo·· ·· 

Sparks, Anna, former Fifth District Supervisor, Humboldt County, CA 00 000 

Prepared statement oo ooooooooooo••ooooooooooooooooooooo o ooooooo · •oo•ooooooooooo • oo•oo•oo•oo•oooooooo•• 

Additional material supplied: A Report to Employees, February 1993: "The State of the National Wildlife Refuge Program in Region 1" 0000 0000 0000 00 00000000 000000 0000 00 0000 00 00 00 000000000000000000 00 

Communications submitted: 

Collins, Illa (County of Sacramento): Letter of March 1, 1995, to ConJof'::~:~o~~~syJ~1~tt;;~ ·~r·F~b~~··27 1995;·t;;·s~-;;.' B~b L~~~~~d··:: ::: 

(III) 

Page 

1 

20 

3 

2 

1 

4 

49 

32 

87 

29 

79 

4 

4 

26 

71 

23 

61 

82 

91 

77 

TRENDS IN FEDERAL LANDOWNEWSHIP AND 

MANAGEMENT 

THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 1995 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:00 a.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Don Young (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM ALASKA, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

Mr. YOUNG. The Committee on Resources will come to order. The 

committee is meeting today to hear testimony on trends in Federal 

landownership and management. As you know Rule 6F of the committee rules limits oral opening statements in the hearings to the 

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member. However, since many 

Members played a key role in requesting this GAO report, I would 

ask unanimous consent that additional Minority Members be permitted to give an opening statement if they so desire. No objection. So ordered. Of course, as I said before, if any Members would like 

to make an opening statement they can go ahead and do it. 

During my 22 years as a member of this committee, I have painfully witnessed-as I have said many times-the legislative lockup of hundreds of millions of acres of public lands and the condemnation of private property all under the laudable goal of preserving 

the environment. 

In Alaska alone over 150,000,000 acres of public lands have been 

locked up as wilderness, national parks, wildlife refuges, or other 

restrictive designations. This amounts to an acreage equal to the 

area of California and Minnesota combined. 

I have never believed that the official government statistics 

which show that Federal landownership has actually decreased in 

the lower 48 states. As a result, last year Congressman Pombo and 

I requested the GAO determine how much public land has been 

locked up for multiple-use management and the net gain in Federal 

landownership since 1964. Although I do not intend to steal GAO's 

thunder regarding their testimony and accompanying report, I cannot resist revealing several of their findings. 

As you can see from this chart facing you, GAO found that 

95,000,000 acres of public lands have been locked up in varying degrees during this 29-year period. This is an area nearly as large 

as the entire state of California. California has 101,000,000 acres. 

(1) 
2 

Furthermore, during that same period the Federal Government 

has increased its land holdings by 19,000,000 acres. This is nearly 

as large as the combined area of six states of Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey and Massachusetts. This 

amounts to a five percent increase in Federal ownership by four 

Federal land management agencies. 

Finally the chart shows that the percentage of Federal lands 

which has been locked up for multiple use has quadrupled during 

this period from 7.8 percent in 1964 to 31.3 percent in 1993. This 

does not include millions of acres contained in the California 

Desert Protection Act which was enacted after GAO completed its 

study. 

I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses from outside the 

Beltway who are victii~s of abuse in acquisition schemes approved 

by past Congresses and implemented by the government agencies. 

Hopefully their testimony will cause all committee members to 

think long and hard before they even think of following the path 

of past Congresses which often ran roughshod over rural communities and the rights of private property owners. 

Furthermore, may I suggest, as we increase Federal land ownership we decrease the chances for economic development for a tax 

base for local communities. We are the only nation in the world 

today that is actually going in the direction of socialism. Other nations are going to private ownership of land, private protection of 

land. It is rare-in fact, I have challenged the case where you can 

show us where any time any Federal lands have produced significant tax dollars or moneys to the local economr Some will say, ''Well, this is good for tourism." Some will say, 'It is good for recreational purposes." I would agree if in fact they were actually 

available for that use. 

I am going to suggest respectfully-! hope the members of this 

committee will see-that we have gone in the wrong direction. We 

have created areas of what we call restrictive use and not multiple 

use, and we have set forth with the concept of true sound management of these lands for the benefit of the American people, for the 

benefit of the people who live in local areas. With that, I will yield 

to the Ranking Minority Member at this time. 

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to submit 

for the record a statement by Mr. Miller. And I will forego a statement at this time and submit one later. 

[Statement of Mr. Miller follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA 

Mr. Chairman, this is an interesting hearing. It reminds me of the old adage that 

there are statistics and then there are damn statistics. I note that the GAO has provided you with only a factsheet rather than the usual report. Evidently this is be- cause the GAO is working on a more comprehensive report on this matter for you. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I believe we would have been better off to wait for that re- port. Statistics without context can be very misleading. For example, why was the GAO review focused solely on the last 29 years? Could 

it be that the Wilderness Act didn't become law until late 1964 and as a result there was no designated wilderness in 1964 to plug into the equation? There is no question that the amount of Federal conservat10n lands has increased as a result of wilderness being designated. Wilderness legislation has had strong support in the Congress and with the American public. GAO is also reporting that the land managed by the Forest Service, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service has increased over the past 29 
3 

years, with nearly all the increase being with the FWS and NPS. What you won't 

find from the GAO is the fact that nearly 79 percent of the two agencies' increase 

is the result of the transfer of BLM land that was done as part of the Alaska Lands 

Initiative. 

Furthermore, the GAO states that 43.5 percent of Federal lands is restricted for 

conservation purposes. Sounds interesting except when you consider that while 100 

percent of the FWS and NPS lands are classified for conservation purposes, less 

than 24 percent of the 458 million acres managed by the BLM and Forest Service are so classified. In addition, nowhere in the GAO's factsheet will you find any statistics on how public use of Federal lands has more than doubled or how visitation 

to our national parks has exploded in the past 29 years. And what about these re- stricted Federal lands? The GAO doesn't tell us that these lands may have hunting 

and fishing, grazing, commercial developments, even oil and gas leasing. 

I believe what the GAO hasn't reported is as important as what it has reported. 

As I noted at the onset, statistics without context can be misleading. Let's get the 

whole story, Mr. Chairman, not just part. 

Mr. Chairman, I also feel it is important to note a disturbing aspect of this hearing. Democratic staff was told earlier this week that the GAO factsheet was embargoed and was to be released today. In fact, when Democrats received GAO's testimony on Tuesday, we were asked by your staff not to divulge the testimony since 

it was essentially a restatement of the GAO facksheet. We honored that request. You can imagine our surprise when, in looking over the testimony of today's public 

witnesses, we found at least one public witness quoting extensively from the GAO 

factsheet. What gives, Mr. Chairman? When your staff says a report you requested 

is embargoed until a hearing does that mean it is embargoed only for certain individuals, that some of the public has access to the report and not others? I hope this 

incident was an abberation and that it does not reflect any policy on your part. 

Mr. YOUNG. I would like to recognize Mr. Hansen. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES HANSEN, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM UTAH 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chainnan. I appreciate you holding 

this hearing today. The GAO has simply confinned what many of 

the veterans of this committee have known for years, and that is 

we are locking up millions of acres of land with little or no recognition of the overall cumulative effect. It is time that the American 

people realized just how much of this nation is set aside for conservation purposes and how much land this government is buying 

each year. 

Setting aside lands for conservation purpose has been a success 

of our nation. We have clearly preserved for future generations the 

crown jewels of our nation. Yet how much is enough? Our stand- ards have fallen. Our sense of balance has been ignored. And we 

have locked up land with little or no guidelines. 

We have already demonstrated that the National Park Service 

has grown dramatically over the past decades with no real sense 

of direction and my suspicion is the same for other agencies. The 

wilderness designation process has been nothing more than anumbers game. It is not about reserving special areas untraveled by 

man, it is about locking up lands. 

The original authors of the Wilderness Act estimated there would 

be no more than 20,000,000 acres in the entire country which 

qualified for that special designation. I wish people would go back 

and read that. We now have nearly 100,000,000 acres and counting. The views of agency professionals are routinely ignored and 

substituted by the views of some self-proclaimed environmentalists 

or by Members of Congress who have not even visited the area. 

This is not solely the fault of the agencies nor the environmental 

community, but the fault most squarely rests on this committee. 
4 

Most of these designations came out of this committee, and we 

must take responsibility for them. I am dedicated to living up to 

the standards set forth in the Wilderness Act. I am dedicated to 

forcing the Park Service to reevaluate its mission. And most importantly, I am dedicated to the BLM and the Forest Service to live 

up to their respective missions of multiple use and sustained yield. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. YOUNG. Are there any other members who wish to make an 

opening statement? No other members wish to make an opening 

statement? If not, I would like to call the first panel. It consists of 

Mr. John Anderson of the U.S. General Accounting Office. I remind 

the witnesses under our committee rules the entire statement will 

appear in the record. And, Mr. Anderson and subordinates who are 

with you, welcome to the committee. Glad to have you. Thank you 

for your report. You may proceed at whatever your discretion is. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN ANDERSON, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE; ACCOMPANIED BY RALPH LAMOREAUX, RON JOHNSON,AND LEW ADAMS 

Mr. JOliN ANDERSON. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will 

summarize my statement and ask that the entire statement be entered into the record. [Statement of Mr. John Anderson may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. JoHN ANDERSON. With me today are Ralph Lamoreaux and 

Ron Johnson. And helping out with the charts is Lew Adams. They 

worked primarily on this report. 

We are pleased to be here to discuss our report to you and Representative Pombo on the trends in the amount of one, federally 

owned land; and two, Federal acreage set aside for conservation 

purposes. The Federal Government owns about 30 percent of the 

land in the United States. Our work covered the four Federal agencies that manage about 95 percent of this land-Agriculture's Forest Service and Interior's Bureau of Land Management, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and National Park Service. 

Most of their land is located in 12 western states. In summary 

for the 29-year period from 1964 through 1993 the overall amount 

of land managed by the four agencies decreased by 77,000,000 

acres from about 700,000,000 to about 623,000,000 acres. However 

the overall decrease is skewed because of two unique land transfers 

in Alaska-the transfer of about 76,000,000 acres to the state of 

Alaska as part of Alaska becoming a state and the transfer of 

about 36,000,000 acres to native Alaskans as part of the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act. 

Excluding these two large transfers the overall amount of land 

managed by the four agencies actually increased by 34,000,000 

acres. Over the same period the number of acres set aside for conservation purposes increased about 220,000,000 acres. 

The General Services Administration publishes statistics on the 

amount of land managed by each Federal agency. But we found 

that their data was not current or reliable. Therefore we obtained 

the data for our report directly from each of the four agencies. 

The Park Service manages the National Park System for the enjoyment of current and future generations. And the Fish and Wild-
5 

life Services lands are used to conserve and protect wildlife. BLM 

and Forest Service lands support a variety of uses including recreation, timber harvesting, mineral production, livestock grazing, fish 

and wildlife habitat, and range lands. 

At the end of fiscal '93 the four agencies we reviewed managed 

about 623,000,000 acres of Federal land, about 27 percent of the 

U.S. land area. The graph before you shows-and Appendix I to my 

formal statement shows-that over the 29 years from '64 to '93 the 

amount of forest, fish and wildlife, and park land increased due to 

transfers of land from BLM and new land acquisitions. Forest Service land increased 5,000,000 acres. Fish and Wildlife Service land 

increased 65,000,000 acres. And Park Service land increased 

49,000,000 acres. Over the same period BLM land decreased about 

197,000,000 acres. 

Since the end of fiscal year '93 the four agencies have further increased their land holdings. For example, in fiscal year 1994 they 

acquired about 203,000 more acres. The amount of land managed 

by the four agencies in each state vary greatly-from less than one 

percent in Iowa to 81 percent in Nevada. 

The second chart before you that is corning up right now, and Appendix II to my statement, shows the percentages of Federal land 

in each state managed by the four agencies at the end of fiscal year 

1993. In 12 western states these agencies managed more than 25 

percent of the land including 66 percent of Alaska, 62 percent of 

Utah, 61 percent of Idaho, and 52 percent of Oregon. 

Over the 29-year period the amount of land managed by the four 

agencies increased in 46 states and the District of Columbia by 

20,000,000 acres and decreased in four states including Alaska by 

over 97,000,000 acres. However, as I said before, if the two unique 

land transfers in Alaska are excluded, the amount of Federal land 

in Alaska also increased by nearly 16,000,000 acres. 

The next map before you, and Appendix III to my formal statement, shows the change over the 29-year period in the percentage of Federal land managed by the four agencies in each state. 

Turning now to Federal land set aside for conservation purposes, 

over the years a number of laws and administrative restrictions 

have been imposed to conserve and protect both public and private 

lands and affect what can be done on the lands. The amount of the 

four agencies' land with conservation restrictions increased from 

51,000,000 acres or about seven percent of the agencies' total acreage in fiscal year 1964 to 271,000,000 acres or almost 44 percent 

of their total acreage in fiscal year 1993. 

All of the Fish and Wildlife and Park Service lands are restricted 

for conservation purposes and a portion of BLM and Forest Service 

lands are set aside for such things as wilderness and recreation 

areas. Most of the Federal acreage with conservation restrictions is 

located in 12 western states. 

And finally the next map before you, and Appendix IV to my 

statement, portrays this information. The percentage of Federal 

lands set aside ranges from a low of 17 percent in Nevada to a high 

of 100 percent in Hawaii. 

Mr. Chairman, we plan to issue a more comprehensive report 

later this year to you and Mr. Pombo that will address, among 

other things, the reasons for changes in Federal landownership, 
6 

methods used to acquire land, and the amount of private land 

under Federal regulatory control. This concludes my statement and 

I would be happy to respond to any questions. 

Mr. YOUNG. I thank you for coming. One of the questions-the 

fact that 30 percent of the country is owned by the Federal Government and 44 percent of the Federal land is locked up, I don't believe it tells the whole story. For example, does your report address 

how much land is owned by other public state's agencies such as 

states and local governments? 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. No, Mr. Chairman, it doesn't. This is something that we plan to try to get. 

Mr. YOUNG. That will be in your upcoming report? 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. Right. 

Mr. YOUNG. See, what we are looking for is the total mass of 

land owned by government agencies. And I want to stress again 

government agencies-there is no tax on government agencies' 

buildings nor property. There is no economic base. So that will 

come up in your next report. Does your report address how much 

of the remaining 56 percent of the Federal lands are encumbered 

by environmental regulations which effectively preclude economic 

activities, in other words, de facto designations such as the 

8,000,000 acres of timberland set aside last year by the Clinton administration for the spotted owl? 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. No, it does not. 

Mr. YOUNG. Can you do that in the upcoming report? 

Mr. JoHN ANDERSON. I don't know. That could be very problematic but we will look at it and see what we can do. 

Mr. YOUNG. Would you please let us know what is problematic about it at this time and why it can't be done because we want to 

get to the total land mass that has been actually set aside for exclusive use? Does this include military lands? 

Mr. JoHN ANDERSON. No, it doesn't. Military lands are excluded 

from the numbers. 

Mr. YOUNG. All right. 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. 95 percent of the land is managed by the 

four major land management agencies-DOD manages most of the 

rest of the Federal land. 

Mr. YoUNG. So that is about 27,000,000 acres? 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. I believe. 

Mr. LAMOREAUX. I am not sure just what the acreage is but of 

the five percent that is not managed by the four agencies included 

in our report, DOD has the majority. 

Mr. YOUNG. OK, that would be about 27,000,000 acres that they 

take care. That is exclusive use too, that is not, well, that is multiple use in some areas. Your report states that the Federal Government owns over 650,000,000 acres of land. Is it correct that this 

figure only includes lands actually owned by the government, not 

additional lands which the Federal Government has authorized or 

intends to acquire? 

Mr. JoHN ANDERSON. That is correct. And this is the land owned 

as of the end of fiscal year 1990. 

Mr. YoUNG. So in your next report, the follow-up of this one, we 

will have the total again? 
7 

Mr. JoHN ANDERSON. Right. And it will be updated to include fiscal year 1994. 

Mr. YOUNG. Could you tell me how much land from 1964 until 

now, the trend, is being purchased by the Federal Government, private lands? 

Mr. JoHN ANDERSON. · We tried to get a handle on that, and I 

think if you can picture a roller-coaster, it has been sort of like 

that. Generally speaking, if you look at the amount of funds that 

come out of the Land and Water Conservation Fund over the last 

ten years I would say roughly from '86 up until '91, the roller coaster was going up the hill. There has been a general downward trend 

then but there have been spikes and peaks that occur in that. So 

it is not clear-cut, it is like a roller-coaster ride. But generally 

speaking there has been an upward trend until the last three 

years. 

Mr. YOUNG. Your report focuses on Federal lands. What about 

lands owned by the Indian tribes in America? 

Mr. JoHN ANDERSON. They are not covered. 

Mr. YOUNG. They are not covered at all? Your report focuses only 

on Federal lands. But there obviously are other public lands not 

considered in your report. For example, a recent article stated 26 

percent of the lands in the state of Oregon are owned by the state, 

county, and cities meaning the total public ownership of Oregon is 

78 percent. Can you tell us what the situation is with other public 

lands in other states? 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. We can't at this time-but again that is 

something we are going to try to get for the final report. 

Mr. YOUNG. My time is about up. Are there any other questions? 

Then I have some more questions but l would like to yield at this 

time to Mr. Hansen-excuse me, Mr. Kildee. I am sorry. 

Mr. KILDEE. Well, just briefly. Mr. Chairman, my son serves on 

some Federal land in your state at Fort Wainwright in Fairbanks, 

Alaska. And that is of course under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense. Let me ask the witness why did the GAO report 

focus solely on the last 29 years? 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. I think the primary reason for it was because we thought that 1964 would be a good starting point. That 

is when the Wilderness Act was enacted and there was some information that was developed from '64 through '89 when we were discussing this assignment with representatives of the Chairman's 

and Mr. Pombo's offices. And it seemed like a logical point then to 

just to try to update that information and get it as current as we 

could. 

Of course, what we found when we looked into the information 

was that a lot of the information came from GSA and wasn't necessarily accurate. So we gathered our own data. 

Mr. KILDEE. And there was no designated wilderness in 1964 to 

plug into the equation. In my mind there is no question that the 

amount of Federal conservation lands of course increased as a result of the wilderness being designated. And the wilderness legislation has had strong support here in the Congress and strong support from the American people. 

Mr. Chairman, you can recall that in my other incarnation before 

I went on Budget Committee that I was a chief sponsor of the bill 
8 

that designated 100,000 acres in Michigan as wilderness area. And 

I think the fact that the Wilderness Act was not in effect when this 

report was written doesn't tell the full story that wilderness designation is one of the big reasons why more has been put into a 

reserve status. 

And I think we have to recognize that Federal ownership and 

designation, reserved use generally, has been accepted positively by 

the American people and certainly positively by the people here in 

the Congress of the United States. I just want to make that point. Mr. YOUNG. If I may, it has been accepted by this Congress 

under the leadership of your party. But it has not been accepted 

by those people that are directly affected. If you take a poll, most 

of the wilderness area set aside was opposed by those it was designated and the representative from that area. We could get into 

a philosophy argument. 

It is my concept that this should be a representative form of government, not nationalism. And when someone on our side of the 

aisle and mostly all of our side, and yes, even on your side of the 

aisle says no and their people say no, we have no right to say that 

is the best way to go. 

And I think really the purpose of this report is to show the accelerated growth of purchasing of land and restrictive use and what 

it has done to the ability of the American people to enjoy those 

lands and, in fact, what it has done to the economic strength of this 

country. 

We cannot ever balance this budget nor can we ever have the 

wealth of this country as needed if we don't have access to and the 

ability to manage the lands. Preservation does not manage the 

lands. That is a difference of philosophy. 

But it was your district, and I understand where you are coming 

from. But you have no right nor this gentleman here have a right 

to tell myself or Mr. Hansen that this is the best for the national 

interest regardless if the Federal Government owns it or not because we have communities that live next to those lands that have 

gone broke, have lost their economic well-being because of the actions of the agencies, I call this interest groups. 

Mr. KrLDEE. May I justMr. YOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. KILDEE [continuing]. respond briefly, Mr. Chairman? You 

know, both of us love this country. Both of us love the lands and 

the beauty of the country. I think we have a different approach. 

But you mentioned my party. Well, my own bill, Mr. Chairman, 

had bipartisan sponsorship and my bill was signed into law by 

President Ronald Reagan. 

Mr. YOUNG. And it was your district. 

Mr. KILDEE. And 1-

Mr. YOUNG. It was your district. 

Mr. KILDEE. It was not in my district. It was up in Mr--

Mr. YOUNG. It was in your state. 

Mr. KILDEE. In my state. 

Mr. YOUNG. OK, keep that in mind. 

Mr. KILDEE. But it was signed by the President of the United 

States Ronald Reagan. I have the pen for that. So I think the designation of wilderness area has been a bipartisan endeavor and 
9 

generally been accepted by the American people, as a matter of 

fact, approved by the American people. I just want to make that 

point, it was not just my party. 

Mr. YoUNG. Well, we will agree to one point, that the fact is it 

w2.s in your state. If it was in your district, you are a person that 

should have agreed to it. If you didn't agree to it, it shouldn't have 

been passed. Gentleman from Utah. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Not to get in a kicking 

match with my friend from Michigan but the statement that this 

did not show-if you started in 1964 with the passing of the Wilderness Act, I think we all have to keep in mind that there has 

been different designations put there by BLM, Forest Service, or 

whatever it may be. One of those designations prior to 1964 and 

still much of the land is called preservation-or was that what they 

called it? Pardon me? Primitive area, excuse me, that they kept. 

And I know in my state, for example, the Uinta Mountains which 

is 500,000,000-no, excuse me, 5,000,000 acres was in a primitive 

area for that entire time. So a lot of that really wouldn't reflect 

that because much of that primitive area is area that is considered 

prime wilderness area. So I don't know if that would cause that big 

thing. 

Minor point maybe, Mr. Kildee, but still a point that would 

change. Gentleman? 

Mr. KlLDEE. Just one point and I think that we have to recognize 

that there are figures and there are statistics but very often you 

have to look to the reasons behind those statistics. And I merely 

wanted to point out that the Congress and the American people 

generally approved this designation of wilderness and that is one 

of the reasons behind the figures that we have here. 

Mr. HANSEN. That is another argument I guess we could get in 

if we wanted to. I have found over the years that everybody is for 

wilderness until they understand the definition. It is fun to go to 

a high school class and say how many of you are for wilderness, 

and they all say, "I am." Every hand goes up. And then say, "Let 

me go through it and explain to you that you can't take your fourwheel drive in there," what you can and can't do and then ask the 

question at the end of your lecture. Sometimes you get an entirely 

different response. But that is not the reason we are here. 

Let me just say this if I may. Your presentation, Mr. Anderson, 

was very interesting. Can you tell how much the land acquired by 

the Federal Government has been put to multiple use purposes and 

how much of the acquisitions since 1964, as far as you went on 

your statistics, are primarily for preservation purposes? Did you 

break that down at all? 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. I think we have got some rough numbers 

for part of it. Generally speaking, the Fish and Wildlife Service and 

the Park Service lands are considered to be 100 percent for conservation, and are therefore not available for any other uses. With 

regard to the other two, it is a little tougher to tell. 

