U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

87-805 PS 2003

H.R. 511, H.R. 708, H.R. 1038 and 

H.R. 1651

LEGISLATIVE HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND 

FOREST HEALTH

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

June 19, 2003

Serial No. 108-30

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

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

or 

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman 

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

Don Young, Alaska 

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Ken Calvert, California 

Scott McInnis, Colorado 

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming 

George Radanovich, California 

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania 

Jim Gibbons, Nevada, 

Vice Chairman 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Greg Walden, Oregon 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona 

Tom Osborne, Nebraska 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana 

Rick Renzi, Arizona 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Devin Nunes, California 

Randy Neugebauer, Texas 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Calvin M. Dooley, California 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Tom Udall, New Mexico 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Anı ́bal Acevedo-Vila ́, Puerto Rico 

Brad Carson, Oklahoma 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Dennis A. Cardoza, California 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas 

Joe Baca, California 

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director 

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH 

SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado, Chairman 

JAY INSLEE, Washington, Ranking Democrat Member

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina 

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana 

Rick Renzi, Arizona 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Richard W. Pombo, California, ex officio 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Tom Udall, New Mexico 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Anı ́bal Acevedo-Vila ́, Puerto Rico 

Brad Carson, Oklahoma 

Betty McCollum, Minnesota 

VACANCY 

VACANCY 

Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia, ex officio 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on June 19, 2003 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of Members: 

Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah ... 47

Prepared statement on H.R. 511 ............................................................. 47 

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

Colorado, Prepared statement on H.R. 1038 ............................................. 2

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

of California, Oral statement on H.R. 1651 ............................................... 17

Renzi, Hon. Rick, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arizona 2 

Tancredo, Hon. Thomas, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Colorado ..................................................................................................... 3

Prepared statement on H.R. 1038 ........................................................... 4

Thompson, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 49

Prepared statement on H.R. 708 ............................................................. 49

Statement of Witnesses: 

Estill, Elizabeth, Deputy Chief, Programs, Legislation and 

Communications, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, .........

Oral statement on H.R. 511 ..................................................................... 48

Oral statement on H.R. 708 ..................................................................... 50

Oral statement on H.R. 1038 ................................................................... 8

Oral statement on H.R. 1651 ................................................................... 18

Prepared statement on H.R. 511, H.R. 708, H.R. 1038, and 

H.R. 1651 ............................................................................................... 9

Fielder, John R., Senior Vice President, Southern California Edison 

Company ........................................................................................................ 34

Prepared statement on H.R. 1651 ........................................................... 35

Glassman, Robert, Property Owner ................................................................ 19

Prepared statement on H.R. 1651 ........................................................... 20

Parkinson, Larry R., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Law Enforcement and 

Security, U.S. Department of the Interior .................................................. 11

Prepared statement on H.R. 1038 ........................................................... 13

Perkins, Jan T., Esq., Chairman, National Advancement Committee, The 

National Council of the Boy Scouts of America .......................................... 21

Prepared statement on H.R. 1651 ........................................................... 23 

(1)

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1651, TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXCHANGE OF LAND WITHIN 

THE SIERRA NATIONAL FOREST, 

CALIFORNIA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; 

H.R. 1038, TO INCREASE THE PENALTIES TO 

BE IMPOSED FOR A VIOLATION OF FIRE 

REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PUBLIC 

LANDS, NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM LANDS, 

OR NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS 

WHEN THE VIOLATION RESULTS IN DAMAGE TO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY, 

TO SPECIFY THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH 

COLLECTED FINES MAY BE USED, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 511, TO MAKE CERTAIN ADJUSTMENTS TO BE BOUNDARIES 

OF THE MOUNT NAOMI WILDERNESS AREA, 

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND H.R. 708, 

TO REQUIRE THE CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS IN 

MENDOCINO NATIONAL FOREST, 

CALIFORNIA, TO PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF 

THE PROCEEDS FROM SUCH CONVEYANCE 

FOR NATIONAL FOREST PURPOSES, AND 

FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 

June 19, 2003

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health 

Committee on Resources 

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 12:35 p.m., in room 

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rick Renzi, 

presiding. 

2

Present: Representatives Renzi, Inslee, Petersen, Duncan, 

Pearce, Tancredo, Jones, Radanovich, Hayworth, Flake, Rehberg, 

Bishop, and Thompson. 