I guess for some reason it sticks in my mind that of the BLM 

lands, 57,000,000 acres are restricted and about 49,000,000 acres 

of the Forest Service lands are restricted. 

Mr. HANSEN. In your testimony you also talked about the book 

put out by BLM and GSA which is a Public Land Use Statistics 
10 

booklet. In your testimony you kind of call that into question, the 

authenticity of it, whether or not you feel it is a legitimate document. To me that kind of puts a red flag to the members of this 

committee saying maybe this isn't the best document to look at. 

You apparently feel it is flawed in some way, is that correct? 

Mr. JoHN ANDERSON. That is correct. There is one table particularly in that publication that breaks up the amount of Federal land 

by each state. And really that information comes from these statistics that are published by GSA. BLM really doesn't do anything except get that information directly from GSA. And we found that the 

information from GSA is pretty unreliable and outdated. So that is 

why we felt it was best to go directly to the agencies to get it. 

Mr. HANSEN. Well, that sure throws a red flag to this committee 

if I may respectfully say so because in my years on this committee 

those things have been quoted extensively and people have said as 

if here's the Bible here, been written and so there it is. Therefore 

there is no debate. I would hope, Mr. Chairman, we take that into 

consideration. 

Mr. YOUNG. Gentlemen, I would suggest maybe we ought to 

write the New Testament. 

Mr. HANSEN. I think we should call it the inspired version of the 

New Testament or maybe the authentic version of the New Testament. If I have any more time, Mr. Chairman, I just have one 

quick question. Your last chart you put up said that with restrictions-would you mind if we just quickly put that back up again 

for just a second, please? Would you specifically talk about what restrictions you are referring to there? 

Mr. JoHN ANDERSON. The types of restrictions are those that I 

think are listed in the last page of our report, quite frankly. They 

are the wilderness and wilderness study areas, wild and scenic rivers, areas of critical environmental concern, research natural areas, 

national conservation areas, national monuments, national primi- tive areas, national recreation areas, national game refuges, national scenic research areas, and then there is a miscellaneous category. 

Mr. HANSEN. I think that is quite a revealing chart you have up 

there. I don't think people are fully cognizant of the percent of how 

much of that was restricted. And I guess that is on the last page 

of your report here. My staff just pointed that out to us. 

Mr. LAMOREAUX. The chart also includes the National Park Service land as well as Fish and Wildlife Service land. 

Mr. HANSEN. It does include the Fish and Wildlife Service. The 

Chairman asked the question but it does not include military nor 

does it include Indian reservations, is that right? 

Mr. JoHN ANDERSON. That is correct, that is right. 

Mr. HANSEN. And you don't have that information right now? 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. No. Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

Mr. YoUNG. The gentleman from California, Mr. Doolittle? 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Your report indicates that 78 percent of the Federal land in the state of California is already locked up which the 

chart shows there. Does that figure include the nearly 8,000,000 

acres of land locked up by the California Desert Protection Act late 

last year? 
11 

Mr. JoHN ANDERSON. It might include some of that if that land 

was already federally owned at the time that the act was passed 

but it may not include other parts. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. So the part that was federally owned it would include at least? 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. That is correct. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. We have got the figure here that 

220,000,000 acres of Federal land have been put under some type 

of conservation restriction in the last 30 years which I find remarkable. That doesn't include I guess all the additional Federal land 

which has been placed under some type of regulatory restriction, say the forest land-millions of acres of forest were set aside I 

guess as a result of this spotted owl controversy. That is not included in there either, is it? 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. No, it is not. 

Mr. DoOLITTLE. Well, of the 220,000,000 acres of conservation 

designations could you tell me roughly what percentage has been 

put in place by Congress and what in place by the various agencies 

themselves? 

Mr. JoHN ANDERSON. We have some rough numbers on this. We 

tried to get this information from the agencies themselves. But 

roughly speaking 93 percent of the Park Service's law is legislatively restricted versus the 7 percent that is administratively restricted. The Forest Service is about the same, about 93 percent 

legislative, seven percent administrative. BLM, about a third; 34 

percent of its land is legislatively set aside, 66 percent is administratively set aside. 

For the Fish and Wildlife Service, we didn't have any real luck 

with them in trying to get a break out of legislative versus administrative. 

Mr. YOUNG. When you say you didn't have any luck did they cooperate with you or did they--

Mr. JoHN ANDERSON. Yes, I think it comes down to having the 

information readily available and trying to make a determination 

about whether or not their broad legislative authorities would be 

counted as legislatively being set aside. 

Mr. YOUNG. In your future report can you pursue that for us, 

please? 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. We will try to do that, yes. 

Mr. YOUNG. OK, thank you. And by the way, while I have got 

you here did you discuss this data that you presented to us with 

the Federal agencies? 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. Oh, yes, we did. 

Mr. YOUNG. Did they offer any technical corrections? 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. The report that you see includes any corrections that they gave to us. 

Mr. YoUNG. You did incorporate them into your report? 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. Yes. 

Mr. YOUNG. Did you agree with those technical--

Mr. JoHN ANDERSON. Yes. 

Mr. YOUNG. OK, that is-go ahead. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I find it remarkable that the Federal agencies 

which administer this land can't give you definitive answers about 
12 

whether the restrictions were put in place by them or by Congress. 

I mean, did that strike you as odd? 

Mr. JoHN ANDERSON. Well, again part of it is interpretation. Part 

of it is you are talking about 29 years and doing the research to 

check it out. But this is something that we will definitely look into 

and try to have something more definitive for our final report. But, 

yes, you would think that there would be a little bit better handle 

on it but there could be some extenuating circumstances as well. 

Mr. DOOLITI'LE. Of course we had the Park Service show up here 

recently-or Mr. Allard's Agriculture Subcommittee and they didn't 

know what they had done three or four years worth of budgets as 

to where the money even went. I mean, I find it absolutely unbelievable. 

Mr. YOUNG. Will the gentleman yield again? For anybody who is 

interested after we get done this 100 days in ESA and wetlands 

and private property,· as you know, one role is going to have a lot 

of answering from certain agencies and we are going to have very 

serious oversight responsibility. 

Mr. DOOLITI'LE. Thank you. 

Mr. YOUNG. The gentleman from California, Mr. Calvert. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am from California as 

Mr. Doolittle is, and in your previous testimony you mentioned 

Members of Congress who were not listened to. And the desert is 

certainly right next to my district. I was out there just last weekend, and let me tell you they are upset, frustrated. Things are happening to them that they didn't quite expect. And I want you to 

know that all the Members from that part of California were opposed to this but unfortunately it was thrust upon us. 

Your testimony states that each of the four land management 

agencies manages land for unique purposes. Is that really true, all 

four of the agencies manage every type of land used from wilderness to mineral production and grazing? All the agencies are bound 

by the Endangered Species Act and all other types of laws. In short 

is there really all that much difference between the agencies? 

As documented by the results of this report, it seems that the 

mission of the BLM and the Forest Service is moving away from 

multiple use management toward the preservation mission of NPS 

and Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. Clearly, I believe-as the former director 

of the Park Service, Rienour, suggests in his book-that there has 

been a blurring in the lines and that there is definitely much less 

difference between the types of things that the four agencies do 

now than they used to do. For example, the Forest Service is moving much more into the arena of recreation and that sort of thing 

than they did in the past. So the answer to your question is yes, 

that there is a blurring of the lines if you will. 

Mr. CALVERT. Your testimony specifically calls into question the 

Public Land Use Statistics booklet prepared by the BLM and GSA. 

Would you urge caution in Members using that book as a definitive 

reference? 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. Yes, I would. Specifically that one table 

that I mentioned before is not that accurate. Now, this is something that we are going to be looking into in more detail and probably reporting on separately to GSA and BLM as well. 
13 

Mr. CALVERT. As far back as 1979 GAO issued a report suggesting that the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture review their 

policies with regard to Federal land acquisition. In 1993 the Interior Inspector General issued a report on the Fish and Wildlife 

Service recommending that they suspend all future acquisitions because the funding for existing refuges was inadequate to meet the 

existing needs that the existing refuges had-unsafe conditions for 

the public and Fish and Wildlife employees. 

Have you detected any change in the Federal land acquisition 

policy other than a slight reduction due to overall funding decreases? 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. No, we really haven't seen much change 

there. And I would just like to offer one other comment in that regard. I think that this is something that is very important. As you 

can tell from the comments at the outset this is a very emotional 

issue and it depends upon a particular philosophy and that sort of 

thing. 

But one of the things that I think must be considered when making these types of decisions is that it is not just the acquisition of 

the land, it is what comes after that in terms of managing of the 

land and maintaining the land. And there are costs associated with 

that. 

There has been some legislation introduced in the last Congress 

and the current Congress concerning the Park Service to try to systematize this process a little bit. And I think that is something that 

might be applicable for all the land management agencies, not just 

the Park Service. 

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. YOUNG. The gentlelady from Idaho. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Anderson, thank you for 

your testimony, and I appreciate your report. I have some further 

questions though. And not at all to put you on the spot but it is 

my opinion that there are far more lands that have been set aside 

for single use Federal management which could economically impact this country very soon in the form of a recession. As long as 

in one form or another we set aside lands for a single use, our ability to create original wealth is impacted. And so with that in mind let me ask you, did you look into the 

lands that have been purchased by Nature Conservancy on a willing buyer/willing seller acquisition? Yet the lands are in a sort of 

never-never state, off the tax rolls and eventually will be shifted to 

ownership of one of the Federal agencies? 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. No, we did not look at that. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Do you have an idea about how much money 

Nature Conservancy has to buy up these lands? 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. I don't. I don't know--

Mr. LAMOREAUX. That was not a part of this current effort. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I think it is relevant and for the record I 

would like to say that in 1992 their annual revenues were 

$258,000,000, much of which would go into land acquisition which 

has the net effect of narrowing the tax base. Furthermore, did you 

take into consideration the land set aside as Federal highway 

lands? 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. No. 

90-167 0 - 9 5 - 2 
14 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Would you do that? . Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. I think we can look at that, yes, ma'am. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Did you take into consideration the land set 

aside for energy production and transmission, such as lands that 

are owned under Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensing, 

transmission lands for BPA, TVA, and various other federally controlled energy producers including the nuclear engineering laboratories? 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. Only if those lands are technically federally owned. If the Federal Government just had an easement right 

or something like that, they wouldn't be included. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. If they are owned by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with a license given to a utility, then they are 

federally owned, I would assume? 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. They really should be counted then, yes. 

But they wouldn't be in our numbers since we focused on the four 

primary land management agencies. But the percent would probably be pretty small. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Anderson, would you consider that in your 

next report? 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. OK, we will take a look. I do want to make 

clear that for the scope of what we are talking about, we focused 

on the four major land management agencies which have responsibility for 95 percent of all Federal lands. But we can see what 

type of information is available on this other data. Mrs. CHENOWETH. I would appreciate that because it impacts our 

taxpayers. This is far away from ideology. This is a dollar-andcents issue-who is going to end up bearing the taxes or the demands of this country and where do we produce the wealth. Furthermore, there were lands that were set aside and given to the 

states in the western states, primarily Oregon and California, 

called 0 and C lands. They are owned by the Federal Government. 

Would you look into that also? 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. Yes. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And then the lands that are owned and controlled by the Corps of Engineers. And then in the upper northwest 

there are lands that are being controlled by the National Marine 

Fisheries Service under a biological opinion. Those lands are referred to as Option Nine or Pac-Fish Lands which affect not only 

Federal but state and private lands. Would you look into that too? 

Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. YOUNG. Are you ready-my good friend from the chief, the 

gentleman from American Samoa. Well, I don't think he is quite 

ready. He has got his guns loaded here so--

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I just have a couple of.--

Mr. YOUNG. Oh, go ahead. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Oh, OK. Just wanted to find out what the 

dollar value of the 650,000,000 acres that the government controls. 

Mr. YoUNG. I don't think that we have any good estimates of 

that. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Can you wing it or--

Mr. YoUNG. If the gentleman would yield and let us go real estate-wise. The cheapest real estate you can buy is at least $200 an 

acre. Even if it was $2 an acre under the mining laws, you can fig-
15 

ure how much that is. But we will go to $200 an acre. So figure 

that one out. 

Mr. JoHN ANDERSON. I did some rough calculations in preparing 

for this testimony and looking at the funds that are requested by 

the four primary land management agencies for the fiscal '96 budget. And I believe they must have been figuring on $1,200 to $1,800 

an acre for some of their estimates. So it would be depending on 

where it is. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Anderson, you mentioned in your statement that in 1993 there was an increase in acreage of Federal 

lands administered by the four agencies. Can you explain why the 

increase? Are we buying more land or how--

Mr. JoHN ANDERSON. We are acquiring the land using various 

techniques. We are purchasing the land. We are transferring the 

land from one Federal agency to another. We are acquiring the 

land through land exchanges and donations and various and sundry things. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I see. You don't think that perhaps a better 

option would be to give these lands to the states properly? What 

is it, about 85 percent of the land of the state of Nevada is owned 

by the government? Do you think that is a fair way the states 

should be controlled? 

Mr. JoHN ANDERSON. Based upon the comments that were made 

earlier, I don't think I want to get into that. That really comes 

down to a policy call for the Congress to make, and it depends upon 

where you sit. 81 percent of Nevada is federally owned. And is that 

a good thing or a bad thing? I would rather you all debate it and 

decide, quite frankly. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You ought to run for office. I am just curious. Two of the four agencies-which agency has the biggest bulk 

of this 650,000,000 acres? 

Mr. JoHN ANDERSON. Oh, Bureau of Land Management by far, 

about 268,000,000 acres. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Would you care to comment about the graz- ing fees and of the sort thatMr. JOHN ANDERSON. I would prefer not. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Sir, thank you. Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Allard. 

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I don't have any questions right now. 

Mr. YoUNG. Mr. Radanovich. Mr. R.ADANOVICH. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

make, Mr. Anderson, an observation that I am hoping that you will 

confirm for me. I am from the 19th District in California and most 

of my district is in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. I noticed that of 

your agencies there seems to be a range from conservationists to 

preservationists-ranging from the Bureau of Land Management to 

the National Park System. 

AI; I see the charts, I see not only the larger portion going to 

BLM status, but also within those numbers and over time an increase in transition from BLM which would normally be a 

conversationist agency allowing resources to be used into Federal 

park-{)r forest service and national park land which is strictly 

preservationist. To give you an example, in the Sierra Nevada 
16 

Mountains there are national parks, like Yosemite National Park, 

Sequoia and Kings, and all three of those are in my district. 

Over a series of time there has been a successional lockout of industry in that area. There were three logging mills in my district 

two years ago. There are none now due to clamping down of harvesting in the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests. 

My overall view is that what the preservationists are after is 

what we call in the Sierra the Range of Light National Park, which 

would be the eventual preservation of the entire range of Sierra 

Nevadas from Mount Lasse down to Mount Whitney into one national park which would effectively lock out any industry from the 

Sierra Nevadas altogether. 

What I would like to get from you is in observation of your charts 

and your investigation do you see a trend within those four agencies, a move from a conservationist's perspective to a preservationist's perspective. 

Mr. JoHN ANDERSON. I am not sure if I am understanding what 

you mean by the trend from conservation to preservation. But 

clearly there has been a shift from BLM, and the biggest part of 

that shift is to the Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Clearly, you can see that from the numbers. And of course the Park 

Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service lands are generally considered to be set aside for conservation purposes. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK. So the trend is obviously from a less restrictive use to a more restrictive use, OK? 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. Vento. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an interesting report. At the request of now-Senator Thomas last year who as the 

chairman may remember-! don't know if he was in attendance at 

the meeting but I know that he was interested-we held a hearing 

on public landownership in the past session of Congress. And the 

information that came out of that hearing was largely drawn from 

the public land statistics which is a document maintained by the 

Bureau of Land Management. 

And I think the indication was and I think the record would 

show that their data, their published data, they do this annually, 

is that in fact there had been a decrease in terms of Federal landownership in almost every western state as well as other states. 

For instance in Minnesota I know that BLM gave up 8,000 acres 

of land with reverters on I guess for conservation purposes to my 

state and the eastern states as they go through this process of trying to excess various parcels that are uneconomic to manage and 

hand them over, for instance, to a state natural resources agency 

to manage. 

And I don't know the basis. The GAO apparently found that 

those numbers were not correct but apparently they are using information from the General Services Administration, Mr. Anderson. 

Can you give me a 30-second answer as to why? 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. Why BLM is using GSA? 

Mr. VENTO. Why you are using-why you chose to use GSA. 
17 

Mr. JoHN ANDERSON. Well, no, we didn't use GSA. The first 

place that we went to was to GSA and then we also went to BLM 

to try to find out whether or not we could--

Mr. VENTO. Where did you--

Mr. JoHN ANDERSON. We went directly to the agencies themselves, the four land management agencies. 

Mr. VENTO. Small differences offer a different view or a different 

image in terms of what is going on. For instance, let me ask you in terms of the public lands here. 

Much of the Department of Defense has permits for a variety of 

lands. You didn't look at Department of Defense permits or other 

types of lands. But some of the land that would be classified as 

BLM-and/or Forest Service-may well be under the control of 

DOD, is that correct? 

That is permitted, that land is still permitted to them. 

Mr. JoHN ANDERSON. We looked at who actually owned the land. 

Mr. VENTO. Pardon? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We looked at who actually owned the land. Was 

itBLMMr. JOHN ANDERSON. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. Who owned it, right. They own. 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. Right. 

Mr. VENTO. They are permitting the use of it so it is BLM or Forest Service land. 

Mr. JoHN ANDERSON. In our next review we intend to include 

what these agencies have as far as easements--

Mr. VENTO. Well, let me just put it a different way. Has there 

been-I mean, in terms of land classification and designation-an 

increased classification of the various public lands from 1964 to 

1993 or 1994 that you have studied here? 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. I don't think--

Mr. VENTO. Has there been an increased designation of public 

lands generally for various and specific uses from 1964 to 1994? 

Mr. JoHN ANDERSON. I am not sure if I understand--

Mr. VEN1'0. The answer is yes, there has been. Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. OK. 

Mr. VENTO. So just say yes. 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. OK, yes. 

Mr. VENTO. No, I don't-! think it is almost indisputable that 

there has been more public lands and lands have been designated 

as parks, lands that have been designated as Fish and Wildlife 

Service. In other words, the whole point is that we are defining 

how these public domain lands or national forest lands are used. 

I mean, you obviously recognize that 1964 or 1965 we passed the 

Wilderness Act. So all of a sudden now we have got wilderness 

areas. Before that we didn't. So it isn't an arguable point. Does the 

Chairman want me to yield? 

Mr. YOUNG. No. 

Mr. VENTO. You don't want me to answer the questions of the 

witness? 

Mr. YOUNG. No, I don't. I would like especially the gentleman--

Mr. VENTO. Oh, OK. I will let Mr. Anderson answer for himself. Mr. Anderson, do you want to answer my question again? 
18 

Mr. JoHN ANDERSON. Well, I wasn't sure that I understood your question. 

Mr. VENTO. Do you understand it now? 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. I am still not sure but I think if you are 

asking me if there has been an increase in the amount of Federal 

land, the answer is that overall there has been a decrease. But 

when you exclude the two unique situations in Alaska there has 

been a net increase. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, there has been an increase in the lower 48. 

That is documented. 

Mr. VENTO. That was the first issue in terms of whether or not 

the statistics are correct with regards to the public domain in 

terms-you developed these on your own. I don't know what the 

methodology is. I don't want to-I have no basis to dispute that, 

Mr. Chairman, until I look at it. And of course if you exclude various things and add them-my point is that there has been an increased designation in the specific or special uses of the land--

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO [continuing]. not just for conservation purposes necessarily. And that depends how you define restricted use or conservation. How did you define that? Did you-for instance, if something is being used for mining is that a restricted use? 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. No. I think our restrictive uses are basically those that are listed in the last page of our report. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, tell me what they are because I haven't had 

time to read your report. 

Mr. JoHN ANDERSON. OK, wilderness, wilderness study areas, 

wild and scenic rivers, areas of critical environmental concern, research--

Mr. VENTO. ACEC's there are designated by regulation by the 

BLM, yes? 

Mr. JoHN ANDERSON. And these are Forest Service ones that I 

am reading from right now. 

Mr. VENTO. No, the ACEC is BLM. 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. OK, national conservation areas, national 

monuments, national primitive areas, national recreation areas, 

national game refuges, national scenic research areas. Then I look 

at the BLM types of restrictions that they call for, many of the 

same ones-wilderness, wilderness study areas, wild and scenic 

rivers. They have, it looks like a different one, a scientific research 

area. 

Mr. VENTO. OK Well, let me ask one more question. 

Mr. YoUNG. Gentleman, your time has run out now and you can 

come around the second time around. 

Mr. VENTO. I can't stay, Mr. Chairman. I was just going to-if 

I could have unanimous consent to ask one more question--

Mr. YOUNG. AB long as it is short. 

Mr. VENTO. In other words, the idea-GAO's definition constitutes a restriction for conservation-by what definition does it 

constitute restriction for conservation purposes? Isn't it true that 

the quote, "Restricted land may include hunting, fishing, grazing, 

commercial developments, even oil and gas leasing"? 

Mr. JoHN ANDERSON. In some cases, yes, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, that is restricted use if it is for oil and gas---
19 

Mr. YOUNG. Second question. The gentleman, Mr. Metcalf. 

Mr. METCALF. I have no questions. 

Mr. YoUNG. OK The gentleman--

Mr. CREMEANS. From Ohio. 

Mr. YoUNG. Mr. Shadegg, excuse me. I have got to go by the way 

you came in. I apologize. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just start by 

first asking you to briefly touch upon for me what the report shows 

with regard to the state of Arizona and withdrawal of lands in the 

state of Arizona? 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. For the state of Arizona, if you will bear 

with us. You want to know how much Federal land is in Arizona? 

Mr. SHADEGG. Just essentially what this study shows has happened in this time period in the state of Arizona. I think it would 

be in the table on page 36. 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. That is part of the problem with all these 

numbers, you never know which one to go to. Let us see, OK. For 

Arizona-the table is entitled "Acreage Managed By the Four Federal Agencies and Percentage With Conservation Restrictions By 

State". And for Arizona the total acreage managed was 

239,000,000. Acreage with conservation restrictions is 150,000,000 

roughly. 

Mr. SHADEGG. I think you are reading the line for Alaska. 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. Oh, I am sorry. You are right. The total 

Federal acreage in Arizona is 29,867,000 acres. Of that amount, 

8,471,000 acres are restricted, or 28 percent. 

Mr. SHADEGG. And do you have the figures which show the degree to which that is an increase? 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. Do we have that by state? We don't have 

it with us but we can provide that to you if you want it. 

Mr. SHADEGG. OK Well, in my state something over 40 percentsomething closer to 40 or 41 percent-is now federally owned, and 

that seems to be a growing number. Let me ask you another question which goes to the table on the next page. The various types 

of restriction that you go into don't include restrictions against 

mineral exploration and yet it is my understanding that is another 

significant restriction and that indeed at this point only approximately 28 percent of all Federal land can you continue to explore 

for minerals on, is that your understanding? Do you have that figure? 

Mr. JOHN A.N'DERSON. I am not sure. We don't know that. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Is that something that you either looked at in 

your figures or could look at and bring to us because that is a significant restriction. I mean, to the extent that we are taking-we 

are not only restricting lands in these categories which are listed 

in the table on page 38, Table 3.3, but we are also restricting lands 

in that we are withdrawing them from mineral exploration and the 

growth in that, whether we are in fact increasing that restriction 

on more and more Federal lands is I think an additionally significant fact that I would like to know. Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. OK We will look into that, yes, sir. 

Mr. SHADEGG. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. YOUNG. The gentleman from--

Mr. CREMEANS. Ohio. 
20 

Mr. YoUNG [continuing]. Ohio. Yes, go ahead. You are next. 

Mr. CREMEANS. Did I jump in again? 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, you jumped in. That is all right. Mr. Pombo is 

busy. 

Mr. CREMEANS. All I wanted, Mr. Chairman, was to ask for a 

unanimous consent that I have a copy of my statement appear in 

the record. 

Mr. YOUNG. That is without objection so ordered. 

Mr. CREMEANS. That is all I have. Thank you. [Statement of Mr. Cremeans follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK CREMEANS, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM OHIO 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been a Member of the 104th Congress for almost two months. During this time, I have participated in a number of measures to reform Congress and the Federal Government. Today's hearing is only another 

example of how big fiOvernment has taken it upon itself to look out for people by 

purchasing land for 'their benefit" without asking its citizens if this was necessary. The United States has over a $4.8 trillion debt and seems to continually want to 

add new land to its already swelling 650 million acre inventory. Mr. Chairman, as I am sure that this hearing will demonstrate, the Federal Government needs to get 

out of the "real estate" business and get back to the important business at hand. 

I would like to share with the Resources Committee an example that is currently taking place within the 6th Congressional District of Ohio. The Wayne National 

Forest, which currently owns 212,000 acres of land in twelve counties in southeast 

Ohio (30,000 acres are in Washington County), has laid siege to the Frontier School 

District. They want to purchase an additional 789 acres of land and add it to the 

38% of the district that they already possess. If a constituent of mine would purchase this land, they would have to pay a yearly tax of $3.34 per acre to the school 

district. If the Wayne National Forest is successful in purchasing this land, they will 

only have to pay $.29 an acre, a price that is subsidized through the "PILT" fund. 

The difference is an additional loss of $1900 worth of tax revenue to the school district. Just imagine what this tax money could purchase for the students of the Frontier School District-new text books, new athletic equipment, or maybe just basic 

school supplies. 

It does not make much sense to me to allow this transition to continue. In a time 

of belt tightening and penny pinching, how can I look in the mirror and let this type 

of travesty continue without taking a stand and put up a fight. Therefore, on February 28th, I introduced two pieces of le!Pslation that would put a stoP. to this infringement upon the citizens of the Fronber School District. The first b1ll will place a moratorium on any additional land acquisitions until the year 2002. Maybe by 

then, with the U.S. Government's fiscal house in order, we would allow them to possibly "look" at additional land. The other piece will force the Federal Government 

to pay the same amount in taxes on land it acquires as that of an individual. Why 

should the Feds be any different! If they want to purchase land for whatever use, 

then let them pay a fair market value for it. It is my hope that these pieces of legislation will make the Federal Government think twice in the future with regards to 

land acquisitions. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing this hearing to take place. I am sure that 

there are others who have had similar experiences as those of the people of Washington County, Ohio. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Pombo. 

Mr. POMBO. You could ask someone else if you want, I don't care. 

I will make this as short but I have had a chance to go through 

the report. I have had some time to spend with it and go through 

it. And I think it validates what a lot of our concerns were and 

helps to erase some of the misinformation that has been out there. 

I don't know if this question was asked before or not, and if it 

was, I apologize. But do you intend to go back and look at on a 

state-by-state basis to see how much land is owned by other government agencies including other Federal agencies as well as state 

and local? 
21 

Mr. JoHN ANDERSON. We definitely plan to include the other 

state and locals and that sort of thing. And then based upon the 

additional questions here, we will try to get some of information 

from some of the other agencies that are in the other five percent 

of the federally owned land. We will try to do that, yes, sir. 

Mr. POMBO. Would you--

Mr. LAMOREAUX. Let me just make a comment. It is a monumental task to try to come up with information concerning all 

state, local-you know, county and local government ownership. We 

will try to get what we can. I think we can more easily get state 

ownership but when you start going toward the county and to the 

local governments then it becomes really a task to do that, and I 

am not sure how much of that information--

Mr. YoUNG. If the gentleman will yield. 

Mr. LAMOREAUX. Yes. Mr. YoUNG. We understand that. And if I may, I would like to 

request that and show us where it can't be done with the computer 

stage we have today because everybody is on tax rolls in every municipality and every county, etcetera. So it can be done. 

The reason we wish to have this is again what we are trying to 

do, Mr. Pombo and the rest of the committee, is to show what this 

trend has done to the economic well-being of this country. As I will 

restate it again, there are no taxes raised for any county, municipal 

land, or Federal-owned buildings or land and what has happened 

to the tax base. 

So it will give us some idea how far we have gone down the line 

of making us noneconomically sound. And that is the reason we are 

asking for it. So if you come back to me and Mr. Pombo later on 

and say this is an impossible task, we might accept that. But with 

the computer and the Internet and all this other gobbledygook we 

have got today that I don't understand, you ought to be able to collect that relatively-not easy but it can be done. 

Mr. LAMOREAUX. We will do our best. We have yet to find the 

centralized source of that information, and we will attempt to look 

some more for it. 

Mr. POMBO. I would appreciate that. And along those same lines 

would you be able to also include in that report the amount of land 

that is under some type of regulatory restriction which limits its 

use by the Federal Government? One example of that would be 

wetlands, how much privately owned land there is in say Louisiana 

that is under regulatory restriction as to its use because of Federal 

regulation. 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. We will try that, yes. Mr. POMBO. OK, thank you. And I do appreciate the report. I 

think you guys did a good job. Thanks. 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. Thank you. Mr. YOUNG. We will go onto the next panel in a moment. But 

first, Mr. Anderson, do you have any estimate how many of the 

19,000,000 acres of increased Federal ownership in the lower 48 

states is off limits to hunting? 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. Off limits to hunting, I don't know that, no. 

Mr. YoUNG. Could we also add to your little plate of endeavors 

to see whether we can find out how many-yes, Mr. Shadegg? 
22 

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, also I presume that the study will 

also reflect not only state owned land and municipally owned land 

but as well Native American owned? 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, thank you. Does anybody have other questions? 

Mr. Kildee. 

Mr. KILDEE. Well, just one statement, Mr. Chairman. This is a 

very interesting hearing. It has been six years since I have had a 

hearing like this because I took my six years off to serve on Budget 

Committee. 

But I would like to point out-and I understand the feelings of 

those who come from a state that has so much Federal land. I can 

certainly understand that. Michigan is not quite-although east of 

the Mississippi we probably have more Federal land than any other 

state east of the Mississippi. 

But I want to point out that when we do designate a land as wilderness it is not, you know, totally fenced off. AB a matter of fact, 

the organic law on wilderness-one example says that hunting, 

fishing, trapping, grazing shall be governed by state law. 

And I can recall, Mr. Chairman, when I introduced my Michigan 

Wilderness Bill that I reiterated that language after I had a hearing up in the Upper Peninsula on that because they were concerned about that. But I have found out in Michigan that while before the act of designation of wilderness there is a great deal of 

concern that with a few years after the fact, at least in Michigan, 

people feel that it has served a useful purpose, particularly when 

you do allow these other uses, the uses for hunting, fishing, trapping and grazing. I just want to point out that we don't put a fence 

around the land, that there are other uses of the land. 

Mr. YOUNG. We are well aware of that, I think. But 100,000 

acres is but a period at the end of a sentence when it comes to 

western states. That means nothing. You have a surrounded infrastructure system there. There is an accessibility which we do not 

have. And under the provisions of most wilderness areas we are 

precluded from utilization unless you are Arnold Schwarzenager or 

somebody like that. 

So there is a difference and that is why we say one shoe does 

not fit all and it goes back to my earlier premise. The premise of 

this hearing from Mr. Anderson is to show again the accumulation 

of lands, acquisition of lands, and the inability to multiply and 

manage those lands for the economic well-being of the people that 

live in that area. 

Now, it does not affect the east apparently that much but it does 

affect the western states. And this is really intended why the follow-up will continue. 

I want to thank Mr. Anderson and keep in contact with Mr. 

Pombo and myself on how we are doing on this because we are 

going to pursue this so the public will understand where we are 

headed as far as the idea of landownership and the ability to run 

an economic system which I believe this country was built on. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. JOHN ANDERSON. Thank you. 

Mr. YOUNG. The next panel will be Ms. Anna Sparks from Humboldt County Supervisor; the Honorable Bob Lessard, Senator in 

Minnesota; Mr. John Baranek from Courtland, California; and Mr. 
23 

Terry Anderson, Political Economy Research Center, Bozeman, 

Montana. I know where Bozeman is, by the way, just a side point. 

And we will go in the order in which I called them off, please. 

Ms. Anna, will you please--Ms. Sparks, proceed? There won't be a 

red light here but I will tap the gavel when you go beyond a certain 

period of time and be as lenient as I possibly can. And we will go 

through the full panel before we ask-the committee will askquestions. So, Ms. Sparks, will you please go forth? 

STATEMENT OF ANNA SPARKS, FIFTH DISTRICT SUPERVISOR, 

HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 

Ms. SPARKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was sorry to see Congressman Vento leave because we have always had wilderness, it 

was just Congress had to anoint it, I guess, before it became fully 

wilderness and put restrictions on it. But I read our history and 

we had a lot of wilderness at one time that we could use for many 

things. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Resources Committee, I am 

Anna Sparks. I am former Fifth District Supervisor of Humboldt 

County, California. I have been the supervisor for the past 12 

years. I left office January 3 of this year. My former district is in 

the northern part of the county and is the home of the Redwood 

National Park, eight state parks, three county parks, six serve as 

national · forests, Bureau of Land Management holdings, and private timberland. 

History has shown that when land is removed from commercial 

production it not only is lost-not only is production lost but so are 

the jobs and work in direct production and those indirectly supporting the workers. The tax base upon which our local government depends to fund our schools, our libraries, our roads, welfare, medical 

support for those who cannot take care of themselves, and other 

basic services, such as clean water and law enforcement, are lost. 

Humboldt and Del Norte Counties can cite statistical evidence of 

the negative effects of the Redwood National Park. There is little 

reason to believe the effects would be any different in any other 

state than they have been in California. 

In 1968 the creation of the Redwood National Park eliminated 

2,700 jobs. In 1978, ten years later, approximately 17 percent of all 

Humboldt County jobs and 25 percent of the Del Norte County jobs 

were lost to the park expansion. 3,500 men and women were compensated for their jobs. Many workers had a tough time trying to 

retrain into new jobs and careers because of their interest, their 

age, and employment history as was verified in your own GAO report. 

The lack of opportunities for new placement in a closely related 

position caused some families to not find work. Others had to leave 

their families and friends to find work elsewhere; spousal abuse increased; child abuse increased; alcohol and drugs and divorce became much more prevalent. 

The dollars paid to the families of the displaced workers never 

made up for the individual losses. Some businesses collapsed and 

the owners have never been paid for their losses just because they 

didn't fit into the guidelines set forth by the bureaucracy for expansion-related compensation. 
24 

Two major promises were made by government during the park's 

creation in 1978. One was to allow for more harvest on national 

forest lands to replace timber on private lands lost to the park. Second, the park was to increase tourism to offset job losses. Neither 

promise was kept. 

Timber harvest on public lands actually declined nearly 50 percent from 1971 to 1980. That decline has continued today. There 

are no-and I repeat no timber sales on National Forest Service 

forests in our area as of today. 

As for tourism, they promised us 1,600,000 visitors by 1983 but 

only-and I would like you to correct this. In my previous testimony I had 39,000 and it was an error. It was 227,000 people by 

1983 that actually came into our area. 

In 1994, last year, we had 475,000 people. Now, that is a far cry 

from 1,600,000. The third promise that was made to us is that 

loggers would be able to go to work in the national parks. To date 

only one logger has gone to work in those parks. There are 76 permanent employees in the national park and there are 71 temporary 

and one logger. 

A major grove is Lady Bird Johnson Grove and it consists of 

three tables, his and her toilets, limited parking, two garbage cans 

and a trail. There is no beautiful lodge to allow people to stay in 

or near the park and no funding to create the lodge. 90 percent of 

the park is not even accessible to the average tourist. 

The most visited areas are the state parks which have easy accessibility, attractions such as parking, picnic tables, fire pits, 

camping, et cetera. Funds are not even being used to make the 

Redwood National Park user-friendly by aqding the amenities 

found in the state parks that are just right next door to the national park. 

More than half of the state parks visited are the areas which 

have little to do with the redwood trees. As a matter of record, 

these areas were major attractions long before the national park 

was formed. Ten percent of the visitors to the Redwood National 

Park never get out of their cars. 

The estimated cost of the park as provided to the Senate in 1968 

indicated that the original taking of private land would cost something under $92,000,000. By 1981 the total was over $306,000,000. 

By January of '87 this total was increased by a U.S. District Court 

trial panel which concluded the Federal Government owed additional compensation to Louisiana Pacific Corporation and Simpson 

Timber Company. The total including interest due was expected to 

be $770,000,000. 

Redwood National Park total now exceeds $1,000,000,000. It is 

the most expensive of all national parks and probably one of the 

least used. Park expansion has neither encouraged investment nor 

created new jobs. The higher paying skilled jobs that have been replaced are much lower paying tourist and other service-related 

jobs. Timber jobs normally pay between $18,000 and $32,000 a 

year while food service jobs frequently pay less than $10,000 a 

year. 

Currently there are nearly one-quarter of a million acres held in 

parks in the Redwood region. Over 82,000 acres contain old growth 

redwoods. Six Rivers National Forest borders Redwood National 
25 

Park and consists of over 1,000,000 acres. Six Rivers will preserve 

all of its distinctive stands of old growth redwoods. About 70 per.:-

cent of the remaining old growth redwood trees are now in parks. 

As the Federal Government sets more land aside, takes more 

land out of production, the cost of lumber goes up and drives the 

privilege of owning your own home out of the reach of many people. 

Now we are importing logs from other countries that do not have 

the environmental commitment that we have in California in order 

to try and produce the lumber that we need to keep our people 

working producing the products and homes the Nation needs. 

I am not here on behalf of the timber industry. I am not here 

on behalf of local government or any special interests. My comments and my thoughts are the results of trying to serve my constituents and watching their disbelief as their jobs were taken 

away, their lives were torn apart, their government listening to the 

lies and distortion of the proponents of expansion. Then the final 

slap of their government was the breaking of all of their promises 

of U.S. Forest-U.S. timber sales, jobs in the parks, or retraining 

in jobs in the area. 

14 months later-when they started the retraining there were no 

jobs. There was nothing created in our area. Orick, the community 

next to the park, now has 72 percent of its school-age children living-receiving some kind of government subsidy. Please do n0t misunderstand. I support having parks but when is enough enough? 

How many millions of acres of land does it take to satisfy the insatiable appetite of the preservationists? How much of our prime 

timber-growing soil must be taken out of production never to 

produce again? How many lives have to be destroyed, families torn 

apart? And how many communities must be thrown into poverty 

before the liberal minority faction is satisfied? How many broken 

promises will the government make before there is no credibility 

left between government and the people they are to serve? 

I believe we need a balance of conservation, wise use and management of our resources to assure that we as well as our children 

do have productive and meaningful lives. We need to recall the lessons of the past. We must not cast them away without learning 

from them for a better future for all of us. The guarding of private 

property rights as guaranteed in our Constitution is imperative. 

The stability of America depends on it. 

In conclusion, I think I can say flat-out without much fear of contradiction that without exception the placement of the Redwood 

National Forest in Humboldt and Del Norte Counties has had a direct inducement to the destruction of jobs and the loss of income 

in the private sector. 

Chairman Young, you and your committee now have the opportunity to look at past errors of resource land allocation decisions 

and give greater consideration to the effects that government action have had on community resource base. You should increase 

the use of the existing national park, develop true-and I mean 

true-multiple use management on U.S. Forest Service lands, and 

reduce the dependence on public assistance. 

I have confidence that your committee will be able to make the 

promises of the past a reality. If we quit cutting trees, everyone 

here will be out of business as we all use paper from the bathroom 
26 

to this room right here. And if you don't think you need paper, just 

take a look at how many times you pick up a piece of paper, how 

many newspapers you read, how many times you go into the restroom, and how much paper is stacked in those computer papers. 

We were all going to do away with paper but that is not happening. We are making more paper now than ever and so we need 

more trees, more resources, more of a great renewable resource 

managed and managed well. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. 

Ms. SPARKS. Thank you. 

[Statement of Anna Sparks may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you for your testimony. And I can suggest one 

thing. I wish you hadn't said that last part because people when 

they find out it might make this government work more effectively 

they won't cut any trees. I thank you for your testimony. Senator, 

would you please-in all due respects I let the lady go a little 

longer than ordinarily. But if you can keep it, you know, reasonable 

I would appreciate it, Senator. You have been here before. 

Ms. SPARKS. I apologize. 

Mr. YOUNG. Please, Senator. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB LESSARD, A STATE SENATOR IN 

MINNESOTA 

Mr. LESSARD. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my 

name is Bob Lessard, and I am a Member of the Minnesota State 

Senate and Chairman of the Senate Environment and Natural Resource Committee. However I am here to testify for you today not 

as a specific member or chairman of the committee but somebody 

who has lived in northern Minnesota, somebody that has been in 

guiding hunting and fishing parties all the way across the Arctic 

from Alaska all the way to Hudson Bay. I presently have a fly-in 

camp in Canada and I represent the district of northern Minnesota, 

south 200 miles. To the west-east it abuts the Boundary Waters 

Canoe Area. 

Specifically, I am here to speak to the establishment and operation of Voyageurs National Park. Voyageurs National Park is on 

Minnesota's international border with Canada stretching eastward 

where it nearly abuts the Boundary Waters Canoe Area wilderness. The reason I ran for public office 20 years ago, and I have served 

for 20 years, are the very issues that I appear before you today. 

I would like to speak to the Voyageurs National Park and what 

it has done I think to in my opinion northern Minnesota. From its 

inception we in northern Minnesota were told by the National Park 

Service that the designation of Voyageurs National Park as a national park was suggested to be an economic boom for northern 

Minnesota. 

According to the congressional hearings record Voyageurs was 

projected to get 1,300,000 visitors annually within ten years of its 

establishment. It is kind of interesting that you mentioned-maybe 

that is a generic figure that they do when they establish a park. As a part of the anatomy of the park the state of Minnesota was 

asked to donate tens of thousands of acres of land to the park. We 

did this. The state of Minnesota did this despite the objections I 

think of a majority of the citizens, but that is what happened. We 
27 

donated to the national park so that a national park could be established. 

Indeed, the expectations for windfall recreation and economic 

benefits to the state were even reflected in the state statutes. But 

let us look what happened. What happened is that we have not realized even a fraction of the visitors use or economic benefits the 

Park Service promised when the Federal Government tried to sell 

us on the notion that this park would be good for us. 

In fact, now nearly 20 years after the establishment of the Voyageurs National Park the total annual visitation of less than 20 percent of what they promised. As a matter of fact, the visitors use 

is so dismal that in 1982 that the then Director of the National 

Park Service proposed Voyageurs National Park as a pilot project 

for increased Federal cooperation and attention to develop its outdoor recreation potentials. He did so because Voyageurs Park was 

so woefully underutilized. 

The fact of the matter is with all the resorts that were taken out 

by condemnation and through other processes-they said willing 

buyer/willing seller but they had to sell-we probably would have 

had I think I can say without being refuted more visitation under 

normal conditions than we have now with the park. 

So here we sit ten years later with over $50,000,000 spent by the 

Park Service on facilities and land acquisition. Yet we have only 

one-fifth the public use that was predicted. What has resulted is 

less and less accessibility and opportunity for general public use 

and employment-enjoyment of the park. 

With each year since designation came more and more regulations restricting public use and more and more proposals for a lockout of traditional recreational use of the park. For example, in 1982 

the Park Service proposed we have International Biosphere Reserve for the park which would have drastically restricted public 

use. Shortly after this proposal mercifully died a deserving death 

the Park Service came with another proposal. This time they offered us a major wilderness designation which is now being considered. The Park Service is still pushing for Wilderness Area Designation to this day. Even this designation was so bad that even former 

Governor Elmer L. Anderson, who is known as the father of Voyageurs National Park by some, opposed this particular wilderness 

proposal. Severe restrictions have been placed on snowmobiling 

and other recreational uses of the park. 

For these reasons I was stunned to recently read a statement by 

Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt at a June 1994 Parks ahd Public Lands Subcommittee. "I think I can say flat-out, without much 

fear of contradiction, that without exception, everywhere in the 

United States since the creation of a National Park System the 

placement of a land unit into national park status has been a direct, immediate, sustained, unyielding inducement to the creation 

of jobs and income. It is absolutely true everywhere." 

Obviously Senator Babbitt-Secretary Babbitt has never been in 

northern Minnesota. It simply isn't true. But, Mr. Chairman, it 

doesn't stop there. Voyageurs is just one domino in the Federal 

Government's plan to lock up northern Minnesota from Lake Superior to North Dakota. In fact, right next door to Voyageurs lies the 
28 

Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, and this federally managed wilderness is one of the original units included in the 1964 

Wilderness Act. 

It had at that time of designation acceptance which allowed for 

some continued multiple use. But in 1979 the so-called Vento compromise restricted motorboats and other uses of land and water 

which were specifically provided for in the enabling legislation. 

These restrictions proved so politically unpopular that it resulted 

in what became known nationally and certainly in Minnesota as 

the "Minnesota Massacre" whereby a Republican Governor and two 

United States Senators were elected as a backlash to the new wilderness restrictions called a compromise. This area too has seen a 

never-ending series of restrictive regulations placed on its use. 

Mr. Chairman, I just want to interrupt my remarks. I have here 

a letter from Senator Doug Johnson who represents that entire 

area, another Democrat, expressing his various concerns over the 

loss of the three portages by the National Parks-excuse me, by the 

Department of Forestry or by the Federal Government. And I won't 

be naming them here but I would like to submit this for the record. 

Mr. YoUNG. Without objection so moved. 

Mr. LESSARD. Thank you. And to the west of Voyageurs, the National Park Service has proposed a new designation of a "Voyageurs National Historic Trail" along the entire Minnesota/Ontario 

border taking-this is a few years back taking into consideration 

Lake of the Woods. One can only surmise from all of this that there 

is in the Federal Resource Management Agency's agenda a strong 

desire to regulate and depopulate the borderland of the entire state 

of northern Minnesota. 

I talked to Senator-Congressman Collin Peterson. He was going 

to try to be here today, and he was going to testify to his concerns 

to this also. 

Given this history, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, 

I see no real prospect for workability and cooperation for the betterment of the people of Minnesota or elsewhere under the current 

management structure and management plans for these existing 

Federal units. For these reasons then, I recommend to you that 

new management plans and designations be considered by the Congress. Only this time with such congressional consideration and full 

public participation. 