Mr. RENZI. [presiding] This Subcommittee on Forests and Forest 

Health will come to order. The Subcommittee will reconvene to 

hear testimony on H.R. 1038, Public Lands Fire Regulation Enforcement Act of 2003; H.R. 1651, Sierra National Forest Land Exchange Act of 2003; H.R. 511, Boundary Wilderness Boundary Adjustment Act; and H.R. 708, Conveyance of Certain National Forest System Lands in the Mendocino National Forest of California. 

I ask for unanimous consent that Representatives Bishop and 

Thompson have permission to sit on the dais and participate in the 

hearing. Hearing no objections, so ordered. Under Committee Rule 

4G, the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member may make opening statements. If any other members have statements, they can be 

included in the record under unanimous consent. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RICK RENZI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. RENZI. To begin, H.R. 1038, Public Lands Fire Restoration 

Enforcement Act of 2003 would increase penalties imposed for the 

violation of fire regulations applicable to public lands when the violations result in damage to public or private property. To specify 

the purpose for which collective fines may be used, and for other 

purposes. 

I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Tancredo, for introducing this 

important legislation. From 1988 to 1997, human negligence 

caused a startling seven times the fires caused by lighting. This is 

a signal that something needs to be done. I believe that it will provide a significant deterrent to those who would act recklessly with 

fire when a threat of catastrophic fire is at its highest. 

The deterrent value of current law is laughable and non-existent, 

and so I commend Mr. Tancredo for attaching the significant shortfall in the law. I would also like to mention that our Committee 

staff has been working with Mr. Tancredo and the Forest Service 

to make some technical changes that would clarify the intent of the 

bill. 

I look forward to working with the Forest Service in the future 

to ensure that technical corrections are made. The gentleman from 

Washington, Mr. McInnis, is not with us today, and so I am filling 

in for him. I would ask Mr. Inslee from Washington, our Ranking 

Minority Member, if he has any opening statements. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McInnis follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Scott McInnis, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, on H.R. 1038

H.R. 1038, ‘‘The Public Lands Fire Regulations Enforcement Act of 2003’’, would 

increase penalties imposed for the violation of fire regulations applicable to public 

lands when the violation results in damage to public or private property, to specify 

the purpose for which collected fines may be used, and for other purposes. 

I want to thank my colleague and fellow Coloradan, Mr. Tancredo for introducing 

this important legislation. From 1988 to 1997 human negligence started a startling 

7-times the fires caused by lighting. This is a signal to me that something needs 

to be done. I’m a cosponsor of Mr. Tancredo’s bill and I believe it will provide a 

significant deterrent to those who would act recklessly with fire when the threat of 

catastrophic fire is at its highest. The deterrent-value of current law is laughable 

3

and non-existent, and so I commend Mr. Tancredo for attaching this significant 

short-fall in the law. 

I’d also like to mention that my staff has been working with Mr. Tancredo and 

the Forest Service to make some technical changes that would clarify the intent of 

the bill. I look forward to working with Forest Service in the future to ensure the 

technical corrections are made. 

Mr. INSLEE. I have no opening. I have some questions. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Mr. Inslee. 

I would ask the author of the bill, Mr. Tancredo of Colorado, if 

he has an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. THOMAS G. TANCREDO, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

COLORADO 

Mr. TANCREDO. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. Thank you very much. 

I want to thank you for scheduling a hearing on the bill, and I 

thank Mr. McInnis for doing so, and I would like to thank Mr. 

Udall for joining me as an original co-sponsor in introducing the 

legislation. 

As the Chairman said, H.R. 1038 is simple. It is to enhance the 

penalties for those seeking to jeopardize the safety of our communities by disregarding fire restrictions on public lands. 

Over the last 10 years, people have been responsible for the ignition of just over 1 million wildfires on our public lands, around 

100,000 wildfires a year caused by human carelessness. 

By comparison, lighting has caused about one-tenth as many 

fires over the same period. The current penalties for violating fire 

regulations vary from agency to agency. In a practical sense, however, the fines are generally assessed at a far lower level. 

In fact, under current laws, fines, or collaterals as they are called, are generally set in the range of about $25 to $100, a little 

more than the cost of a seat belt ticket in most States. 

I believe, as I think most people do, that these weak penalties 

lack any real deterrent value for would be violators. Mr. Chairman, 

last year when the Committee unanimously approved this measure, 

I related a story about a conversation that I had with a small 

group of Forest Service Rangers and a fireman in my district just 

prior to the Hayman fire. 

One of them told me a story about how a perspective visitor to 

the Pike National Forest had contacted him inquiring about the potential fines for violating a recently imposed ban on camp fires. 

After the District Ranger explained that the fine for constructing a camp fire during the fire ban was around $25, the caller asked 

if there was any way that he could pay the fine in advance. 

Exactly. 

Late last summer, well after the imposition of the fire ban by 

both the Governor and the forest supervisor, I was flying over the 

Hayman fire with that same district manager or district ranger. 

In addition to having a birds-eye view of the largest wildfire in 

the State’s history, the two of us also had an excellent view of several campfires dotting the landscape outside its perimeter. 

The district ranger told me that even in the midst of a fire season like the one that we had in Colorado last year, where some 800 

human-caused wildfires destroyed over a quarter-of-a-million acres, 

4

that enforcing the ban was a continuing problem, in large part because the fines were so small. 

Enhancing the penalties for those who choose to disregard the directives of our land managers may be one way that we can reduce 

both the number of human-caused wildfires and the terrible destruction that they leave in their wake by creating a deterrent. 

I am less concerned about how these violations are classified 

than I am about giving penalties for these violations some teeth. 

After losing some 7 million acres of forests last year to wildfires, 

many of them started by thoughtless people disregarding fire restrictions, it is clear that the status quo is not providing an adequate deterrent. 

I have asked legislative counsel to prepare an amendment in the 

nature of a substitute that you have in your folders in order to address some of the technical changes in the original bill and to address a few changes brought to my attention by the staff of the Forest Service. 

In a nutshell, Mr. Chairman, the focus of the bill is to enhance 

the penalties for violation of fire regulations as I said to a minimum fine of $1,000 on all Interior and Forest Service lands when 

fire bans are in place. 

Money collected under these enhanced penalties would be used 

to cover the costs of rehabilitation work rendered necessary by the 

violation, and to help facilitate public awareness of rules, regulations, and other requirements regarding the use of fire on public 

lands. 

As I alluded to earlier, I am more interested in enhancing these 

weak penalties than I am in the technical details of how we do it. 

The bottom line is that we shelled out almost $2 billion to fight 

wildfires last year, much of it to fight fires that were started by 

people when well publicized fire bans were in place. 

We need to make sure that people who play with fire on our public lands get burned, and to let would be violators know that if they 

make a choice to violate a fire ban that they will get hit in the 

pocketbook. I look forward to working with the Committee and the 

agency to work out the technical concerns prior to the markup of 

the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tancredo follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Thomas G. Tancredo, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Colorado, on H.R. 1038

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for scheduling a hearing on the bill 

today, and I would also like to thank you and Mr. Udall for joining me as original 

cosponsors in introducing this legislation. The purpose H.R. 1038 is simple: To enhance the penalties for those people who jeopardize the safety of our communities 

by disregarding fire restrictions on public lands. 

Over the last ten years, people have been responsible for the ignition of just over 

one million wildfires on our public lands. That is around 100,000 wildfires per 

year—on average—that are caused by human carelessness. By comparison, lighting 

has caused only about one-tenth that many fires over the same time period. 

The current penalties for violating fire regulations vary from agency to agency. 

In a practical sense, however, the fines are generally assessed at a far lower level. 

In fact, under current law, fines—or ‘‘collaterals’’ as they are called, are generally 

set in the range of $25 to $100—little more than the cost of a seatbelt ticket in most 

states. I believe, as I think most people do, that these weak penalties lack any real 

deterrent value for would-be violators. 

Mr. Chairman, last year when the Committee unanimously approved this measure, I related a story about a conversation I had with a small group of Forest ServVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:51 Sep 12, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\87805.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
5

ice rangers and firemen in my district just prior to the Hayman Fire. One of them 

told me a story about how a prospective visitor to the Pike National Forest had contacted him inquiring about the potential fines for violating a recently imposed ban 

on campfires. After the district ranger explained that the fine for constructing a 

campfire during the fire ban was around $25, the caller asked if there was a way 

to pay the fine in advance. 

Late last summer—well after the imposition of the fire ban by both the Governor 

and the Forest Supervisor—I was flying over Hayman Fire with that same district 

ranger. In addition to having a birds-eye view of the largest wildfire in state history, 

the two of us also had an excellent view of several campfires dotting the landscape 

outside its perimeter. He told me that even in the midst of a fire season like the 

one we had in Colorado last year—where some 800 human caused wildfires destroyed over a quarter of a million acres—that enforcing the ban was a continuing 

problem, in large part because the fine is so small. 