By that I mean, Mr. Chairman, that a full public participation 

should mean the redrafting of management policies with the active 

participation by those whose lives and livelihood are directly affected and including the full range of outdoor user groups. That includes hunters, sportsmen and women, snowmobilers, and all those 

other people that were affected whose views we don't feel were 

taken into consideration upon the establishment of the Voyageurs 

National Park. 

I couldn't be more than certain that this kind of congressional 

initiatives that I am recommending to you today would be wel- comed by the broadest range of Minnesota outdoor recreation and 

local governments. And in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I think this 

committee, and I want to echo what Ms. Sparks said, has a historic 

opportunity to finally realize the people that live in these areas are 

not here trying to despoil the environment. The fact is the reason 
29 

they want it is because we have it. We can protect the environment. We can allow hunting. We can allow fishing. We can allow 

motorboating. We can do all kinds of things if we do it using plain 

ordinary common horse sense. And I think that this-! would like to invite this committee to 

come to northern Minnesota and have a hearing and see for yourself, and I think you will see that my testimony is truthful, and it 

would be backed by the people of northern Minnesota. 

My last remark is I am very sorry that I didn't see Congressman 

Vento leave. I have waited for this for 20 years. For 20 years I 

have waited for this because the Burton-so-called Burton-VentcrCompromise in Minnesota led to all kinds of upheavals and all 

kinds of trauma. And I am very disappointed that Mr. Vento chose 

not to be here today. He knew I was coming. At least I assume he 

read the list. So I want that in there for the record. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. [Statement of Mr. Lessard may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Senator. And I happen to agree with everything you have said. Before I go to Mr. Pombo who is going to 

introduce the next witness I happen to be one of the only people 

on this committee who voted against the Redwood Bill and voted 

against the Voyageurs Bill telling them exactly what you said came 

true. It is ironic to me that the estimates that I heard from Cecil 

Andrus for the Redwoods was $359,000,000. That is total. It has 

cost $1,400,000,000. 

And in your case, the same thing. Mter they had the Minnesota 

Massacre the use of what we said was originally a candidate was 

extinguished. And that to me is a breaking of the word of the gov- ernment and we will try to address those. Mr. Pombo, if you would 

please introduce the next witness, please. Mr. POMBO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When we originally 

began to talk about holding this hearing and when we knew that 

the GAO report was coming out I felt that it would be important 

that we have witnesses here who could testify to the impact. And 

I think that we have so far done a fantastic job on local and state 

government. 

But I felt that it was important that we have someone who could 

represent the private property owners. Mr. John Baranek who is 

one of my constituents has been battling with Federal agencies for 

a number of years, not by choice but by circumstance. And I think 

that he can accurately represent the feeling of a lot of private property owners in at least my part of the world toward the Federal 

Government and some of its agencies. And I welcome him here 

today, and I thank you for having him at this hearing. 

Mr. YOUNG. John, you are on. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN BARANEK, PRESIDENT AND GENERAL 

MANAGER OF A FAMILY FARMINNG BUSINESS, COURTLAND, 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. BARANEK. Thank you, Mr. Pombo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify today. 

My name is John Baranek. I am the president and general manager of a family farming corporation in Courtland, California. My 

90-167 0 - 9 5 - 3 
30 

grandfather first bought property in the area in 1890. We incorporated in 1921. I am third generation steward of the land. We 

farm 600 acres of wine grapes and manage 230 acres of levees, sloughs, and riparian habitat. 

There are two points I would like to make today by sharing with 

the committee my personal experience. First, I would like to demonstrate that the best steward of the land is the private landowner. 

Secondly, I feel the Fish and Wildlife Service should be required to 

have specific enabling legislation to create refuges and establish 

boundaries for them. Our operation and those of our neighbors have always taken a 

proactive approach to management of private property in order to 

maximize its value both for agriculture and wildlife purposes. We established the North Delta Conservancy, which is a local 

public land trust, a 501c3 nonprofit corporation. Through the private initiative we are seeking to establish a thriving wildlife area 

which serves as an important stopover for thousands of ducks and 

other waterfowl on the Pacific migratory flyway. We are educating 

and involving other landowners in the value of seasonal woodland 

in flooding crop residues that have high wildlife and feeding values 

to the migratory waterfowl. 

These private efforts are the best that can be done at Stone 

Lakes because actually Stone Lakes is a lousy place for a large 

scale refuge. Non treated surface runoff from the Sacramento urban 

population flows through North Stone Lake, then is pumped into 

the Sacramento River at Freeport. The California State Water Resources Control Board has cited sections of the Sacramento River 

from Freeport to Hood adjacent to the refuge a candidate for the "Toxic Hot Spot." 

Virtually the entire refuge area floods in wet years, most recently 

in 1986, and earlier this year in 1995. Pictured here with me is the 

1986 flood, which as you can see covers essentially the entire-the 

whole refuge area. This acts as a deathtrap for species that hiber- nate in the winter, such as the giant garter snake, which may 

drown before it is able to reach the surface and seek out higher 

ground. 

The area is a designated floor retardation basin, and cannot be 

zoned for residential or commercial development. Much of this area 

stands in the path of the city of Sacramento's urban sprawl, but 

it cannot be developed because of the frequent flooding. There is no 

need for Federal bureaucrats, backed up by big city environmentalists, to "save" Stone Lakes. My family, my neighbors are doing just 

fine living amongst the ducks and other wildlife and have been 

doing this for well over 100 years. Fish and Wildlife began its involvement in this case by creating 

an "Interagency Policy Group" to assist with its initial plans, which 

were supposed to be limited to only the North Stone Lakes area. 

This "Group,'' which was made up of nine government bureaucrats 

and zero local landowners, misrepresented to the public the true 

magnitude of their plans. 

We as landowners felt comfortable with the original 5,000 acre 

refuge in North Stone Lakes, most of which was already under a 

combination of state and county public ownership. To our surprise, at a meeting of the County Board of Supervisors, we were intro-
31 

duced to a 74,000-acre study area as a proposed refuge. We became 

irate, and we were able to convince the Supervisors to require Fish 

and Game to add two directors from local reclamation districts to 

the "Group" membership. They were added to the "Group," but 

guess what, they never held another meeting. 

Overwhelming public opposition forced Fish and Wildlife to reduce the 74,000-acre proposal to a 9,000-acre core area, with an additional 9,000-acre cooperative management area that you can see 

here on this other map. Could you please-oh, the map here in 

front. And I will just briefly describe it. 

The yellow is the core area. The pink is the Wildlife Management 

area. And there is a little green box in there. Those are the only 

three parcels of land that the government has bought so far. This 

has been in a two-year process or three-year process of acquiring 

land. 

Fish and Wildlife acted in bad faith and is a bad neighbor. Unfortunately, their desire for central power and control is far more 

important than being honest and considerate to residents of the affected areas. 

Throughout this process, the Service has proclaimed they are not 

enemies of the property owners, because the policy of purchasing 

only from willing sellers. Mr. Chairman, "willing sellers" is a farce. 

It is a cruel hoax on landowners. It is part of the overall plan to 

bleed the property owners dry, until they have no option but to sell, 

and no one else to sell to except the New Lords of the Manor, the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

When this refuge was created by a stroke of a pen from some bureaucrat in Portland, Oregon, property values of inholders became 

subject to reduced value due to the lack of demand for the property. No one in the farming community is interested in purchasing 

land that comes under the influence of Fish and Wildlife refuge 

regulations. A part of the banking process to establish crop loans 

is the use of land as collateral to guarantee loans. Banks are less 

willing to lend once a government agency has cast a cloud over the 

future piece of property. 

Mr. Chairman, the United State Fish and Wildlife Service is a 

two-faced, power-hungry bureaucracy bent on grabbing land however they can. If the staff is spread too thin, they will shortchange 

another program. If they face owners unwilling to sell, they cast a 

regulatory cloud over the private property. If their goals for a 

project are requested by local residents, they refuse to issue a comprehensive management plan. 

This agency should be required to follow the same process as the 

Forest Service, the Park Service and Bureau of Land Management, 

requiring enabling legislation, establishing refuge boundaries specifically authorized by Congress. 

In the case of Stone Lakes, private landowners have done a much 

better job of managing their land than Fish and Wildlife could ever 

hope to do. The Service is so busy grabbing land that they face a 

substantial ongoing deficit in operational funding, as you can see 

from the "Report to Region One Employees" attached. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask the committee today to put a leash on the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Stop them before they steal again. 

[Statement of Mr. Baranek may be found at end of hearing.] 
32 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, John, for your testimony. And we will 

have questions later on. I have great sympathy for what you are 

talking about, and if we have our way, I can assure we are going 

to try to do everything we can to rein in these agencies total just 

to give you a little information. By the way, if you see my brother, 

say hello. 

Mr. BARANEK. Thank you, I will. 

Mr. YOUNG. Dr. Terry Anderson, please. 

STATEMENT OF DR. TERRY ANDERSON 

Dr. TERRY ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure 

to be here. Thank you and the rest of your committee for your indulgence. _ I will summarize my testimony. The full testimony is submitted 

for the record as well as attachments. 

[Statement of Dr. Anderson may be found at end of hearing.] 

Dr. TERRY ANDERSON. Let me first applaud the GAO for the report they have submitted to you. I have studied this topic for many 

years and was still startled by the results of their report. As an 

economist knowing what they found, the first question that pops 

into my mind is what is the economic impact of expanding the Federal domain and encumbering it with conservation restrictions? 

The first and obvious one that I have looked at the most is the 

amount of red ink that this adds to the Federal deficit. The losses 

associated with commodity production on Federal lands from 

below-cost timber sales and other commodity uses are often trotted 

out as examples of this red ink. But losses associated with recreation areas are also substantial, and in most cases this occurs on 

conservation -encumbered land. 

In fiscal year 1993 the U.S. Forest Service alone lost 

$557,000,000 on its commodity production, timber, grazing, mining, 

and minerals. But it lost $474,000,000 on recreation alone. In my 

region of the country, Region I, in fiscal year '92 again the Forest 

Service lost money on all activities. But it wasn't mining, logging 

or grazing that topped the list, rather it was recreation that lost 

$23,000,000, 25 percent more than logging lost and nearly five 

times as much as grazing lost. 

The budgetary impact of land encumbrances such as these are 

nontrivial and they have been documented in a book titled "Multiple Conflicts Over Multiple Uses" published by the Political Economy Research Center. Quantifying the impacts on the general economy is a much more difficult task. But two case studies on which 

I have worked I think are suggestive. 

In 1993 my colleague Don Leal and I reviewed a Bureau of Land 

Management Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (RMP/EIS) for several counties in eastern Montana. 

This was part of the ferret reintroduction plan that the BLM was 

involved in. According to this plan there were several alternative 

land acquisition proposals ranging from a net decrease of BLM 

land of 146,000 acres to net increase of 465,000 acres under their 

"preferred" alternative. 

The BLM claimed that the "preferred" alternative would generate an additional $6,000,000 in economic benefits. Not a bad 

thing for that part of Montana. However upon close examination 
33 

the estimate revealed that $5,200,000 of this increased economic 

benefit came because they were going to transfer 100,000 acres of 

BLM land to the private sector. In other words, it was the private 

sector that was generating most of the benefits because we were 

privatizing those acres. 

Nonetheless the BLM wanted to take in an additional 400,000 

acres. The BLM estimates showed that livestock production on the 

newly acquired lands would lose $2,200,000 and forest products 

would generate a mere $100,000. The BLM claimed that recreation 

would generate another $2,900,000 in economic benefits under the 

assumption that there would be no recreation if this were done 

with private lands. 

This assumption is not sustainable. In fact, the growth in feebased recreation on private lands in Montana is substantial and, 

I might add, has no drain on the public treasury. 

The fiscal impacts on local governments were also important. 

When I entered the fray, county commissioners were in support of 

the BLM proposal because the RMP/EIS said that there would be 

payments in lieu of taxes. However, on close examination we discovered that indeed the counties in this region would lose $125,000 

in tax revenues annually. Those county commissioners changed 

their mind. I can only conclude from this study that the economic impact of 

privatizing public lands was positive but the economic impact of 

adding 500,000 acres to the Federal estate was negative. 

The economic impact of encumbering land for conservation purposes is a hotly debated topic. There are growing numbers of studies that argue that the economies of western states are no longer 

tied to commodities and indeed that it is now recreation and tourism that will be our economic salvation. The Wilderness Society titled a report, ''The Wealth of Nature." 

A professor at the University of Montana, Thomas Power, summarizes in one of his reports what is meant by this. The idea is, 

as he says, "Montana's world-class natural areas are income in the 

same way that free access to any valuable resource boosts anyone's 

total income." I stress the words "free access." Mr. Power believes 

that if we all have free access to these lands, we will all be wealthier. 

Romantic as this notion may be, it flies in the face of many statistics. First off, studies have been done examining just how much 

these natural areas that are set aside for conservation purposes are 

actually used. A study done at Utah State University found that 

between 1967 and 1986 there was an increase in recreational use 

of wilderness areas. The growth, however, occurred between 1967 

and 1976. From 1977 to 1986 wilderness use actually declined. 

The chart before you is for Yosemite National Park. Again you 

will note there has been a substantial increase in the amount of 

park use over the period from 1977 to 1991. However of those 

3,000,000 visitors who go to the park only about 70,000 use the 

back country, and that number has declined slightly. 

I worked with a graduate student at Montana State University 

to see if we could quantify the impact of these areas. A test of the 

economic impact of wilderness areas estimated the correlation between wilderness acres and local incomes. Similar studies have 
34 

been used in other areas such as Arizona to detennine what impact 

sunshine has on incomes, and the argument is that more sunshine 

will actually lower incomes because people are attracted to amenities. Other studies have been done to show that when there are 

disamenities, namely pollution, people demand higher incomes. 

Our question was what is additional wilderness area, an amenity 

or disamenity? The study we conducted showed that more wilderness areas in the past decade have actually caused wages in Montana to be higher, not because there are better jobs but rather because most people believe that these recreational areas-additional 

wilderness areas which actually preclude the average 

recreationist-are not amenities at all. Higher wages imply that 

additional wilderness acres are disamenities. I suggest, therefore, 

that we must question the extent to which this is actually income 

or rather is actually depriving people of income. 

Let me conclude by applauding the committee for undertaking 

this study of land acquisition over the past 30 years. It is an important study that deserves more attention. 

As you look toward policy changes I suggest at least one that 

can't be ignored. If we are going to have these additional acres set 

aside for recreation and wilderness uses, at least make those of 

us-and I stress us because I do enjoy them-pay a fee that compensates the Federal Government for the cost we impose upon it. 

I would like to close by recalling the words of Adam Smith in 

1776. He said, "In every great monarchy of Europe the sale of 

crown lands would produce a very large sum of money which if applied to the payment of the public debt, would deliver from mortgage a much greater revenue than any which the lands have ever 

afforded to the crown. When the crown lands had become private 

property they would in the course of a few years become well-improved and well-cultivated." 

Smith's insights from the 18th Century apply no less to the Federal Government of the United States as we approach the 21st 

Century. Thank you. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, doctor. And thank you for your testimony. I am very pleased with this panel. And for those of you in 

the panel I apologize----other than Mr. Kildee and I will compliment 

him. The problem we have had in the past is if you look at this 

panel we have a bunch of easterners that know little about natural 

resources. And they have been misled and misused by the environmental community. 

They don't take the time to sit and listen to the persons that are 

directly affected. We are facing a terrible national debt today and 

we see where the accumulation of property again has directly affected our economic base let alone the expenditures. 

Ms. Sparks said $1,400,000,000 and that is just the beginning 

not including the losses of revenues in taxes in those communities. 

Senator, you have mentioned it and, John, you have mentioned it 

of this problem. This is a big building block of what this hearing 

is about. The GAO is going to go forth with their studies, come 

back, and we are going to try to change this socialist agenda. That 

is really what it boils down to. 

And, doctor, for your infonnation I have visited Bozeman every 

year, and it is ironic to me that the wilderness groups say well, the 
35 

two counties that have the highest income are the counties that 

have the most wilderness. Can you defend that question, doctor, 

why they say that? 

Dr. TERRY ANDERSON. Well, the main reason that those counties 

have the highest income is not because those of us who live there 

are generating income from the resource base. It is rather that people like Ted and Jane move in and buy ranches in the region and 

that makes the statistics look a whole lot different. But I can tell you from the study, which I have submitted with 

my testimony that those counties that are trotted forward, namely 

Gallatin County and Flathead County near Glacier Park, are real 

anomalies for the rest of Montana. They do have higher incomes, 

no question. 

Mr. YOUNG. They do? 

Dr. TERRY ANDERSON. Montana State University is one of the 

reasons. 

Mr. YOUNG. I was waiting for you to get there. One of the reasons is a college town. 

Dr. TERRY ANDERSON. Exactly. 

Mr. YOUNG. Bozeman is a college town. 

Dr. TERRY ANDERSON. Exactly. 

Mr. YOUNG. And you have got a lot of intellectual-due respect, 

doctor, intellectuals living off of taxpayers' moneys. But the fact of 

the matter is that there is not much revenues been generated by 

setting aside these areas. Like you say, is it an asset or a deterrent? I believe frankly a deterrent. 

Senator, you mentioned some restrictions in your testimony in 

the Voyageurs National Park. Are there any new restrictions being 

proposed by the great--

Mr. LESSARD. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, one that we just heard 

here about very recently under the Voyageurs National Park Act 

according to the interpretation of the National Park Service they 

control all of the water of that part of Minnesota. One of the 

things-recently one of the little entrepreneurs-on the Crane 

Lake I believ~was faced with a situation where a couple of times 

a year when they have an event he flies a float plane taking off 

from his dock and flies over the VNP, the Voyageurs National 

Park. To the east of us is the Boundary Waters Canoe Area where 

flying under-! believe it's 5,000 feet-is prohibited. But there's no 

flying restrictions over Voyageurs National Par. He was notified 

that he wasn't supposed t<r--that it was illegal for him to take off 

and fly over the park. Not because it is illegal under the National 

Park Service Act, but the Park Service claimed that they control 

the water which adjoined the park, which, incidentally, by virtue 

of this authority, this means that even on the Crane Lake side of 

the area or any other adjacent area that is not a part of the park, 

he cannot take off or land his float plane, even though he's outside 

what we would consider the Park's authority to manage. 

Hypothetically then if he moves his plane onto some beaver's 

dam or someplace he can take off-or somewhere on a little lake 

a mile away or ten feet away, it would be legal to fly over the park 

because he is taking off from a different body of water over which 

the Park Service doesn't even claim to control. That is something 
36 

that has just happened. Now, if you can tell me any sense that this 

makes, even in the Federal level, it escapes me. 

We don't feel that they control the water. We feel it is the state 

of Minnesota's waters. But this is what they claim they can do 

when you have a national park that is surrounded by water. It is 

a peninsula, and as I previously stated, they now say they own the 

water. 

In addition, millions of dollkars are now being wasted. An example is a $5,000,000 road in the Ash River country which ends nowhere. It leads to an area where they take their own people. No 

public paying person can stay there. This $5,000,000 road is approximately five miles long. Nobody wants it that we can find. The 

reason that was given for the construction of the road as I understand it was it comes under the apropriations from the Federal Department of Transportation somehow. The statement was even 

made that if we don't use the funding we lose it. So the road is 

going to be built even though nobody wanted it, other than the National Park Service. That contract as I understand is going to be 

let very shortly. We would like to see somebody look into this waste 

of money, and you will see why the NPS is running hundreds of 

millions of dollars in the red. They could take this $5,000,000 and 

use it for economic development or some other worthwhile project 

in these areas. 

Mr. YOUNG. All right, thank you. John, you said something in 

your testimony about this was not legislative action, it was administrative action to create the Stone Lakes Park, is that correct--! 

mean refuge, is that correct? 

Mr. BARANEK. That is true. Mr. YoUNG. I won't know but we are going to look and see if we 

either can't defund that operation or deauthorize it because it is my 

feeling that any time any of these things are created we ought to 

have something to say about it. So we are going to look at that. Mr. Pombo and I are looking at this very closely. If we can deauthorize, we will-we were going to deauthorize it I can tell you 

because you are absolutely correct. 

Again if I remember correctly it was originally proposed as a 

very small refuge and it ended up being 7 4,000 acres. And the 

worst part about that they start dictating to you how you shall operate your lands, et cetera. Goes way beyond the original intent. 

Mr. BARANEK. Well, it is not only that but there is a lot of health 

safety issues. I mean, I could talk to you for--

Mr. YOUNG. Right. 

Mr. BARANEK [continuing]. 100,000 hours. 

Mr. YOUNG. Don't do that. We don't have time. But go ahead. 

Mr. BARANEK. The problem is that one-third-you know, you 

have got to think about this. One-third of the protein provided to 

migratory waterfowl come from mosquitoes or midges. And if you 

have ever been in a wildlife refuge, it is a wonderful place. I think 

they have got big birds in Alaska, don't they-big mosquitoes in 

Alaska? 

Mr. YoUNG. B-52's. 

Mr. BARANEK. But anyway, they encourage the breeding of mosquitoes. And here you are with a refuge within a half mile of urban 

development downwind. I mean, you know, the wind blows the 
37 

mosquitoes right into the urban population. And I think the inner- city environmentalists, who support this refuge, the next time they 

go to a ball game and barbecue in their backyard are going to be 

in for a very, very rude awakening because they put sentinel chickens around the area and they have not developed one permanent 

wetlands yet. And we have encephalitis showing up positive. They 

have been very fortunate that some young child or older person has 

not--

Mr. YOUNG. Well, I can assure you we are going to be--

Mr. BARANEK. It is tough. 

Mr. YOUNG [continuing]. looking at this very closely. Anna, 

Orick, California, was slated to become a prosperous gateway community, I remember that. 

Ms. SPARKS. Yes, very prosperous. Mr. YOUNG. Very-going to make lots of money. What actually 

happened as far as--

Ms. SPARKS. Well, truckers call it slab city. Mr. YOUNG. It is what? 

Ms. SPARKS. They called it slab city because most of the redwood 

residue and the things that we could make things out of they are 

now carving statues and carving bears and different things and 

selling them alongside of the highway ancl it is coming from redwood slabs and redwood residue. And a lot of the really good paying jobs have all gone because for one thing there was no sewer 

system put into Orick and they have high groundwater. So without 

a good sewer system they have got-they are on Redwood Creek. 

The Corps of Engineers put two huge banks right along each side 

of the stream so there is some pretty good fishing there. But there 

is no motels. There is no restaurants except two real small ones. 

Mr. YOUNG. And you can't build them either because they probably impose some--

Ms. SPARKS. Can't build. And they will not under any circumstances build an ecotourism lodge which we proposed. I have 

had three great proposals for an ecotourism lodge where a lodge 

would be used to study the redwoods and you would get college 

credits to come in there. And you could make it a destination lodge. 

But the U.S. National Park says absolutely no one will build in 

our park system. So it isn't Yosemite. It isn't anything like that. 

The ones that have done the most is on all sides of them and that 

is the state parks. And the state parks have really put in a lot of 

amenities. 

But, that isn't high tourist development either because they are 

all in RVs. So they are traveling through and they are camping out 

in their tents and their bicycles, that sort of thing. They are not 

staying at motels, and it doesn't really recruit that type of person 

at this time. The jobs aren't there. 