Enhancing the penalties for those who choose to disregard the directives of our 

land managers may be one way we can reduce both the number of human caused 

wildfires and the terrible destruction they leave in their wake by creating a deterrent. I am less concerned about how these violations are classified than I am about 

giving penalties for these violations some teeth. After losing some seven million 

acres of forest last year to wildfires—many of them started by thoughtless people 

disregarding fire restrictions—it is clear that the status quo is not providing an adequate deterrent. 

I have asked Legislative Counsel to prepare an amendment in the nature of a 

substitute (that you have in your folders) to address some technical changes in the 

original bill, and to address a few changes brought to the attention of my staff by 

the Forest Service. In a nutshell, Mr. Chairman, the focus of the bill is to enhance 

the penalties for violations of fire regulations to, as I said, a minimum fine of $1000 

on all Interior and Forest Service lands when fire bans are in place. Money collected 

under these enhanced penalties would be used to cover the costs of rehabilitation 

work rendered necessary by the violation and to help facilitate public awareness of 

rules, regulations, and other requirements regarding the use fire on public lands. 

As I alluded to earlier, I am more interested in enhancing these weak penalties 

than I am in the technical details of exactly how we do it. The bottom line is that 

we shelled out almost $2 billion to fight wildfires last year, much of it to fight fires 

that were started by people when well publicized fire bans were in place. We need 

to make sure that people who play with fire on our public lands get burned, and 

to let would-be violators know that if they make a choice to violate a fire ban, they 

will get hit in the pocketbook. 

I look forward to working with the Committee and the agency to work out these 

technical concerns prior to markup of the bill. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

[The amendment offered by Mr. Tancredo follows:]

6


87805.013
7


87805.014
8

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Mr. Tancredo, for your statement. I now 

want to recognize the witnesses for 5 minutes each. 

We will begin with Elizabeth Estill. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH ESTILL, DEPUTY CHIEF, 

PROGRAMS, LEGISLATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, FOREST 

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Ms. ESTILL. Thank you, and thank you for the opportunity to 

present the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. We commend Mr. Tancredo and the co-sponsors of H.R. 1038 for their 

timely efforts through this bill to try to decrease the number of destructive and costly human-caused wildfires. 

Our records show that there were 73,457 wildfires in the United 

States last year, of which over 62,000 were human caused. Terribly 

destructive. We support the goal of H.R. 1038, but as has already 

been stated, we would like to continue to work with the Subcommittee on some modifications that we believe would improve 

the bill. 


87805.015
9

We understand also that the Department of Justice will be providing the Committee with a letter that will describe a number of 

technical and substantive issues that will need to be addressed for 

this bill to accomplish its very worthy goal. 

We appreciate the interest of the sponsor and the Subcommittee 

in addressing the fire penalties issue, and your willingness to work 

with us to address the many law enforcement challenges that we 

face. 

We welcome your continued assistance and would be happy to 

work with the Subcommittee to achieve improved fire prevention 

and certainly more effective Federal law enforcement and prosecution. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Estill follows:]

Statement of Elizabeth Estill, Deputy Chief, Programs, Legislation, & Communications, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on H.R. 511, 

H.R. 708, H.R. 1038, H.R. 1651, and H.R. 2416

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am Elizabeth Estill, 

Deputy Chief for Programs, Legislation, and Communications, USDA Forest Service. 

I would like to present the Department’s views on H.R. 511’’ the Mount Naomi 

Wilderness Boundary Adjustment Act, H.R. 708—Mendocino National Forest Land 

Exchange, H.R. 1038—the Public Lands Fire Regulations Enforcement Act of 2003, 

H.R. 1651—the Sierra National Forest Land Exchange Act of 2003, and 

H.R. 2416—the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act. 

H.R. 511—Mount Naomi Wilderness Boundary Adjustment Act 

The Department supports H.R. 511, a bill that would adjust the boundary of the 

Mount Naomi Wilderness in the Wasatch–Cache National Forest in Utah. We believe the boundary adjustment will add to a higher level of wilderness values, including solitude, scenery, and pristine qualities. 