Mr. YOUNG. You are singing to the choir. Like I say it is unfortunate we don't have some of these people that have been doing this 

to us at this committee hearing. I am going to suggest one thingthe people in these agencies are infiltrated by those that give us 

dishonest quotes all the time. And that is another thing that the 

oversight-we are going to flush them out. I would like to flush 

them, period. But I am going to say we are going to flush them out 

and try to expose them for what they have really done. 
38 

Ms. SPARKS. We are glad we could provide the product of the timher industry. 

Mr. POMBO. [presiding] OK, thank you. I would like to yield to 

Mr. Kildee if he has any questions. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I planned to do some 

other things in my schedule today. We all have multiple things on 

our schedule but I thought I should remain here and listen to the 

witnesses. Senator, Mr. Vento was called to the floor where his 

presence was required. I know he meant not to snub anybody but 

he was required to be on the floor at this point. I just want to point 

that out. 

It is a very interesting hearing. Again I feel I have to listen to 

your points of view. I probably did vote differently than Mr. Young 

on these bills. I believe I was right. But I also believe you have a 

right to have your input here. And I also believe that we have to 

strike a balance of public and private interests and rights. And I 

appreciate the fact that you have traveled so far to give your testimony and thank you for it. Thank you, Mr. Pombo. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. 

Mr. LESSARD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a statement. 

I would like to compliment Mr. Kildee. He stayed and listened attentively even though he may have had other committee meetings 

to attend. And I think that is important. I chair the Minnesota 

Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee and I 

watch the members come and go. And I can tell right away who 

is interested and who is not. So---

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Senator. 

Mr. LESSARD [continuing]. I appreciate it. 

Mr. POMBO. Mrs. Chenoweth. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I just have a couple of questions. But this has been some of the most compelling testimony I 

have ever heard in my life. And I live in Idaho and I have lived 

with some of the problems. And I just want to thank you very, very 

much for coming clear across the state or halfway across the state 

and leaving your responsibilities, Senator, and your legislature and 

coming all the way to this hearing. Your testimony is so important 

in the mission that we share for the future. 

And even though we are few in numbers, we are very dedicated. 

I remember there were only 13 people that gathered in Samuel 

Adams' attic and planned the Revolution. So don't despair that 

there aren't many of us left. We really, really care and really thank 

you. And again I want to say, Anna Sparks, that was the most 

compelling testimony I have ever heard and very well done. 

Ms. SPARKS. Thank you. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Senator, I want to say-so you are a fisherman, right? 

Mr. LESSARD. Pardon? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You are a fisherman? 

Mr. LESSARD. You bet. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Pretty good one at that, right? 

Mr. LESSARD. Well, I think so. Some of the other people I guide 

may not think so. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And I want to ask you in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness have you been in there as a guide? 
39 

Have fou been in there recently to see the effects of the designation o the land itself? 

Mr. LESSARD. No, but what happened was on the so-called Burton-Vento Compromise they extended what was the original boundaries and the uses of the BWCA. And that was a big war in itself, 

and the Federal Government was successful. This led to a big upheaval in the northern part of the state. For your information, you 

can't hardly find a Republican that lives up there that will admit 

he is Republican. Yet it went Republican in the last U.S. Senate 

race with some of my help. 

But I would like to point out that Senator Doug Johnson whose 

district encompasses this entire area-mine abuts right to it and 

he is a very, very staunch Democrat, as is the Minnesota Speaker 

of the Houise who is my representative. And while not here today, 

I know would agree with what I've said here today. 

The issue in the Boundary Water Canoe Area is the new regulations that are continually coming into place. If you go back in history, Senator Hubert Humphrey would have never intended for the 

BWCA to be locked up in the totally restrictive manner it is today. 

This was before my time. 

It is interesting now that in the Quetico Park, which is on the 

Canadian sise of the BWCA, the Native Americans-the First Nations as they call themselves, now are going to be able to use motorboats. So what you will have is people staying on the Minnesota 

side of a lake not being able to use motors, and people on the Canadian side of the same lake using motorboats. But they're all on the 

same water. Where does common sense prevail? 

Also in the BWCA, three mechanical portages are now closed 

after a lengthy court fight. I won't go into the history of this here, 

as Doug Johnson can describe this issue much better than I. And 

I can asure you, if we can prevail on this committee to have hearings in northern Minnesota, he will shoe you how closing these 

three portages simply didn't make any sense and has resulted in 

just more friction between the Federal Government and the local 

people. Some senior citizens and handicapped people now can't get 

into this area without being carried in. 

This-and not just this but otherresitriction-is why I would like 

to tell you Mr. Chairman, Congressman Young, Congressman 

Pombo and other member of the Committee that northern Minnesota would very much appreciate the opportunity to hold a meeting there to let the people speak for themselves. What we would hoipe to do is to convince the Committee to consider the declassification of the Voyageurs Park to allow for multiple use, such as a national recreation area or some other classification that is less rerstrictive. We could keep the wilderness aspect and still allow snowmobiling, hunting and other recreational 

multiple uses. 

There is no intention of anyone I know of to develop the park in 

a way that would destroy its wilderness character, but this does 

not mean you can't have a balanced management plan. This is 

going to be extremely controversial. Again you would be doing us 

a great favor if you would just give us the opportunity to be heard. 

I can't expound anymore on that except we have more regulations there, and anything that this committee can do to help us out 
40 

and add common sense, we need it. I never dreamt that I would 

ever have the opportunity to appear before a Congressional committee that would so attentively listen to what I've had to say. I've 

served in the Minnesota Senate for 20 years and I don't know how 

long I want to continue in this process because I'm getting tired of 

it all. I have been fighting it, and fighting it, and fighting it, and 

I have got beat up for so many years. But this may just get me to 

run another term. 

Mr. POMBO. If the gentleman will yield for just a minute on that. 

You sound exactly like the person who is now Chairman of theResources Committee did a year ago. So I would encourage you to 

stick to it because good things come to those who wait. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I do want to say to the Sen- ator, please do run again. But also, you do own your water. The 

state owns the unappropriated water. It is the private property 

right of a permit holder. And it is in your charge, it is in your 

trust. And when the Federal Government believes that they can 

use your water and that they can use it in commerce that only 

gives them the license to drive on the highway, sir. It does not give 

them an ownership right. Interstate commerce only gives us a use 

right. It only gives us a right to have a driver's license to drive a 

truckload of corn from Iowa to Florida to sell it and not be hampered. And if we keep as lawmakers those original concepts in mind, we 

won't get twinkle-dusted by the agencies who say we own and control your waters, your beds and banks and streams and your standing bodies of work because they don't. The state owns that facility. 

Mr. LESSARD. Mrs. Chenoweth, are you saying to me that the 

National Park Service-! just came from the meeting two weeks 

ago-is wrong in saying that this person cannot take off and fly 

over the park. If this is not the case I would love this committee 

to refute the Park Service's decision. I would very much appreciate 

it if someone from this committee could help me get an answer on 

this question. That alone would be worth the plane trip here. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman and Senator, I will help you. And I would also suggest that you check with the local FAA to see 

if a flight plan was filed. Mr. POMBO. I would just like to ask if the gentleman from Minnesota, if he would be interested in that national park being trans- ferred over to the state of Minnesota? 

Mr. LESSARD. Mr. Chairman, any way, absolutely. Any way that 

we can get it. Any way that we can allow more multiple use to the 

area. By the way, that used to be considered one of the best trophy 

deer hunting areas in the state of Minnesota. And now we have the 

largest wolf population. But don't start me on that subject. 

Mr. YOUNG. Will the gentleman yield? The Senator and I can 

talk a long time on wolves. But the question he asked is something 

that we are really seriously considering. I know I have been ac- cused of wanting to dismantle the Park Service. But we have documented it where the states operate the parks. And I think, Anna, you said the same thing. There is a tremendous recognition in true 

management of the parks but the Federal Government is not man- aging them. 
41 

So I am going to suggest: if we can, I would like to see some of 

these parks transferred to the states or the county as far as that 

goes and let them manage it. We will give you some money. Give 

you half the money, by the way, and you can come out way ahead. 

Ms. SPARKS. OK. But we have been laid on so many times with 

mandates with no money. We get paranoid. 

Mr. Yomm. No, no. Do you understand what I am saying? If we 

give you-we have documented and we believe that you can manage the park as it should have been managed for half the money 

that they are spending today. I will give you an example. Forest 

Service used $6 per acre to manage land. And the BLM uses $1 per 

acre. The argument the Forest Service gives us, ''Well, we need 

that money because we have to prepare timber sales." This is not 

true bacause they are not selling timber. 

So I mean we could actually give it to you for $3 an acre and 

I think we would come out ahead. 

Mr. LESSARD. But, Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond. As I 

stated, I chair the Senate Environment and Natural Resources 

Committee. Our state park system is under funded, as I'm sure 

most are in the countrty. If a funding plan could be formulated, if 

it could be worked out to allow for Federal revenue to help us manage the park in a way other than a National Park-to have a state 

and local plan, or a local plan that was adequately funded, this 

would save the Federal Government millions of dollars. The infrastructure is already there. The Park Service has a million dollar 

headquarters and visitors center there already at the Voyageurs 

Park. Nobody goes there but it is beautiful. They also have a beautiful hotel at the Kettle Falls at the cost of hundreds of thousands 

of dollars. Funding would be used to manage what's already in 

place, but with local priorities. There are basically two counties affected-Koochiching and St. Louis. The BWCA includes portions of 

St. Louis County, Lake and Cook counties. The dream I have would 

be to keep the Feds out of the VNP. Let the affected counties manage it with local priorities and Federal funding to help them out. 

This would save the Federal Government millions. 

A few years back I authored the upper Mississippi headwaters 

bill which was-I believe I already mentioned-a response to the 

Federal Government's efforts to include 400 miles of the upper Mississippi into the National Wild and Scenic River System-the largest stretch ever allowed into the system, as I stated. The Federal 

Government backed off and we won. This plan has become a model 

throughout the country. Again, I say this to show that we can manage and protect our own wilderness for the benefit of everyone 

when given the chance. 

Ms. SPARKS. Congressman Pombo, just to support what you just 

said, Congressman Young, in the Federal park area we have 75,451 

acres. In the state we have 34,780 acres. We have $5,561,000 for 

the Federal budget and we have $1,097,000 for the state budget. 

You have 147 employees either full-time or part-time. The state 

has 4 7 between the full and the part. They have 27 full-time and 

20 part-time. So you can see the ratio is a little bit overwhelming. 

Mr. YOUNG. But if I could add one more thing to that formula 

there. The visitors in my understanding that go go to the state 

park. 
42 

Ms. SPARKS. The visitors in the Federal is 475,333 in 1994 and 

in the state park was 786,933. 

Mr. YOUNG. With 40 employees, with the least--

Ms. SPARKS. Yes, 27 full-time and 20 part-time. And you--

Mr. YOUNG. And see, that is an argument for turning it over to 

you. 

Ms. SPARKS. Yes. You have 76 permanent and 71 temporary at 

this time. And you have very little usage of your property because 

you don't have the camping facilities or anything that they really 

have there because most of your camps are primitive on the Federal. And see, that is why the usage really isn't there because you 

have expanded a Federal park in the middle of multiple state parks 

that have the same amenities as far as beauty, as far as walking 

through the ferns and the magnificent redwoods and that sort of 

thing. So you have just expanded an area which could have been 

left to the state. 

But, Congresswoman Chenoweth, you really hit on a spot. Our 

county of Humboldt owns a number of state parks. We have redwoods in all of those state parks and we have camping and every- thing else in those county parks. So you have Federal, state, and 

county. And then you have camping on all the U.S. Forest Service 

lands and you have a number of amenities there next to our rivers 

and stuff. So I mean you are just combining and piling and piling. 

Then you expect the tourist who are just people that work and go 

on vacation. And you take away all their jobs and pretty soon you 

don't have any tourists either to support all this. 

We can't afford it. And you can look-you talk about boom and 

bust and people talk about the boom and bust industry of the timber industry. You take a look at the visitation statistics on the 

tourism and it is the same thing. If the price of gas goes up, tourism goes down. Loss of jobs, tourism goes down. You can't depend 

on that industry any more than any other industry because you 

have to have a diverse economic base, and you have to have private 

property and private jobs in order to have that economic base in 

order to support all of us. 

I am going to start supporting us since I am now working in the 

private sector but--

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Doolittle. 

Mr. DOOLITILE. I had to step out. I am pleased to have the panel 

here, appreciate your testimony, a couple of our fellow Californians, 

friends. Did somebody read the Babbitt quote while I was out? OK, 

a great quote. I gather you have established that that quote is not 

true. 

From what I know of this Redwood National Park-and I don't 

know anything about the Voyageurs Park other than what we have 

heard although it sounds like a very interesting example. But before they thought of the northern spotted owl, I guess we had the 

creation of a national park to serve as, in effect, a surrogate species 

which is what the owl was proclaimed to be. 

I don't know what the answer is but to me that we spent 

$1,000,000,000 on this park is just unbelievable. Maybe we should 

vastly shrink the size of it, sell off the rest, and then transfer it 

to the county to manage as a park to throw out a suggestion. We 

will work with you on these issues in the future. 
43 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. Mr. Jones. 

Mr. JONES. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chainnan. I certainly want to 

thank each one of you that came here today to give us this testimony. And I am from North Carolina. Had the privilege to serve 

in the General Assembly for ten years. In our own way we share 

some of the same problems that you have shared with us today. 

It is kind of, Mr. Chainnan, ironic that today the North Carolina 

Travel and Tourism Group happened to have a breakfast with us 

here. The subject of Federal properties and Federal lands and how 

in many ways they have a negative impact on our state of North 

Carolina came up. I was telling them about this hearing, and they 

were very delighted to know that we are looking into this matter. 

Ms. Sparks, I apologize. I heard each and every one after you but 

not you. I was glancing through your remarks and I am just perplexed, I guess, or amazed with the figures that came out of the 

author's little study regarding the prediction of an incremental 

gain to 1.6 million visitor days by 1983. This study was done in '73. 

And then seeing your comment that the actual number is just a 

little bit more than 39,000 in that ten-year period of time. How 

were these predictions made and how were they so miscalculated? 

Ms. SPARKS. You would have to ask Arthur D. Little who wrote 

the study how he predicted all of those visitations. And I do want 

to correct you because I found that there is a typo-it is 227,000, 

not 39,000. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I want to make that change. Well, I am wondering when you talked to the Federal people and you asked that you 

told us that this would happen, at least the study did. And did they 

have any--

Ms. SPARKS. We couldn't find anywhere where they could justify 

it unless what they were basing it on was close to what the state 

parks were doing that had amenities for camping and because the 

state parks have been there since 1923, 1925, and 1929, the three 

state parks that all have the redwoods and all have camping and 

everything else that surround the national park. 

Now, they possibly used some of these figures-right now we 

have had about 400,000 visitors. They are at 800,000 visitors for 

the state parks. So a lot of it is spin off from the state parks and 

they stop at the national because they are there. So they may have 

used something like that or used a state average of tourism. 

California is one of the largest tourism areas in the United 

States. So they come from all over the world into California. So 

they could have used an average there too but, you know, I couldn't 

really say what he based that on, just that it was erroneous. And 

time is a great prover of whether a fact is really a fact or just a 

darn good guess. Mr. JONES. Well, just one last statement, Mr. Chainnan. I heard 

the frustration from each of you and I can honestly tell you that 

from the frustration that you feel will come changes, I can assure 

you of that. 

Ms. SPARKS. Thank you. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. Mr. Kildee, did you have another question? 

Mr. KrLDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chainnan, just one question. We 

were discussing the possibility of turning lands back to the state. 
44 

Senator, wasn't the land of the Voyageurs National Park state land 

at one time and by act of the legislature of Minnesota was turned 

over to the Federal Government? 

Mr. LESSARD. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kildee? Yes, that is what happened. They turned over a great percentage-all the state land that 

was encompassed within the peninsula-to the Federal Government and the rest was through condemnation and land acquisition. 

Yes, it was turned over carte blanche to the Federal Government. 

Just a small percentage was state-owned land compared to privately-owned land. 

Mr. KrLDEE. At that time at least in about early '70's the legislature of Minnesota felt that it would be better to have the Federal 

Government own the land than the state government. Can you tell 

us why they-you were not there at that time apparently. 

Mr. LESSARD. No. Mr. Chairman, I was sure involved. I fought 

that bitterly. This is what caused the upheaval in the state of Minnesota. First off some of the people were duped you might say because of the overly optimistic economic predictions, which have 

never even been minutely realized. So that accounted for that segment of the-I mean the people who supported the Federal take 

over. It was an act of the Minnesota legislature. If you were to 

have put that in a vote statewide, it wouldn't even have been close. 

And everything that we said would happen in testimony, after 

testimony, after testimony has come about. First off, we said there 

would be more restrictions, and there are. They took away all the 

hunting, and added more and more stringent regulation on just 

about every single other use .. And the more you do that, the more 

you actually restrict visitor visitation to the park. And that is exactly what has happened. So right now we would have more visitors if control went back 

to the affected counties, along with funding. We could open up 

more snowmobiling, and we could still protect the environment. I 

will bet you that you would have probably even more restrictive in 

some of areas if you allowed the local government and local people 

decide how to manage the peninsula, because that has been the 

case in other parts of the country. It certainly would be the case 

in Minnesota. We could protect the environment. We could allow 

hunting. We could allow motorboating. We could allow all kinds of 

other uses and still have a viable "wilderness experience" within 

the Voyageurs Park. 

Mr. KrLDEE. Thank you, Senator. That is all I have, Mr. Chair- man. 

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Radanovich, did you have any questions? 

Mr. RADANOVICH. No, just came in a little late. Sorry, I just 

wanted to stand around and see this group testify. 

Mr. POMBO. All right, thank you. I just wanted to make one 

thing clear with Mr. Baranek. You mentioned in your testimony 

about the North Delta Conservancy. How much public money was 

used to establish that? 

Mr. BARANEK. Well, we were very fortunate that we happened to 

be in a big battle with the environmental groups of Sacramento. 

And Sacramento County settled a lawsuit with EPA over premature conversion of agriculture ground. And there was $1,300,000 

available. And we were able to secure $50,000 of that money. The 
45 

rest of it went to Nature Conservancy and Trust for Public Land 

and American Farmland Trust to buy up agriculture ground and 

convert it to, guess what, wetlands and non-farming. 

And here it was premature urban conversion of agriculture 

ground. And here we are the only true ag-oriented group. And what 

our thrust is is to protect the heritage of our area, to protect the 

farming, to enhance and protect the wildlife values or what is 

there. And along with-recreation has become a big part of the Delta's income and we are also protecting the boat and water-oriented 

and hunting forms of recreation. 

So what we are doing is really trying to reach out to the innercity and educate them that we are good stewards of the land, and 

we do not need government. At least we don't need government to 

buy land. We would like the interest on the money that they would 

spend to purchase the land to go out and buy necessary conservation easements and maybe even hire a manager because we are 

doing 100 percent volunteer work. We only generate about $25,000 

through fund raisers. And our dues are very nominal. We don't 

really get that much out of it but at least we are operating on a 

shoestring budget. 

But we are very successful because landowners really do care 

about it. And when you do educate them they do respond. 

Mr. POMBO. So by placing a very small incentive there to establish the trust, the conservancy, to protect thousands of acres of 

land it was happening. And I don't remember what the exact figure 

of purchase in the entire Stone Lakes area. 

Mr. BARANEK. Well, they were talking anywhere from 

$17,000,000 to $35,000,000. That is the initial cost. But I think our 

estimates-because if they are going to build wetlands in a preflooded floodplain or a flood retardation basin, they are going to 

have to make it flood neutral. And that means they are going to 

have to move how many million cubic yards of dirt outside of the 

area? I mean, it is going to be a $200,000,000 project over a 20-

year period and if they can even meet the environmental problems 

that are existing with it because one thing that people fail to realize that the regional sanitation district which I did mention in my 

testimony runs all of its urban runoff through Stone Lakes. 

And the county of Sacramento was very fortunate. They got a reprieve to allow them to keep pumping that water into the Sacramento River. But in the future they will probably be forced into 

tertiary treatment if this refuge does take place because I don't 

think you want to create another Ketcherson. I think you are familiar with the selenium problem that was in the west side of the 

Central Valley. Well, the Regional Sanitation District in their wisdom is using wetlands to filter out the heavy metals. 

And so guess what is happening? Those heavy metals are dropping to the bottom of those wonderful ponds that they are building 

for the migratory waterfowl to land in. And it is just a matter of 

years and you are going to build up those toxic levels to a point 

where it may create problems with the migratory waterfowl or they 

are going to have to haul that stuff to Utah or Nevada or someplace where they can dispose of it. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. Mr. Duncan, did you have any ques- tions? 
46 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I don't 

have any questions but I do want to commend you and the Chairman of the full Committee for calling this hearing on this very important topic. I have been concerned for some time about the 

amount of land that is owned in this nation and is being taken over 

in this country by the Federal Government. And when you add in 

the amount of land that is owned by our state governments and 

our local governments and then by what are commonly referred to 

as quasi-governmental agencies it is getting up to where it is close 

to half the land in this nation. 

And I think private property is one of the most important foundations of the prosperity that we have in this country. And I think 

we need to reverse that trend. In fact, I think we need to start considering selling some of this private land and getting it back into 

the private sector and on the tax rolls and so forth. And that was 

a very strong recommendation of the Grace Commission a few 

years ago for instance. 

So I am pleased that you have held this hearing. I am sorry that 

I haven't been able to be here for most of it because I had to meet 

with constituents and in other meetings. But thank you for your 

efforts on this. Thank you very much. 

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. I would like to thank the witnesses for 

their valuable testimony. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Doolittle. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I know you are trying to wrap this up. I do have 

one question. 

Mr. POMBO. OK, go ahead. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I have a note to Mr. Baranek and I failed to pick that up when I was questioning. You testified that the Fish and 

Wildlife Service should be required to follow the same process as 

the Forest Service, the Park Service, and BLM, require enabling 

legislation establishing refuge boundaries specifically authorized by 

Congress. Could you just comment for us as apparently they are 

not required to-are they the only agency that is exempt from this? 

Mr. BARANEK. Well, my understanding is that Congress authorized I think there is three or four different acts. One goes back in 

the '40's, one is in the '80's that authorize the Interior Department 

or the Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase property. But it 

doesn't go through any review process. Just the Regional Director 

has the right to approve a refuge boundary. 

Mr. DoOLITTLE. So they have a blanket authorization to do what 

no other agency as we know? 

Mr. BARANEK. Right. They are on their own. And our concern is 

that when Fish and Wildlife came to our area they hired a consulting-in fact, do you want what really happened? It is really weird. 

This is really highway robbery. When we first found out about 

Stone Lakes Wildlife Refuge we were asked to a public meeting. And we went to a public meeting and it ended up we were satisfied. It was going to be a 5,000-acre refuge, and I have always supported refuges all my life because they were very positive things 

for depreciating waterfowl. And it worked in harmony with rice 

growers and various other growers that had problems with ducks 

and geese damaging their crops. 
47 

And so-you know, for 20 years I like to duck hunt and everything else-I supported them very strongly. And when they came 

in the area we were looking at establishing this refuge north of 

Hood Franklin Road which is about halfway of what that refuge site is, about 5,000 acres. And we supported it because the county 

has done a lousy job managing the property for 20 years and nothing has happened. They were going to make a regional park out of 

it and nobody has any money. So this is how things get generated 

by the bureaucrats locally or state-wise or federally, whichever way 

it is. 

So anyway in their good wisdom they call this meeting. Well, we 

were divided into little groups and we studied wetlands habitat. 

We studied all various aspects of refuge management or what they 

do with a refuge. Well, we go to the Board of Supervisors and all 

of a sudden here we were laid on this 7 4,000-acre refuge and an 

environmental assessment. They call that their scoping session. 

They didn't even advertise it as a scoping session or no knowledge 

at all and they were trying to force an environmental document 

through without going through an extensive process with all these 

health, safety and pollution problems going into this refuge. 

And so we forced the Board of Supervisors into doing an environmental impact statement. To make it even worse, here is the agency that hires an independent consultant that is programmed by 

them to establish a refuge and not listen to the facts, not listen to 

anything. He is programmed by the Service to make sure-it is like 

when you build a home or when you are going in front of the Board 

of Supervisors and you want to rezone your land, you hire the best 

attorney and the best person that is going to do the job for you. 

Well, that is what Fish and Wildlife did. 

And then they put together a steering committee made up of all 

environmental people and only two landowners. And the two landowners, one was a more recent landowner, one was an older landowner. But they were really working toward that 5,000 acres. Well, we came unglued, I mean totally came unglued. And we demanded this and demanded that out of the Board of Supervisors 

and forced them to go through the EIS process. We even got so mad 

that we sued under NEPA which you never sue under NEPA but 

we didn't understand that. But it was a very narrow lawsuit because we felt they should answer these health safety problems. 

Well, the Federal judge said, "Hey, they don't have to answer 

anything. All they have to do is mention it." And we were going 

to file an appeal but we figured the 9th Circuit Court and after 

spending $150,000 of taxpayers' dollars or your dollars because as 

far as I am concerned it came out of-it was our money suing our 

money is what it is and they are unlimited. I mean you don't have 

a chance. 

And I am very disappointed in some of our Republican judges 

that were appointed by a certain administration because all they 

care about is government, they don't care about what is right and 

wrong. And it is tough. It is a tough road to hoe. We in the private 

sector have a rough go especially with the Endangered Species Act 

and how it affects us adjacent landowners. 

Fish and Wildlife says it increases your value because you are 

going to be able to build homes and you are going to be able to do 
48 

these wonderful things and make hunting clubs and so forth. This 

is true in rice land. This is true in invaluable farmland. But this 

refuge is surrounded by pears, grapes, high income crops. Our vineyards are worth anywhere from $13,000 to $20,000 an acre. The 

Clarksburg Wine Growers Association and our Appalachian has 

really come on strong and our land values are up there in a high 

value. 

And what if this flooding jumps the fence how do we farm? I 

mean we are in deep trouble. These, you know, are just the tip of 

the iceberg. Mr. POMBO. That is why we are having these hearings and have 

a Contract with America, to answer some of these questions. 

Mr. BARANEK. Well, I really appreciate what you are doing. I 

really have to applaud you. We need help. 

Mr. POMBO. Well, thank you for doing your part and for informing the committee. Thank you. We are going to wrap up the hearing now. I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the 

Members for their questions. To the members of the panel that testified some Members may want to address questions to you in a 

written form. And those will be forwarded to you and we would appreciate an answer to that for the hearing. 

If there is no further business the Chairman again thanks the 

Members of the Committee and our witnesses. The Committee now 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the committee was adjourned; and the 

following was submitted for the record:] 
GAO 

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 

10:00 a.m., EST 

Thursday 

March 2, 1995 

GAOff-RCED-95-117 

49 

United States General Accounting Office 

Testimony 

Before the Committee on Resources 

House of Representatives 

FEDERAL LANDS 

Information on Land Owned 

and on Acreage With 

Conservation Restrictions 

Statement of John H. Anderson, Jr., Associate Director 

Natural Resources Management Issues 

Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division 
50 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

We are pleased to be here to discuss our report, ' which is 

being released today, on the trends in the amount of (1) 

federally owned land and (2) federal acreage set aside for 

conservation purposes. ' This work was done at your and 

Representative Pombo's request. The federal governmEmt owns 

about 650 million acres, or about 30 percent of the 2.3 billion 

acres of land in the United States. Our work covered the four 

federal agencies that manage about 95 percent of all federal 

land--the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service and the 

Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS). 

Most of their land is located in 12 western states. 

In summary, for the 29-year period from the end of fiscal 

year 1964 through fiscal year 1993, the overall amount of federal 

land managed by the four agencies decreased 77.4 million acres, 

from about 700.5 million acres to about 623.1 million acres. 

However, the overall decrease is skewed because of t~<o unique 

land transfers in Alaska--the transfer of about 75.6 million 

'Federal Lands: Information on Land Owned and on Acreage With 

Conservation Restrictions (GAO/RCED 95 73FS, Jan. 30, 1995). 

2

Federal ' acreage legislatively or administratively set aside for 

conservation purposes includes land for national parks, national 

wildlife refuges, wilderness and wilderness study areas, and wild 

and scenic rivers. The land can have restrictions for such things as the use of motorized equipment, the construction of buildings 

and roads, and the development of commercial enterprises. 
51 

acres of federal land to the state of Alaska in accordance with 

the Alaska Statehood Act of 1958 and the transfer of about 36.1 

million acres to Native Alaskans in accordance with the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. Excluding these two large 

land transfers, the overall amount of land managed by the four 

agencies actually increased 34 . 3 million acres. 

Over the same 29-year period, the number of acres managed by 

the four agencies that were set aside for conservation purposes 

increased from about 51.3 million acres at the end of fiscal year 

1964 to about 271.1 million acres at the end of fiscal year 1993. 

BACKGROUND 

Each of the four agencies has its own unique mission and 

special responsibilities for the lands and resources under its 

jurisdiction. NPS manages the national park system for the 

enjoyment of current and future generations. FWS manages land 

for the conservation and protection of fish and wildlife . BLM 

and the Forest Service support a variety of uses for their lands, 

including recreation, timber harvesting, mineral production, 

livestock grazing, fish and wildlife habitat, and rangelands. 

Over the past 30 years, the Congress has enacted a number of 

laws, and federal agencies have imposed numerous administrative 

restrictions, to conserve and protect both public and private 

2 
52 

lands. Among other things, the laws and restrictions affect what 

can be done on these lands in connection with the air, water, 

soils, plants, and animals . 

The Genera l Services Administration publishes st atistics on 

the amount of lund managed by each federal agency. However, we 

found that this information was not current or reliable, 

therefore, we developed the information for our report by 

obtaining it directly from each of the four agencies covered by 

our review. 

TRENDS IN LAND l-IANAGED BY FOUR FEDERAL AGENCIES 

At the end of fiscal year 1993, the Forest Servl ce, BLM, 

FWS, and NPS managed about 623.1 million acres of federal lands, 

or about 27 pE•rc ent of the land in the United States . Over the 

29-year period from June 30, 1964, to September 30, 1993, the 

amount of land managed by the Forest Service, FWS, and NPS 

increased. These increases were the result of (1) transfers from 

BLM for the purposes of creating new, or expanding e:dsting, 

nati onal fore s t s , wildl i fe refuges, and parks and (2) new land 

acquisitions. 'rhe amount of land managed by the For•~st Service 

i ncreased by 5.2 million acres, rising from 186.3 million acres 

in 1964 to 191 . 5 million acres in 1993. FWS-managed land 

increased 65.0 million acres, from 22.4 million acres in 1964 to 

87.4 million acres in 1993. NPS-managed land increased 49.1 

3 
million acres, from 27.5 million acres in 1964 to 76.6 million 

acres in 1993. 

Over the same period, the amount of land managed by BLM 

decreased by 196.7 million acres, dropping from 464 . 3 million 

acres in 1964 to 267.6 million acres in 1993. This decrease was 

mainly due to the two large transfers of federal land in Alaska 

and to transfers of land from BLM to FWS and NPS in 1979 and 

1980. 

I have included as appendix I to my statement a graph 

showing the changes in the amount of land managed by the four 

agencies from the end of fiscal year 1964 through fiscal year 

1993. 

Since fiscal year 1993, the amount of land managed by the 

four agencies has continued to i ncrease. The agencies acquired 

about 203,000 acres in fiscal year 1994, 72,000 acres by the 

Forest Service, 27,000 acres by BLM, 82,000 acres by FWS, and 

22,000 acres by NPS. In addition, under the California Desert 

Protection Act of 1994, BLM transferred approximately 3 mil l ion 

acres to NPS for the establishment of the newly c reated Mo j ave 

National Preserve, Death Valley National Park, and Joshua Tre e 

National Park. 

4 
PERCENTAGE OF LAND IN EACH STATE 

MANAGED BY FOUR FEDERAL AGENCIES 

54 

The amount: of land managed by the four agencies :ln each 

state varied greatly--from less than 1 percent in Iowa to 81 

percent in Nevada. The four agencies managed more than 25 

percent of the total land in 12 western states. In five of these 

states, the agencies managed over 50 percent of the land. 

Besides Nevada, 66 percent of the land in Alaska is managed by 

the four agenc i es, 62 percent of Utah, 61 percent of Idaho, and 

52 percent of Oregon. The amount of federal land managed by the 

four agencies ranged between 10 and 25 percent in 4 states and 

the District of Columbia, between 5 and 10 percent in 8 states, 

between 2 and 5 percent in 11 states, and less than 2 percent in 

the remaining 15 states. I have included as appendix II to my 

statement a map showing the percentage of federal land in each 

state managed by the four agencies at the end of fiscal year 

1993. 

Over the 29-year period, the amount of land managed by the 

four agencies increased in 46 states and the District of Columbia 

by almost 20.0 million acres and decreased in 4 states by over 

97.4 million acres. Practically all of the 97.4 million acre 

decrease--about 96.2 million acres--occurred in Alaska as a 

resu.Lt of the transfers of land from BLM to Alaska and to Native 

Alaskans. If these transfers are excluded, the amourrt of federal 

land in Alaska also increased over the 29-year period by about 

5 
55 

15.5 million acres. The amount of land managed by the four 

agencies in Idaho, New Mexico, and Utah decreased by about 1.2 

million acres during the 29-year period. The map in appendix III 

to my statement shows the change in the percentage of federal 

land managed by the four agencies in each state from fiscal years 

1964 through 1993. 

FEDERALLY MANAGED LAND SET ASIDE FOR 

CONSERVATION PURPOSES 

Over the same 29-year period, the amount of federal land 

managed by the four agencies that had legislative or 

administrative restrictions placed on its use for conservation 

purposes increased from 51 . 3 million acres (about 7 percent of 

the agencies' total acreage) in fiscal year 1964 to 271.1 million 

acres (almost 44 percent of the agencies ' total acreage) in 

fiscal year 1993. 

All of the lands managed by FWS and NPS are generally 

considered to be restricted for conservation purposes . The 

Forest Service and BLM, however, do not restrict all of their 

lands for conservation purposes. Rather, by law, they manage 

the i r lands for multiple uses to best meet the present and future 

needs of the public and to sustain, in perpetuity, their economic 

use. Some Forest Serv ice and BLM lands, however, are also set 

aside for conservation purposes, such as wilderness areas or 

refuges. 

6 
56 

Most of the federal acreage with conservation restrictions 

i s l ocated in 12 western states. The map in appendix IV t o my 

statement shows, as of September 30, 1993, the percentage of land 

in each of the 12 western states and Hawaii that are managed by 

the Forest Service, BLM, FWS, and NPS and the percentage of that: 

land that is restricted for conservation purposes. The 

percentage of federal land set aside for conservation purposes 

ranges from a low of 17 percent in Nevada to a high of 100 

percent in Hawaii. 

Mr. Chairman, at your and Representative Pombo's request, we 

plan to issue a more comprehensive report later this year that 

will address, among other things, the reasons for changes in 

federal land ownership, methods used by the federal government t o 

acquire land, and the amount of private land under federal 

regulatory control. This concludes our statement. We will be 

happy to respond to any questions that you or other Members of 

the Committee may have. 

7 
57 
GAO . Pe nt of _;Federal .. ·_-•---

-- _ (? f1 ~h f> ·r: ~ ___ s: · ·_- ._-.·,

. 

'. i]:: :;. .;"l:· .. = ~:~~ 
59 

61 

EFFECTS OF REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK ON 

NORTIIERN CALIFORNIA 

I AM ANNA SPARKS, FORMER FIFTII DISTRICT SUPERVISOR OF HUMBOLDT COUNTY, 

CALIFORNIA FOR TWELVE YEARS .. 

MY FORMER DISTRICT IS IN THE NORTHERN PART OF THE COUNTY AND IS HOME 

OF THE REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK, EIGHT STATE PARKS, THREE COUNTY PARKS, 

SIX RIVERS NATIONAL FOREST, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEl'vfENT HOLDINGS AND 

PRIVATE TIMBER LANDS. TIMBER AND GOVERNMENT ARE OUR LARGEST 

E!\1PLOYERS. 

WE HAVE OFTEN HEARD TilE WARNING ........ "TIIOSE WHO FAIL TO HEED TilE 

LESSONS OF HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT THEM .. . 

IT IS A WARNING OFTEN FORGOTTEN, OR NOT CONSIDERED BY THOSE WHO 

CLAMOR FOR THE EXPAl'fSION OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM. 

HISTORY HAS SHOWN THAT WHEN LAND IS REMOVED FROM COMMERCIAL 

PRODUCTION, NOT ONLY IS PRODUCTION LOST BUT SO ARE THE JOBS OF THE 

WORKERS IN DIRECT PRODUCTION AND THOSE INDIRECTI Y SUPPORTING THE 

WORKERS, TilE VENDORS OF SUPPLIES AND TOOLING LAST, BUT NOT LEAST, THE 

TAX BASE UPON WHICH OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT DEPENDS TO FUND OUR 

SCHOOLS, LIBRARIES, ROADS, WELFARE AND MEDiCAL SUPPORT FOR THOSE WHO 

CANNOT TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES, AND OTHER BASIC SERVICES SUCH AS 

CLEAN WATER AND LAW ENFORCEMENT. 

HUMBOLDT AND DEL NORTE COUNTIES CAl'\1 CITE STATISTICAL EVIDENCE 

OF THE NEGATIVE EFFECT OF THE REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK. THERE IS LITTLE 
62 

REASON TO BELIEVE TilE EFFECTS WOULD BE AJ'N DIFFERENT IN ANY OTIIER 

STATE THAN TilEY HAVE BEEN IN CALIFORNIA. 

' IN 1968, THE CREATION OF REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK ELIMINATED 718 

FOREST INDUSTRY JOBS MTI 2,039 INDIRECT JOBS, FOR A TOTAL OF 2,757 

IN 1978, A MThlMUM OF 3,218 DIRECT FOREST INDUSTRY JOBS AND MORE 

THAN 2,000 INDIRECT JOBS WERE LOST TO PARK EXPANSION. APPROXIMATELY 17% 

OF ALL HUMBOLDT JOBS AND 25% OF DEL NORTE COUNTY JOBS WERE LOST. 2,500 

MEN AND WOMEN WERE COMPENSATED FOR TIIEIR JOBS, AND MANY WORKJoRS 

HAD A TOUGH TIME TRYING TO RETRAIN INTO NEW JOBS AND CAREERS BECAOSE 

OF TIIEIR INTEREST, AGE AND PREVIOOS EMPLOYMENT HISTORY. TIIEIR AGE AND 

LACK OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR NEW PLACEMENT IN A CLOSELY RELATED POSITION 

CAUSED SO:ME FAMILIES TO NOT FIND WORK. OTHERS HAD TO LEAVE THEIR 

FAMILIES AND FRIENDS, TO FIND WORK ELSEWHERE. SPOUSAL ABOSE INCREASED, 

CHILD ABUSE INCREASED, ALCOHOL, DRUGS AND DIVORCE BECAME MUCH MORE 

PREVALENT 

MERCHANTS WHO HAD PROVIDED FOOD, CLOTHING, SHELTER AND SERVICES 

TO THE DISPLACED WORKERS HAVE FELT THE IMP ACT. COUNTIES HAVE FELT THE 

IMPACT OF PARK EXPANSION THROUGH ADDmONAL DEMANDS ON COUNTY 

SERVICES AND LOST TAX REVENUES. 

TilE DOLL<\RS PAID TO THE FAMILIES OF THE DISPLACED WORKERS NE\tER 

MADE UP FOR THE INDIVIDUAL LOSSES. SOME BUSINESSES COLLAPSED AND THE 

OWNERS HAVE I-;"EVER BEEN PAID FOR THEIR LOSSES JUST BECAUSE THEY DID)I'T 

FIT fNTO THE GUIDELINES SET FORTH BY THE BUREAUCRACY FOR EXPANSION 

RELATED COMPENSATION. 

2 
63 

lWO MAJOR PROMISES WERE MADE BY GOVERNMENT DURING THE PARK'S 

CREATION IN 1968. THOSE PROMISES HAVE NEVER BEEN FULffiLED. 

THE FIRST PROMISE WAS TO ACCELERATE THE HARVEST ON SIX RIVERS 

NATIONAL FOREST TO REPLACE THE VOLUME LOST TO PARK EXPA,'lSION. IN 

REALITY, SIX RIVERS NATIONAL FOREST HAS REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF TIMBER 

OFFERED. ADDING FURTHER TO LOST JOBS. THE HARVEST ACTUALLY DECLINED 

NEARLY 50%. BETWEEN 1971 AND 1980. THE HARVEST IN 1985 WAS 154 Mll.LION 

BOARD FEET, ABOUT 50 Mll.LION BOARD FEET LESS THAN 1971 . BETWEEN 1992 AND 

1994, 16 MMBF WERE ADVERTISED FOR SALE. DURING THAT SAME PERIOD 132 

MMBF WERE HARVESTED WHICH COMPLETELY DEPLETED THE BACK LOG OF 

TIMBER SALES. THERE ARE NO NEW SALES PENDING IN 1995. 

THE SECOND PROMISE WAS OF INCREASED TOURISM TO OFFSET JOB LOSSES. 

ACCORDING TO THE SIERRA CLUB, TOUR!STS WERE JUST W A1TING TO WALK, 

PICNIC AND CAMP IN THE REDWOOD FORESTS, BREATHE THE CLEAN AIR AND 

COMMUNE WITH THE TALL TREES, POSSffiL Y WITH THOUGHTS OF YOSEMITE 

DANCING IN THEIR HEADS. 

IN REALITY, LADY BIRD JOHNSON GROVE CONSISTS OF 3 TABLES, HIS AND 

HER TOILETS. LIMITED PARKING. lWO GARBAGE CANS AND A TRAU.. THERE IS NO 

BEAUTIFUL LODGE TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO STAY IN OR NEAR THE PARK AND NO 

FUNDING TO CREATE A LODGE. OVER 90 PERCENT OF THE PARK IS NOT EVEN 

ACCESSffiLE TO THE AVERAGE TOURIST. 

THE SIERRA CLUB'S BASIC PREMJSE IN URGING THE CREATION OF THE PARK 

WAS TO SAVE THE LAST OF THE REDWOODS. THEY PREDICTED SUCH AN 

OUTPOURING OF VISITORS TO THE AREA THAT TOURISM WOULD REPLACE TIMBER 

AS THE DO!'vUNANT INDUSTRY 
64 

IT IS CHARACTERISTIC OF D-IE SIERRA CLUB THAT SINCE D-IE PARK TAKING WAS 

ACCOMPLISHED TI-IEIR USUALLY HIGHLY VOCAL SPOKESPERSONS HAVE !NlTIATED 

NO EFFORT TO PERSUADE DECISION MAKERS TO MAKE D-IE PARK MORE 

ATTRACTIVE AND ACCESSIBLE BY ERECTING A LODGE AND MORE CAMPGROu NDS 

AND TRAILS. QlJITE D-IE CONTRARY. UNDER D-IE NAME OF "NATURAL 

MAl'I.JAGf.J\IlENT.'' TilEY PREFER TO DISCOURAGE VISITORS AND THE DEVELOPMENT 

OF ANY AMENI11ES. 

TilEY SELL ILLUSION. NOT REALITIES. THEY PREFER TO MOVE ON TO OHlER 

TARGETS. TO ADD MORE WILDERNESS AND MORE RESTRICTED-USE FOR LANDS IN 

THE NATION'S INVENTORY ONCE TI-IEIR OBJECTIVES ARE ACHIEVED THEY APPEAR 

UNINTERESTED IN D-IE PEOPLE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE AFTER-MATH. 

WHICH IS WHY lHERE IS SUCH A HUGE BACKLOG OF UNFUNDED PARKS AND \VHY 

THERE ARE INSUFFICIENT MONIES AVAILABLE FOR EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF 

EXISTING PARKS. 

THEY CITED STUDIES TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAJMS, INCLUDING ONE BY 

ARTHUR D. LITTLE WHICH PREDICTED BY 1973 THERE WOULD BE AN INCRf.J\4ENTAL 

GAIN IN D-IE NUMBER OF VISITOR DAYS ABOVE THOSE OF THE STATE PARKS IN THE 

REGION AND PREDICTED AN INCREMENTAL GAIN TO 1.6 MILLION VISITOR DAYS BY 

1983 . 

THE FACT IS. THE TOTAL NUMBER OF VISITOR DAYS REACHED ONLY A 

LITTLE MORE THA.N 39 THOUSAND IN THAT 10 YEARS PERIOD. 

THJS IS LESS THAN 5 PERCENT OF TilE ARTHUR D. LITTLE ESTIMATE AND 

LESS THAN 4 PERCENT OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ESTIMATE OF WHAT 

ATTENDANCE SHOULD BE EXPECTED ANNUAL GROWTH IN VISITOR HOURS HAS 
65 

AVERAGED LESS THAN 3 PERCENT THIS CONTRASTS WITH THE ATTENDANCE 

GAINS rN THE STATE PARKS. WHICH HAVE SHOWN SIGNIFICANT VISITOR 

INCREASES. 

PROJECTIONS ASSUMED VISITORS WOULD STAY AN AVERAGE OF 12 HOURS. 

IN REALITY. THEY VISIT THE PARK FOR AN AVERAGE OF SO MINUTES. 

IF THE DET All.ED DATA BEHIND THE SUMMARIES IS EXA.!\1INED. IT SHOWS 

THAT MORE THAN HALF OF THE PARK VISITS ARE TO AREAS WHICH HAVE LITTLE 

TO DO WITH REDWOOD TREES PER SE. AS A MA TIER OF RECORD THESE AREAS 

WERE MAJOR ATTRACTIONS BEFORE THE PARK WAS FORMED. 

ONE SUCH ATTRACTION IS CRESCENT BEACH. POPULAR BECAUSE OF ITS 

OCEAN FRONT SETTING AND CAMPING FACILITIES. PRAIRIE CREEK REDWOOD 

STATE CAMPGROUND AND PARK. THE OTHER IS LAGOON CREEK PICNIC AREA.. 