The boundary adjustment would exclude approximately 31 acres of land currently 

part of the Mount Naomi Wilderness and would add, in accordance with valid existing rights, 31 acres to the wilderness area. The bill also requires the Secretary to 

manage the 31 additional acres pursuant to the Utah Wilderness Act of 1984 (Public 

Law 98–428). 

This adjustment would provide for the alignment of the Bonneville Shoreline trail, 

a multi-county recreational trail designed predominately for heavy non-motorized 

use and which does not conform to the criteria of a wilderness trail. The boundary 

adjustment would also eliminate the need for a power line easement within the wilderness area, another non-conforming use. 

H.R. 708—Mendocino National Forest Land Exchange 

H.R. 708 authorizes the direct sale of two parcels comprising 120.9 acres of 

National Forest System lands on the Mendocino NF in California to the Faraway 

Ranch. Various improvements and facilities have been constructed on these lands 

and they have lost much of their National Forest character. This bill provides Faraway Ranch the opportunity to acquire these lands associated with their improvements and activities and allows the Forest Service to utilize the receipts to acquire 

replacement lands elsewhere in California. 

At the time of conveyance, Faraway Ranch will make full payment of the fair 

market value as determined by an appraisal that conforms to the Federal appraisal 

standards and is acceptable to the Secretary as well as cover all direct costs associated with completing this transaction. The Department supports this bill because 

it will improve management efficiency for the forest while recognizing the value of 

the public’s assets. 

H.R. 1038—the Public Lands Fire Regulations Enforcement Act of 2003

We commend Mr. Tancredo and the co-sponsors of H.R. 1038 for their timely efforts through this bill to decrease the number of destructive and costly humancaused wildfires. Our records show that there were 73,457 wildfires in the United 

States last year, of which over 62,000 were human-caused. Out of 7 million acres 

burned last year, human-caused fires were responsible for slightly more than 3 million acres. 

We support the goal of H.R. 1038, but would like to work with the Subcommittee 

on some modifications that we believe would improve the bill. We would like to 

10

thank the Subcommittee for seeking new and innovative approaches to reduce 

human-caused fires on Federal lands and raising the public’s awareness of the laws 

and consequences of violating them. 

We understand the Department of Justice will be providing the Committee a letter that will describe a number of technical and substantive issues that will need 

to be addressed for this bill to accomplish its goal. 

We support the intent and emphasis that H.R. 1038 embodies concerning fire-related violations. We suggest that the Subcommittee consult with the Department of 

Justice and Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to further assess the effects 

this bill may have on prosecutorial resources within the Department and the courts. 

We appreciate the interest of the sponsor and the Subcommittee in addressing the 

fire penalties issue and your willingness to work with us to address the many law 

enforcement challenges we face. We welcome your continued assistance and would 

be happy to work with the Subcommittee to achieve improved fire prevention and 

Federal law enforcement and prosecution. 

H.R. 1651 Sierra National Forest Land Exchange Act of 2003

H.R. 1651 authorizes the exchange of 160 acres of Federal land on the Sierra 

National Forest in California with 80 acres of non–Federal land within one year. 

A portion of the Federal parcel is subject to an existing Federal hydropower license. 

The Department supports H.R. 1651 as introduced. The bill will provide for the exchange of a private in-holding for two isolated parcels of Federal land, thus improving management efficiency for the Sierra National Forest. 

The bill specifies the value of the Federal land to be $250,000 and the value of 

the non–Federal land to be $200,000. H.R. 1651 gives the Secretary the authority 

to accept a cash equalization payment in excess of 25 percent of the value of the 

Federal land. These funds shall be available for the acquisition of lands and interests in lands for the National Forest System in the State of California. The conveyance is subject to a condition that the recipient of the Federal land will agree to 

convey the land, within a time period agreed to by the Secretary and the recipient, 

to the Sequoia Council of the Boy Scouts of America. The conveyance will also be 

made subject to valid existing rights and this or a similar provision needed to insure 

the continued operation of the FERC license held by Southern California Edison. 

We understand that one or more amendments to this bill may be under consideration by the sponsor. We would like to work with the Subcommittee to provide our 

comments on any proposed changes in the bill. 

As H.R. 708, the Mendocino National Forest Land Exchange and H.R. 1651 illustrate, the Department has a number of facilities and appurtenant administrative 

land excess to agency needs. The Fiscal Year 2004 Budget contains a proposal for 

the establishment of a Facilities Acquisition and Enhancement Fund that would enable the Secretary to sell such units and to utilize proceeds from those sales for the 

acquisition or development of land and improvements for administrative purposes. 