WHERE THE PRINCIPAL ATTRACTION IS THE PICNIC AREA WITH TABLES rN A 

PLEASANT SETTING BESIDE U.S. HIGHWAY 101. THESE AREAS ACCOUNT FOR ONEHALF OF ALL THE VISITS TO THE PARK. THE JOHNSON GROVE WAS VISITED BY 

ONLY 4 PERCENT OF THE TOURISTS. 

FUNDS HAVE NOT BEEN USED FOR PICNIC TABLES. ACCESS ROADS. FIRE 

PITS. SANITATION. RUNNING WATER OR CAMPING AMENlTIES THAT MAKE VlS!TrNG 

A PARK REWARDING. AS FEW AS I 0 PERCENT OF 1liE VISITORS TO 1liE REDWOOD 

NATIONAL PARK EVEN GET OUT OF THEIR CARS 

THE TOURISM BUST HAS PERHAPS BEEN BEST SUMMARIZED BY GLORIA 

ZUBER THEN PRESIDENT OF THE ORICK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. WHEN SHE 

PRESENTED TESTIMONY BEFORE A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE rN CONNECTION 

WITH THE PROPOSED PARK EXPANSION. ORICK IS GEOGRAPHICALLY THE CLOSEST 

5 
66 

COMMUNITY TO REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK Al'ID JUST A FEW MOMENTS DRIVE 

FROM THE LADY BIRD JOHNSON GROVE. 

SHE SAID, ·'THERE HAS BEEN A DRASTIC AND SEVERE DECLINE lN THE 

NUMBER OF BUSINESSES OPERATING IN ORICK SINCE THE CREATION OF THE 

REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK IN 1968. 

lN 1968 WE WERE INFORMED THAT THE NEXT 10 YEARS, 1968 THROUGH 1978, 

WERE TO BE A PERIOD OF TRANSITION TO TOURISM. TOURISM WAS TO BE THE 

MAJOR BASE OF ORICK'S ECONOMY HOWEVER REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK IS ONE 

OF THE LEAST VISITED NATIONAL PARKS IN THE COUNTRY UNEMPLOYMENT IN 

OUR AREA IS TWICE THE NATIONAL AVERAGE, 14.6 PERCENT AND THE REWOOD 

NATIONAL PARK, HAS HELPED RELIEVE OUR HIGH LEVEL OF UNEMPLOYMENT BY 

H1RING ON£ LOCAL RESIDENT ANY EXPANSION TO REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK 

WOULD BE HIGH!. Y DETRIMENTAL TO ORICK AND ITS SURROUNDING 

COMMUNlTIES." MRS. ZUBER'S PREDICTION PROVED TO BE TRUE. 

THE ESTIMATED COST OF THE PARK, AS PROVIDED TO HIE SENATE IN 1968, 

INDICATED TiiAT THE ORIGINAL TAKING OF PRIVATE LAl'IDS WOULD COST 

SOMETHING UNDER 92 MILLION DOLLARS. BY 1981 , THE TOTAL WAS OVER 306 

MILLION DOLLARS. ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28. 1987, THIS TOTAL WAS 

INCREASED BY A U.S. DISTRICT COURT TRIAL PANEL, WHICH CONCLUDED rHE 

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OWED ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION TO LOUlSIAl\IA 

PACIFIC CORPORATION AND SIMPSON TIMBER COMPANY. THE TOTAL, lNCLUDfNG 

INTEREST DUE. WAS EXPECTED TO BE 770 MILLION DOLLARS. 

REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK'S TOTAL COST NOW EXCEEDS ONE BILLION 

DOLLARS AND IS THE MOST EXPENSIVE OF ALL NATIONAL PARKS. 

6 
67 

PARK EXPANSION HAS NEITHER ENCOURAGED IJ\'VESTMENT NOR CREATED 

NEW JOBS. HIGHER PAYING SKll.LED JOBS HAVE BEEN REPLACED BY MUCH LOWER 

PAYING FOOD. TOURIST AND OTHER SERVICE RELATED JOBS. TIMBER JOBS 

NORMALLY PAY BETWEEN 18 AND 32 TIIOUSAND DOLLARS PER YEAR. WHILE FOOD 

SERVICE JOBS FREQUENTLY PAY LESS rnAN l 0 TIIOUSAND DOLLARS PER YEAR. 

NATIONAL. STATE AND LOCAL PARK SYSTEMS HAVE A CONSIDERABLE 

fNVESTMENT fN REDWOOD PARKS. ABOUT 70 PERCENT OF rnE REMAINING OLD 

GROWTII REWOOD TREES ARE NOW fN PARKS. 

UNKEPT PROMISES OF Ml'TIGATION TO LOCAL RESIDENTS. BUSINESSES AND 

GOVERNMENT WERE THE RESULT OF fNFLATED AND UNSUBSTANTIATED 

ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS. PROMISED BENEFITS AND DEVELOPMENT HAVE NOT 

BEEN REALIZED. 

CURRENTLY. THERE ARE NEARLY ONE QUARTER OF A MILLION ACRES HELD 

fN PARKS fN THE REDWOOD REGION. OVER 82 TIIOUSA."'D ACRES CONT AfN OLD 

GROWTif REWOOD. SIX RIVERS NATIONAL FOREST BORDERS REWOOD NATIONAL 

PARK AND CONSISTS OF OVER A MILLION ACRES. SIX RIVERS WILL PRESERVE ALL 

OF ITS DISTINCTIVE ST A."'DS OF OLD GROWTII REDWOODS. 

REDWOOD NATIONAL PARK IS NOT A PARK fN rnE SENSE OF YOSEMITE. 

YELLOWSTONE OR MOUNT RUSHMORE. VAST SECTIONS HAVE BEEN CLOSED OFF 

TO THE PUBLIC AND ACCESS HAS BEEN LIMITED THROUGH THE CLOSfNG AND 

ELIMINATION OF ROADS AND ACCESS POfNTS. IT IS A PRESERVE. 

IT IS A PRESERVE BUILT ON GOOD fNTENTIONS AND FALSE. lNFLATED A.'-l'D 

MISREPRESENTED FACTS. WHICH HAVE CONTRIBUTED SIGNIFICANTLY TO rnE 

FISCAL PROBLEMS OF NORTH COAST COUNTTES. BUSINESSES Al'ID THE LIVES OF 
68 

THE REGION'S CITIZENS. 

THE SCARE TACTICS OF TilE "NO ON EVERYTHING" CROWD CAN BE FAR 

MORE EFFECTIVE [f THE PUBLIC DOES NOT KNOW THE FACTS. mERE IS A 

SEGMENT OF THE PUBLIC. WHO BELIEVE THEY ARE IMMUNE TO ECONOMIC 

RECESSION. WHO FEEL THEY CAI"' AFFORD TilE LUXURY OF SHUTilNG DOWN 

TIMBER PRODUCTION IN FAVOR OF PRESERVATIONlST FOREST POLJCIES. mERE 

ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO 00 till.I WANT TiiEIR COMMUNITIES TO EXPAND TO 

ACCOMMODATE NEW INDUSTRIES. WORKERS AND OPPORTIJNITIES. ALSO THEIR 

MOTIVES ARE USUALLY APPARENT. 

HALF TRUTHS AND POOR !NFOR,\IIA TION RESULT IN BAD POLICY. WITHIN 

OUR SOCIETY TiiERE IS AN ADMISSION THAT WE NEED PRISONS. WE NEED 

MANUFACnJRING. WE NEED TIMBER. WE NEED MINERALS AND OIL. BUT WE 

DEFTNITEL Y DON'T WANT THEi\1 IN OUR OWN BACKYARD. THESE ARE UGLY. 

SMELLY NOISY ACTIVITIES TIIAT SHOULD BE PLACED SOMEWHERE ELSE. 

WHEN PRIVATE LAI'\IDS ARE TAKEN. TA,'( REVENUES AND JOBS ARE LOST 

WHEN PRIVATE AND PUBLIC LANDS. SUCH AS NATIONAL FORESTS ARE CONSIGNED 

TO NATIONAL PARK STATUS. THE FINEST TREE GROWING SOIL IN THE WORLD IS 

LOST FROM ITS HIGHEST AND BEST USE. TIMBER YIELD TAXES ARE LOST. JOBS 

ARE NOT CREATED THROUGH MULTIPLE USE SUCH AS SPORTING GOODS STORES. 

EQUIPMENT RENTALS. FOREST ACCESS STATIONS. GUIDES. TIMBER JOBS. AND 

FIREWOOD CUTTING. 

FISHERIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS ARE PAID FOR 

BY THE TAX PA !'ERS OR NOT DONE AT .lJ.L THE COST OF LUMBER GOES UP AND 

DRIVES THE PRIVILEGE OF OWNING YOUR OWN HOME OUT OF THE REACH OF 

MAI"'Y OF OUR PEOPLE 
69 

NOW WE ARE IMPORTING LOGS FROM OTiiER COUNTRIES TIIAT DO NOT 

HAVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENT TIIAT WE HAVE IN CALIFORNIA IN 

ORDER TO TRY AND PRODUCE THE LUMBER WE NEED TO KEEP OUR PEOPLE 

WORKING PRODUCING THE PRODUCTS AND HOMES THE NATION NEEDS. 

I AM NQT HERE ON BEHAI.F OF TilE TIMBER INDUSTRY. LOCAL GOVERNMENT 

OR ANY SPECIAL INTEREST MY COMMENTS AND THOUGHTS ARE THE RESULT OF 

IR YING TO SERVE MY CONSTITUENTS AND WATCHING THEIR DISBELIEF AS THEIR 

JOBS WERE TAKEN AWAY. THEIR LIVES TORN APART AND THEIR GOVERNMENT 

LISTENING TO THE LIES AND DISTORTIONS OF THE PROPONENT OF EXPANSION. 

THEN THE FINAL SLAP OF THEIR GOVERNMENT WAS THE BREAKING OF ALL THEIR 

PROMISES OF USFS TIMBERS SALES AND JOBS IN THE PARKS OR RETRAINING FOR 

JOBS IN THE AREA 

ONCE AGAIN THEY TOOK OUR TAXES AND GAVE MONEY TO A FEW WITHOUT 

ANY PLANS OF AN ECONOMIC BASE FOR THE COMMUNITY ORJCK. THE 

COMMUNITY NEXT TO THE PARK, NOW HAS 72% OF ITS SCHOOL AGE CHU.DREN 

LIVING IN POVERTY AND RECEIVING GOVER."'MENT SUBSIDY 

PLEASE DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND. I SUPPORT HAVING PARKS, BUT WHEN IS 

ENOUGH, ENOUGH? HOW MANY MILLIONS OF ACREAS OF LAND DOES IT TAKE TO 

SATISFY THE INSATIABLE APPETITE OF THE PRESERVATIONIST" HOW MUCH OF 

OUR PRJME GROWING SOIL MUST BE TAKEN OI.IT OF PRODUCTION, NEVER TO 

PRODUCE AGAIN? HOW MANY LIVES HAVE TO BE DESTROYED Al'•lD FAMILIES TOR.t'\1 

APART" HOW MANY COMMUNITIES MUST BE TIIROWN INTO POVERTY BEFORE THE 

LIBERAL MINORJTY FACTION IS SATISFIED? HOW MANY BROKEN PROMISES WILL 

THE GOVERNMENT MAKE BEFORE THERE IS NO CREDIBILITY LEFT BETWEEN 

GOVER.'\IMENT AND THE PEOPLE THEY ARE TO SERVE" 

9 
70 

I BELIEVE WE NEED A BALANCE OF CONSERVATION, WISE USE A.'ID 

MANAGEMENT OF OUR RESOURCES TO ASSURE TIIAT WE, AS WELL AS OUR 

CHILDREN, DOHA VE PROI;>UCTIVE AND MEANINGFUL LIVES. WE NEED TO RECALL 

THE LESSONS OF THE PAST. WE MUST NOT CAST THEM AWAY FOR SOME UNCLEAR 

VISION OF THE R; 'TURE. TilE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF OUR LAND IS WHEN ALL 

OF US BENEFIT FROM IT, THROUGH MULTIPLE USE AND GOOD MANAGEMENT 

fN CONCLUSION I THINK I CAN SAY FLAT OUT WITHOUT MUCH FEAR _Qf 

CONIRAQICTION lliAT WITHOUT EXCEPTION lliE PLACEMENT OF lliE REDWOOD 

NATIONAL PARK. IN HUMBOLDT AND PEL NORTE COUNTIES HAS BEEN A DIRECT 

!ND! !CEMENT TO lliE DESTRUCTION OF JOBS AND lliE LOSS Of (NCOME 

CHAIR..'vlAJ'I YOUNG, YOU AND YOUR COl'vlMITTEE :-lOW HAVE THE 

OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT PAST ERRORS OF RESOURCE LAND ALLOCATION 

DECISIONS AND GIVE GREATER CONSIDERATION TO THE EFFECTS THAT 

GOVERNMENT ACTIONS HAVE ON A COMMUNITIES'S RESOURCE BASE. YOU 

SHOULD INCREASE THE USE OF THE NATIONAL PARKS, DEVELOP TRUE MULI!PLE 

USE MANAGEMENT ON USFS LANDS AND REDUCE THE DEPENDENCE ON PUBLIC 

ASSISTANCE. I HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT YO!.JR COMMITTEE WILL BE ABLE TO 

MAKE TilE PROMISES OF THE PAST A REALITY. 

FEBRUARY 22, 1995 

10 
71 

State•mt by State Senator Bob Lessard 

Bouse Resources Cc.aittaa 

March 2, 1995 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Bob 

Lessard and I am a member of the Minnesota Senate anti chairman of 

the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee. However, 

more importantly, I'm here today testifying before you as a 

private citizen who has had to live with national park service 

management practices by virtue of having been a landowner 

adjacent to Voyageurs National Park and a fishing guide and tour 

boat operator on Rainy Lake which is one of the principle lakes 

in Voyageurs National Park. 

To orient you geographically, Voyageurs National Park is on 

Minnesota's international border with Canada stretching eastward 

where it nearly abuts the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. 

Outside of my political career in the senate, I have a real job 

as a fishing guide where I operate a fly-in fishing camp just 

across the border and have guided on both Rainy Lake and 

adjoining lakes since I was 12 years old. And by the way, I'm 

good at it. 

The reason I ran for public office 20 years ago and the 

reason that I still serve in the Minnesota Senate today is 

because of these types of issues which are before the committee 

today. The facts are that Voyageurs National Park should never 

have been designated a national park in the first place but 

rather a national recreational area. 
72 

Let me explain, from its inception we in northern Minnesota 

were told by the Park Service that the designation of Voyageurs 

as a National Park would be was suggested to be an economic boom 

for northern Minnesota. According to the Congressional Hearing 

Record Voyageurs was projected to get 1.37 million visitors 

annually within 10 years of its establishment. AB a part of the 

enactment of the park the State of Minnesota was asked to donate 

tens of thousands of acres of land to the park. The State of 

Minnesota did so because of the promises of accrued economic 

benefit which would result from this designation. Indeed, the 

expectations for windfall recreation and economic benefits to the 

state were even reflected in state statute where it says and I 

quote1 

"the Voyageurs National Park ... will be of 

especial and immediate benefit to the citizens 

of the state, due to its accessibility to them, 

and to the effect it may reasonably be expected 

to have on the development of tourism and related 

economic activities." 

Well let's look at what happened? What's actually happened 

since the park was designated. What's happened is we have not 

realized even a fraction of the visitor use or economic benefits 

the park service promised when the Federal government tried to 

sell us on the notion that this park would be good for us. In 

fact, now nearly 20 years after its establishment the total 

annual visitation is less than 20 percent of what they promised. 

AB a matter of fact, the visitor use is so dismal that in 1982 

then director of the National Parks Service, Russ Dickinson 

proposed Voyageurs National Park as a pilot project for increased 

federal cooperation and attention to develop its outdoor 
73 

recreation potentials. He did so because Voyageurs was so 

woefully underutilized. 

So here we sit nearly 20 years later, and over $50 million 

spent by the Park Service on facilities and land acquisition yet 

we only have 1/5 of the public use that was predicted. 

What has resulted is less and less accessibility and opportunity 

for general public use and enjoyment of the park. With each year 

since designation came more and more regulations restricting 

public use and more and more proposals for lock out of 

traditional recreational use of the park. 

For example, in 1982 the Park Service proposed we have 

International Biosphere Reserve for the park which would have 

drastically restricted public use. Shortly after this proposal 

mercifully died a deserving death the Park Service came with 

another proposal, this time they offered up a major wilderness 

designation area within the park which again would have further 

restricted public use. The Park Service is still pushing for 

Wilderness Area Designation of a large segment of the park 

notwithstanding the fact that this is a proposal so bad that even 

former Governor Elmer L. Anderson, who is known as the father of 

Voyageurs National park opposed this wilderness proposal. Severe 

restrictions have been placed on snowmobiling and other 

recreational uses of the park. When it comes to this park, one 

thing is clear. The Park Service has never seen a restriction on 

public use and enjoyment of it that they didn t like. 
74 

thing is clear. The Park Service has never seen a restriction on 

public use and enjoyment of it that they didn't like. 

For these reasons I was stunned to recently read a statement 

made by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt at a June 1994 Parks and 

Public Lands Subcommittee Hearinga 

• I thir~ I can say flat out, without much 

fear of contradiction, that without exception, 

everywhere in the United States since the 

creation of the National Park System the 

placement of a land unit into national park 

status has been a direct, immediate, sustained, 

unyielding inducement to the creation of jobs 

and income. It is absolutely true everywhere." 

Obviously, Secretary Babbitt has never been to northern Minnesota 

because Voyageurs National Park gives the lie to such a 

statement. 

But Mr. Chairman it doesn't stop there. Voyageurs is just 

one domino in the Federal governments game plan to lock up 

northern Minnesota from Lake Superior to North Dakota. In fact, 

right next door to Voyageurs lie the Boundary Waters Canoe Area 

Wilderness and this federally managed wilderness was one of th.e 

original units included in the 1964 Wilderness Act. It had, a.t 

the time of designation, exceptions which allowed for some 

continued multiple use. But, in 1978 the so-called Vento 

compromise restricted motorboats and other uses of land and water 

which were specifically provided for in the enabling legislati.on. 

These restrictions proved so politically unpopular that it 

resulted in what became known as the "Minnesota Massacre• whereby 

a Republican Governor and two u.s. Republican Senators were 

elected as a backlash to the new wilderness restrictions calletd a 
75 

compromise. This area too has seen a never-ending series of 

restrictive regulations placed on its use. 

And to the west of Voyageurs, the National Park Service 

together with the u.s. Forest Service proposed the designation of 

a •voyageurs National Historic Trail" along the entire 

Minnesota/Ontario border taking in Lake of the Woods. One can 

only surmise from all of this that there is in the Federal 

Resource Management Agencies agenda a strong desire to regulate 

and depopulate the borderland of northern Minnesota. 

Given this history, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee, I see no real prospect for workability and cooperation 

for the betterment of the people of Minnesota or elsewhere under 

the current management structure and management plans for these 

existing federal units. For these reasons then, I recommend to 

you that new management plans and designations be considered by 

the Congress. Only this time with such congressional 

consideration having full public participation. By that I mean 

Mr. chairman, that full public participation should mean the 

redrafting of management policies with the active participation 

by those whose lives and livelihood are directly affected and 

including the full range of outdoor user groups and sportsmen and 

women, snowmobilers whose views were never seriously considered 

in establishment of these areas. I couldn't be more certain that 

the kind of congressional initiative that I'm recommending to you 

today would be welcomed by the broadest range of Minnesota 

outdoor recreationist and local governments. 
76 

On behalf of myself, my community and sportsmen and women of 

Minnesota I sincerely thank you for the opportunity to present 

this testimony before you today. 
DOUGLAS J. (DOUG) JOHNSON 

Senator 6th District 

Boll: 395 Cook. Minnesota 55723 

and 

205 State Capitol Building 

St. Paul, Minnesota SS ISS Phone: (612) 296-8881 

February 27, 1995 

Senator Bob Lessard 

Room 111 Capi tol 

St. Paul, MN 55155 

Dear Bob: 

77 

Senate 

State of Minnesota 

AB colleagues who represent northern Minnesota and the area around Voyageurs National Park, I know that we share many of the same concerns about the direction the federal government seems to be taking in managing the area. The constant effort to restrict 

usage and to move the VNF from the multiple use focus it was created under to a more restrictive status haa alarmed our residents and fostered a deep distrust of government. In 

addition, the economic harm that would result from continuing 

down that path would be great. 

Because you may not be as familiar with some of the issues 

surrounding the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, I wanted to take thia 

opportunity to let you know my concerns and the concerns of the 

people in the area. 

The most immedi ate concern of area residents is to re-open the 

three motorized portages, known as Prairie Portage,· 4-Mile 

Portage and Trout Lake Portage, that were closed in 1992 after a lengthy court fight. To briefly explain the issue, the 1978 

BWCAW Act, PL 95-495, gave the Secretary of Agriculture authority to determine if a feasible non-motorized alternative to truck 

portages existed at those sites. In 1989, after extensive 

testing, the Secretary found that no feasible alternative existed 

and the motori zed portages were allowed to continue. In 1990, 

the U.S. Forest Service was sued by a coalition of groups opposed to multiple use who argued that "feasible" simply meant "possible" and that it was "possible" to use non-motorized 

portage wheels to transport boats over the portages. In 1991, u.s. District Court Judge Rosenbaum determined that it was not •feasible" to use non-motorized portage wheels to cross those 

portages and allowed the motorized portages to continue. In 

1992 , the U. S. District Court of Appeals reversed that decision . 

COMMITIEES • Chairman. T;ucs and T.u. LJws • Rutes and Administration • Jobs, Encrc ""d 

Community - Development • C:thics and Campa1gn Rdonn • Chairman, Iron Range R..:sourccs & 

Re habilitation Board • Chairman, Du luth Ugislativc Delega tion • Lcgislati\lt Ad..,isory Commiss1on --· 
78 

The closing of the motorized portages is the most easily remedied 

of the immediate problems concerning the BWCAt the lakes between 

the portages are open to motorized travel; the closings have made 

it impossible for anyone other than the moat able-bodied to traverse them; and the closing of the portages has made it nearly 

impossible to re-supply the Canadian outpost at Prairie Portage, 

becoming one more restriction on the American side that is 

leading to the closing of that custom station, which will 

eliminate access to Quetico Park through Ely and create additional economic hardship in the area . 

In addition to the motorized portages, the constantly changing 

and lowering of quotas for usage in the BWCA by the u.s. Forest 

Service has created major recreation and economic problema that 

need to be addressed . 

As you know, Bob, there are bigger issues that concern me and the 

people of the area about the restrictions on the BWCA. At this 

time, however, I wanted to make you aware of a couple of issues 

that would be fairly easy to resolve and that would be consistent 

with current management practice&. 

I would greatly appreciate it if you would communicate our concerns to the varioua Congressional Committees that are responsible for oversight of Voyageur& National Park and the 

Boundary Waters Canoe Area. 

Yours truly, 

~1~. Johnson 

State Senator 

DJJoral 
79 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN BARANEK BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

"TRENDS IN FEDERAL LAND OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT" 

Thursday, March 2, 1995 

Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to testify today. 

My name is John Baranek. I am the president and general manager 

of a family farming corporation in Courtland, California. My 

grandfather first bought land in the Courtland area in 1890. We 

incorporated as a family run operation in 1921, and I am the 

third generation steward of the land. We farm 600 acres of wine 

grapes and manage 230 acres of levees, sloughs, and riparian 

habitat. 

There are two points I would like to make today by sharing with 

the committee my personal experiences. First, I would like to 

demonstrate that the best steward of the land is the private land 

owner. Second, I believe the Fish and Wildlife service should 

be required to have specific enabling legislation to create 

refuges and establish boundaries for them. 

Our operation and those of our neighbors have always taken a 

proactive approach to management of private property in order to 

maximize its value for both agricultural and wildlife purposes. 

We established the North Delta Conservancy, which is a local 

public land trust, a 501c3 non-profit corporation. Through 

private initiative, we are seeking to establish a thriving 

wildlife area which serves as an important stopover for thousands 

of ducks and other waterfowl on the pacific migratory flyway. 

We are educating and involving other land owners in the value of 

seasonal wetlands in flooding crop residues that have high value 

to feeding migratory waterfowl. 

These private efforts are the best that can be done at stone 

Lakes, because actually, Stone Lakes is a lousy place for a large 

scale refuge. 

m o r e 
80 

page 2 of 3 baranek testimony 

Non-treated surface runoff from the Sacramento urban population 

flows through North Stone Lake, then is pumped into the 

Sacramento River at Freeport. The California State Water 

Resources Control Board has cited the section of the Sacramento 

River from Freeport to Hood adjacent to the refuge a candidate 

for "Toxic Hot Spot." 

Virtually the entire refuge area floods .in wet year s, most 

recently in 1986, and earlier this year in 1995. Pictured herH 

with me is the 1986 flood, which as you can see covers 

essentially the entire refuge area. This acts as a death trap 

for species that hibernate in the winter, such as the giant 

garter snake, which may drown before it is able to reach the 

surface and seek out high ground. 

The area is designated a flood retardation basin, ;and cannot be 

zoned for residential or commercial development. Much of the 

area stands in the path of the city of Sacramento's urban sprawl, 

but it cannot be developed because of the frequent flooding. 

There is no need for federal bureaucrats, backed up by big city 

environmentalists, to "save" Stone Lakes. My family and my 

neighbors are doing just fine living among the ducks and other 

wildlife, and have been for well over one hundred years. 

Fish and Wildlife began its involvement in this case by creating 

an "Interagency Policy Group" to assist with its initial plans, 

which were supposed to be limited to only the North stone Lake 

area. This "Group," which was made up of nine government 

bureaucrats and zero local land owners, misrepresented to the 

public the true magnitude of their plans. 

We as land owners felt comfortable with the original 5,000 acre 

refuge in North Stone Lake, most of which was already under a 

combination of state and county public ownership. To our surprise, at a meeting of the Sacramento County Board of 

Supervisors, we were introduced to a 74,000 acre study area as a 

proposed refuge! We became irate, and were able to convince the 

Supervisors to require Fish and Wildlife to add two directors 

from local reclamation districts to the "Group" membership. hey 

were added to the "Group," which then never held another 

meeting! 

Overwhelming public opposition forced Fish and Wildlife to reduce 

the 74,000 acre proposal to a 9,000 acre core area, with an 

additional 9,000 acre cooperative management area that you seH 

here on this map. However, the current proposal is still wel l in 

excess of the 5,000 acre plan that was originally presented. 
81 

page 3 of 3 baranek testimony 

Fish and Wildlife acted in bad faith and is a bad neighbor. 

Unfortunately, their desire for centralized power and control is 

far more important than being honest and considerate to residents 

of the affected areas. 

Throughout this process, the Service has proclaimed they are not 

enemies of property owners, because of the policy of purchasing 

only from willing sellers. Mr. Chairman, "willing seller" is a farce. It is a cruel hoax on land owners. It is part of the 

overall plan to bleed property owners dry, until they have no option but to sell, and no one to sell to except the New Lords of 

the Manor, the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

When this refuge was created by the stroke of a pen from some bureaucrat in Portland, Oregon, property values of inholders 

became subject to reduced value due to lack of demand for the 

property. No one in the farming community is interested in 

purchasing land that comes under the influence of Fish and 

Wildlife refuge regulations. A part of the banking process to 

establish crop loans is to use land as collateral to guarantee 

the loan. Banks are less willing to lend once a government 

agency has cast a cloud over the future of a piece of property. 

Mr. Chairman, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service is a two-faced, power hungry bureaucracy bent on grabbing land however 

they can. If the staff is spread too thin, they will shortchange 

another program. If they face owners unwilling to sell, they 

cast a regulatory cloud over private property. If their goals 

for a project are requested by local residents, they refuse to 

issue a comprehensive management plan. 

This agency should be required to follow the same process as the 

Forest Service, the Park Service and the Bureau of Land 

Management requiring enabling legislation establishing refuge 

boundaries specifically authorized by Congress. 

In the case of Stone Lakes, private land owners have done a much 

better job of managing their land than Fish and Wildlife could ever hope to do. The Service is so busy grabbing land that they 

face a substantial and ongoing deficit in operational funding, as you can see from the "Report to Region One Employees" attached. 

Mr . Chairman, I ask the committee today to put a leash on the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. stop them before they steal again. 

E N D 
82 

THE STATE OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE 

REFUGE PROGRAM IN REGION 1 

A Report to Employees 

February 1993 

The Refuge System is a national treasure that is becoming more and more visible to the 

public at large. Wrth this has come a growing awareness of the importance of refuge 

habitats :o our courrtry's natural heritage. As those errtrusted to manage this heritage, 

we are charged with an enormous responsibility. To meet this obligation we must assure 

that our managemerrt decisions today renect our concerns lor tomorrow. We must now 

decide how to stretch our limned budget in the face of program expansion and growing 

public expectations. 

As we11 show in this report, a budget shortfall of approximately $7 million now conlrorrts 

Region 1 refuges. How this deficit came about and what we irrtend to do about n are 

described below. 

WHATS AT STAKE 

Region 1 administers 108 refuges and a large number of easemerrt areas totalling 4 

million acres of wildlife habitat. These refuges: 

• Support more than 50 endangered or threatened species; 

• Provide the wetlands and uplands needed as nesting, migration, and wintering 

hab~at for at least 8 million Pacific Ryway watertowl and shorebirds; 

• Mairrtain populations of former1y rare species such as pronghorn antelope and 

desert bighorn sheep, and vulnerable species like the trumpeter swan, sandhill 

crane, and sage grouse; 

e Provide nesting sites for over 90 percerrt of the seabirds found in the western 

United States outside of Alaska; 

e Host hundreds of thousands of visitors each year for wildlife observation, 

education, and recreation; 

• Protect significarrt habitats and ecosystems that are not well-represented in other 

public land bases, such as sail marshes and Pacific Ocean islands. 
83 

WHAT HAPPENED TO OUR FUNDING? 

INFLATION. 

Although we are getting more money for the refuge program than in 1985, the actual 

value of that money has gone down. Consider that: 

• In 1985, the refuge management program in Region 1 was funded at $13 mi!Hon. 

• In 1993 the refuge program is funded at $15.6 million. 

e Between 1985 and 1993, the Consumer Price Index ( a measure of inftation) rose 

35 peroent. In other words, just to "stay even", the refuge budget should have 

increased to $17.7 million. If our responsibilities had stayed the same, the 

"buying power" of our budget would have decreased by over $2 million in 9 years. 

INCREASED RESPONSIBILITIES 

ON EXISTING REFUGES 

Our responsibilities have not stayed the same. For example, the list of endanger.ed and 

threatened species grows each year. Species that needed little management In the past, 

such as shorebirds, are Increasingly threatened by environmental changes and need 

more active care. 

As facilities on refuges get older, they require more maintenance. Demand for public use 

has Increased as refuges have become better known and as the need for outdoor education has been recognized. Instead of shrinking, our oore budget should have Increased 

by about $2 mUiion. Adding this $2 million to the $2 milfion lost to inflation puts us $4 

million "in the hole" just for refuges that existed In 1985. 

NEW REFUGES WITHOUT NEW FUNDS 

An even bigger contributor to our budget deficit is the addition of new refuge lands. 

Since 1985, almost 200,000 acres have been added to the Refuge System In Region 1: 

11 new refuges, major additions to 9 exislting refuges, and more than 50 smaller areas 

transferred to us under the "Farm BiH" (figure 1, page 3). Many came as the result of 

outside organizations asking Congress for the purchase funds. Unfortunately, they did 

not ask for operational funds to follow the acquisition funds. 

2 
REGION 1 

U. 5. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 

kEY 

~ Reiuges Added Since 

1985 

0 Additions to Existing 

Refuge!, Since 1985 

• Existing Refuges 

Figure 1 

• ' 

• 

84 

• I 

Based on the funding level for 

Region 1 refuges in 1985, addi· 

lion of these new areas should 

have been accompanied by an 

Increase of approximately $3.5 

million annually in funding, plus 

$5 million to cover start-up costs. 

We actually received a little under 

$1 million in annual operational 

funding, and no start-up money 

(figure 2). Adding the $2.5 million 

deficit in annual funding to the $4 

million shortfall due to Inflation 

and increased needs on estab-· 

lished refuges yields a budget 

deficit of $6.5 mUiion. 

N[V ~ 

:. . 

.o ~ ~------------------------, ("" 0 

• NEW REFUGE FUNDING 

Figure2 

THE SHORTFALL GROWS 

In 1993 we anticipate that 4 new refuges will be established in Region 1, but we do not 

expect new funds to begin administering them. Our limited resources will be increas· 

ingly overextended. If we add the minimum funding needs for these new refuges 

($500,000) to the shortfall brought about by inflation and the growth of the refuge system 

since 1985, we are underfunded by approximately $7 million. 

3 
85 

THE BOTTOM LINE 

Without new funding, we will have to drastically cut 

our current program. 

Our annual refuge budget must be increased by $7 million to ensure that our highest 

wildlife and public use priorities are met, and that the lands and facilities entrusted 

to us do not deteriorate further. 

Until additional operational funding is received, Region 1 must cut back and reprioritize 

commitments to match existing funds with our highest priority programs. Doing this 

without jeopardizing our greatest public trust and land stewardship responsiblities will 

not be easy, but we will do it. "Business as usual" no longer exists, and we expect to 

make major changes over the next few years in how the refuge system in Region 1 Is . 

run. Between now and July 1993, we will develop a specific plan to: 

• Reduce, and in some cases eliminate, public use programs with high 

administrative costs. 

e Cut back on all but the very highest priority publications, training, routine wildlife 

surveys, travel, and other expenses. 

e Streamline specific activities such as law enforcement. 

• Reduce the number of permanent personnel working in the Refuge program. 

• Focus new land acquisition on additions to existing refuges and to those high 

priority new projects having minimal start-up and operating costs. 

e Defer staffing and active management of the most recently acquired refuges. 

e Defer wildlife habitat improvement on refuges and involvement in cooperative 

habitat projects off refuges. 

• Put certain refuges in full custodial status or other limited management status. 

4 
86 

WE WANT YOUR HELP 

Obviously, we are anticipating major changes In Region t, and all of you will be affected 

personally by the decisions that are made. We don, want to make changes without a 

clear understanding of what effects these changes will have on the natural resources 

we are charged to protect. Each of you are Invited to provide your comments and 

18C011lmendations on how to best achieve this "beet lightening. • You are also Invited to 

participate in any of the WOik groups that will be developing the strategies for cutting 

back In each of the areas outlined in this doalment. Contact your supervisor if you wan 

to be pall of a WOlk group. Send comments and recommendalions to the Assistant 

Regional Director for Refuges and Wildlife by March 1, 1993. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Is unique. Much of Its potential is not being 

realized, and H deserves much more support than H has been getting. We hope Its 

significance will be recognized and treated accordingly. In the meantime, we will have 

to make the tough choices necessary to ensure that out highest priority responsibilities 

are fulfilled. 

5 
87 

Testimony Before 

House Committee on Resources 

2 March 1995 

presented by 

Teny 1.. Anderson 

Professor of Economics 

and 

Senior Associate 

PERC, Bozeman, MT 

currently 

John M. Olin Visiting Scholar 

Cornell Law School 

For the first one hundred years of the nation's history, land policy focused on 

transferring the public: domain to private owners: Believing that a nation of yeomen 

farmers was the backbone of democracy, our forefathers set out on the nation's first 

privatization movement. Not only did this early land policy encourage productivity and 

resource stewardship based on the incentives associate with private ownership, it 

provided the fledgling country with a source of revenue for retiring the federal debt by 

the m.id-1830s. 

Today United States land policy has reversed. At the tum of the century, the 

federal government be&an reserving millions of acres for the federal estate. The U.S. 

Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS), and the National Park Service (NPS) became custodians of more than 

one-third of the nation's land. In the late 1970s, the "Sage Brush Rebellion" brought 

pressure to reverse federal land policy. The rebellion subsided with hopes pinned on the 

Reagan administration, but little changed. 

Indeed budgets for the aeencies that manage these lands have increased, funds for 

acquisition have marched upward, and the amount of land managed has increased 

substantially. The figures in the GAO repon on Federal Lands: Information on !.ANi 

Owned and on Aawge with Co11Smation Restrictions, are stanling. Excluding two large 

transfers of federal land in Alaska to the state and to Indian tribes, the four agencies 

increased their domain by about 34 million acres between 1964 and 1993. Forest Service 

holding increased by S million acres, FWS by 65 million acres, and NPS by 49 million 

acres. The BLM experienced a decrease of about 85 million acres mainly because of 

transfers to FWS and NPS. Since 1993 the Forest Service has acquired 72,000 acres, 

BLM 27,000 acres, FWS 82,000 acres, and NPS 22,000 acres, for a total of 203,000 acres. 

At the same time that the federal estate was expanding substantially, the amount 
88 

•encumbered" for conservation purposes grew from 51 million acres or 7 percent of 

federal holdinp in 1964, to 131 million acres or 19 percent in 1979, to 271 million acres 

or 44 percent in 1993! With the wilderness bills pending such as the one for Montana 

that would have added more than a million acres to this list, it is only likely that this 

trend will continue. 

Knowing this, we must ask what is the economic impact of expanding the federal 

domain and encumbering it with conservation restriaions. The first and obvious imp:1ct is 

tbat we have added more red ink to the federal deficit. Every one of tbe agencies 

consistently loses money despite the fact they manage billions of dollars in land assets. 

The losses associated with commodity production such as below-cost timber sales receive 

attention especially from environmental interests, but losses associated with recreation 

are also substantial, and most of this recreation occurs on the conservation encumbe ed 

lands. In fiscal year 1993, the U.S. Forest Service alone lost $557 million on commocity 

production (timber, grazing. mining, and minerals) and $474 million em recreation. AJ1 

federal lands were projected to lose over S 1.25 billion on recreation. In FY 1992 the 

forests in Region 1 lost money on every activity, but it was not logging, mining, or 

grazizli that topped the list. Rather it was recreation that lost $23 million-25 percen·: 

more than logging and nearly five times more than grazing. The budgetary impact of 

land acquisition and encumbra:il.ces for conservation purposes are tremendous. [For 

details see Terry L Anderson, ed. Multiple Conflicts Over Multiple Uses (Bozeman, MT: 

PERC, 1994).] 

Quantifying impacts on the economy in general is a much more difficult ULSlc, but 

case studies on which I have worked are suggestive. In 1993 Donald Leal, my associc.te at 

PERC, and I reviewed a BLM Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact 

Statement relating to the acquisition of land in several eastern Montana counties. TI1at 

study ["Adding to the Political Estate: A U-nd Policy in Regress," Workin& Paper 92 .. 10, 

PERC, Bozeman, MTJ is attached for the record. According to the BLM's draft 

RMP /EIS [U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, JI.UJ.ith· ValleyPhillips ~ource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (Draft), Billings, 

MT (July 1991)), the alternative land acquisition proposals ranged from a net decrease in 

BLM land of 146,021 acres to a net increase of 465,698 acres under the "preferred" 

alternative. The BLM claimed that the preferred alternative would generate an 

additional S6.0 million in economic benefits annually. Close examination of this estimate, 

however, revealed that SS.2 million of the benefits would be generated from privatizing 

100,000 acres of BLM land. This was agricultural land that the agency was admitting 

would be managed more profitably by the private sector. The BLM estimates showed 

that livestoelt production on the newly acquired lands would lose $2.2 million and that 

forest products would generate a mere SO. I million. The BLM claimed that recreation 

would geDerate an additional $2.9 million, assuming that there would be no recreational 

benefits if the land remained in private hands. This assumption is not sustainable. In fact 

tbe growth in fee-based recreation on private lands suggests thar recreation can be 

profitable in the private sector, in which case it would not be a drain on the treasury u 

2 
89 

it is under public ownership. 

Tho fiscal impacts on local &overoments were also important Burled in the 

RMP/EIS wore UIWDp1ioos that Dlllde it appear that payments-in-lieu-of-taxes would 

compensate localpemments. aoser examination of the data, however, showed that a net-tramfor of nearly SOO,OOO acres to the BLM would reduce county propeny tax 

revenue by Sl2S,OOO annually. In these sparsely populated counties, this revenue impact 

was not trivtal. 

I can only conclude from this case study that the economic: impac:t of privatiziD& 

public land was positive, but the economic impac:t of adding 500,000 acres to the federal 

estate was negative. I have no reason to believe that this general conclusion would be 

different if similar studies were done for the 34 million aa"es added since 1964. 

Tho ec:onomic: impact of encumbering land for conservation purposes is a hotly 

debated topic. There is a srowill& number of studies arguing that the economies of 

western states are no lon&er tied to primary industries such as agriculture, mining, 

timber, or energy, and that these industries are being replaced by recreation and tourism. 

The basic idea is captured ln the title of a Wilderness Society study, ''The Wealth of 

Nature." The main contention of this and similar studies is that recreation and tourism 

a"e&tes jobs and that conservation encumbrances that protect the environment attrac:t 

people and business to the western states. As Thomas Power put it in a report for "Voice 

of the Environment," 

recreation in Montana's world-class natural areas is income in the same way that 

free access to any valuable resources boosts anyone's total income. This is pan of 

wbat attracts and holda residents and their economic activity here. In addition, the 

availability of sati.sfyina rec:reational opportunity here in Montana keeps income 

from leaJdni as quickly out of the state as it otherwise would. 

[A comprehensive review of studies maldng these claims can be found in Leslie Kerr, 

Tlu! Impact 011 Wt.~p.S of Wlldemeu Daigrultio1l in MonJQ71Q, Professional Paper for 

Master's Degree in Economics, Montana State University, May 1992.] 

Romantic as this polition might be, the data do not necessarily support it. In the 

fint place, a thesis by Kim Christy at Utah State University (1988) entitled "Benefit/Cost 

Variables and Comparative Recreation Usc Patterns of Wilderness and Non-Wilderness 

Areas" found that between 1967 and 1986 wilderness recreation was growing. but that the 

arowth occurred between 1967 and 1976. Between 1977 and 1986, he found a negative 

growth rate. If the data can be atrapolated to other federal lands, we are forced to ask 

bow much is cnougb. 

I worked with Leslie Kerr (cited above), a eraduate student at Montana State 

University in 1992, on this question. It is powble to test the hypothesis that wilderness 

3 
90 

reservations constitute a positive contribution to Montanans' Incomes using similar 

techniques to studies that test whether sunshine adds to the incomes of people in 

Arizona. U additional Wilderness ac:res (or sunshine) arc a positive amenity, then we 

would expect people to accept lower wages to live near the amenities. Studies. of 

sunshine in Arizona and of other amenities produce this result. Leslie Kerr collected 

data on personal income for several wilderness counties in Montana. Using reeression 

analysis, she estimated the relationship between personal income per capita and 

wilderness, controlling for other variables such education and a,e. Her results show that 

an increase in wilderness acreage forces wages up. This implies that additional wilderness 

is a di5amcnity rather than an amenity. Therefore we must be cautious in accepting the 

Power arzument that additional wilderness land Is a form of "income." While these data 

do not measure the amenity or disamenity value of other public land classifications, they 

teach us to be cautious of assuming that encumbering more public lands with 

conservation restrictions is good for the economy. 

Let me conclude by applauding the committee for undenalcing this study of public 

land acquisition over the past 30 years. Not only do we need to find a way to balance the 

budaet. we need to find a way to balance the management of natural resources by the 

private and public sectors. At a minimum we should make land management qencies 

earn a profit on the valuable assets they control. If they cannot and I doubt that they can 

pven the incentives of bureaucracy, then we should reverse the trend found in the GAO 

repon, and privatize some of the federal estate. It is worth recalling the words of ~m 

Smith in The Wealth of NaJions published in 1TI6. 

In every great monarchy in Europe the sale of the crown lands would produce a 

very large sum of money, which, if applied to the payment of the public debts, 

would deliver from mongage a much ereater revenue than any which those lands 

have ever afforded to the crown .. . . When the crown lands had become private 

property, they would, in the course of a few years, become well improved and well 

cultivated. 

Smith's insigbu from the eighteenth tcntury apply no less to tho federal govermncnt of 

the United States as we approach the twenty-first century. 

4 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 100 H STREET, SUTE 2-'50 • SACRAMENTO, CA t51f4 

(111) -1 FAX (111) 440-7513 

March 1, 1995 

Congxessman Don Young, Chairman 

House Committee on Resources 

1324 Longwonh House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Congxessman Young: 

91 

Socmno'"" County 

The Comrnuntty of 'he• 

IL.LACOUIN 

SUPERYlSOR, SECONO DISTRICT 

lytll K. Ferrte 

~t'lltlw AMI.wnt 

Re: House Committee on Resources Hearing on 

Marclll, 1995 

I understand lhat 1he House Committee on Resources will be conducting a hearing on March 2, 1995, 

regarding "Trends in Federal Land Ownership and Management" I am deeply concerned lhat lhe 

acquisition of property for Stone Lakes in Sacramento, California, will be discussed and may be 

negatively affected during this hearing. It is my further understanding lhat a panel member will be 

speaking during this hearing in opposition to 1he establishment of 1he Stone Lakes Refuge. 

This letter is to again reiterate my strong support for continued federal funding to acquire property to 

establish lhe Stone Lakes Wildlife Refuge. For at least six years, Sacramento County has worked 

collaboratively wilh Congxessman Vic Fazio, Congxessman Robert Matsui, lhe Sacramento City Council, 

lhe Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS), and lhe Sacramento community to establish lhe Stone 

Lakes Wildlife Refuge. We have established a partnership in our community in support for lhe project. 

The Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge is also supported by many conservation groups including lhe 

Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture under 1he Nonh American Waterfowl Management Plan. 

I would like to draw your attention to an important fact lhat more lhan one-half of 1he $5 million currently 

committed to 1he project for land acquisition and wetlands restoration comes from non-federal sources 

(County, State, and non-profits). · 

We need to preserve 1he Stone Lakes area, a rare remnant of native wildlife and plants, for future 

generations of Californians to enjoy and appreciate! 

Please a<:ccpt Ibis letter of support and assure lhat it is made a part of 1he formal record of 1he March 2nd 

hearing. 

s~rf~J 

~ILIN, SupelVisor 

Second Discrict 

cc: Congressman George Millcc * _ .. 
ISBN 0-16-047112-5 

90000