Funds collected under this authority would address backlogs and administrative 

consolidations while improving efficiencies. The Department will submit proposed 

legislation to establish this Fund in the upcoming weeks. 

H.R. 2416—the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act 

H.R. 2416, the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act recognizes that paleontological resources, especially vertebrate fossils, are heritage resources which provide opportunities for the public to learn more about ancient ecosystems and the development of life. The Forest Service, as steward of these heritage resources is committed to their protection while providing opportunities for research, education, and 

recreation. The Department supports the purpose of this bill, but would like to work 

with the Subcommittee on some aspects. 

H.R. 2416 directs the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture 

to manage and protect paleontological resources using scientific principles. The bill 

recognizes the non- renewable nature of fossils and defines paleontological resources 

as fossilized remains preserved in or on the Earth’s crust. This distinguishes these 

resources from archeological resources, covered under the Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act (ARPA); cultural items, covered under the National Historic Preservation Act and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA); and mineral resources. 

An important aspect of this bill is its formal recognition that casual collection of 

invertebrate and plant fossils for recreational non-commercial use is a valid public 

activity on National Forest System lands unless there is an overriding land-use designation. If enacted, the bill would establish collection provisions for paleontological 

resources including permitting requirements for scientific and educational purposes 

as well as recreational collection of rocks and minerals for personal use. Currently, 

11

there is a complex mix of laws, regulations and guidelines that have created significant jurisprudential challenges. We support penalties that are consistent with recent amendments to the Federal sentencing guidelines of the U.S. Sentencing Commission for increased penalties for cultural heritage resources. 

H.R. 2416 also provides that the proceeds arising from civil and criminal penalties established under the bill may be available for payment to those who provided 

information in investigations that lead to the civil violations or criminal convictions 

for which the penalties were assessed. However, the current reward language in 

Section 11 provides a maximum reward amount that we believe will be ineffective 

in most cases. We believe that the appropriate reward amount to be offered or paid 

for assistance in investigations is best determined by the agency and prosecutor 

based on the significance of the case and assistance provided or needed. 

In addition to the recommendations just mentioned we would like to work with 

the Subcommittee to make several minor technical improvements. 

This concludes my testimony and I would be happy to answer your questions. 

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Ms. Estill. 

I want to recognize now Mr. Parkinson for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF LARRY PARKINSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SECURITY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR. 

Mr. PARKINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be 

here today. I am Larry Parkinson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Law Enforcement and Security, and I am here to represent the Department of the Interior’s views on this legislation. 

I want to start by thanking Congressman Tancredo and the cosponsors of H.R. 1038 for their leadership on this issue, and for 

their efforts to reduce destructive and costly human caused 

wildfires. As Ms. Estill noted, we also want to work with the Committee on some technical changes that we think will improve the 

legislation. 

After the devastating effects of the 2000 and 2002 fire seasons, 

we are all keenly aware of the destructive nature of wildland fire. 

Those effects are even more tragic when the fires are caused by 

human beings. 

The resulting loss of life and property ultimately change lives 

forever obviously. For example, the Hayman fire, which started on 

July 2nd of last year, took 17 days to control. It destroyed more 

than 137,000 acres at a cost to the taxpayers of over $39 million. 

Approximately 600 structures were destroyed, including 133 private residences. Similarly, the Rodeo-Chediski fire, which began a 

few weeks earlier than that, took 20 days to control, and consumed 

455,000 acres, and it cost the taxpayers about $50 million, and that 

fire destroyed about 450 homes. 

Obviously these figures demonstrate that the cause of these 

human caused fires, the results are devastating. As currently drafted the bill applies to lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, and the Forest Service. 

The bill states that the violation of the rules regulating the use 

of fires by visitors and others would be punishable by a fine of not 

less than $1,000 or imprisonment for no more than a year, or both, 

if the violation results in damage to public or private property. 

Currently the BLM and the National Park Service within the Interior operate under different rules for criminal penalties. For the 

National Park Service, they are similar to the Forest Service int 

his respect; those violations are currently classified as Class B misVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:51 Sep 12, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87805.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
12

demeanors, which results in a fine up to $5,000 maximum, or up 

to 6 months in prison. 

Those violations are strict liability in nature, which means that 

you do not have to prove intent in order to prosecute the offense. 

For BLM, the Bureau of Land Management, it is a little bit different. 

Those violations under BLM are currently Class A misdemeanors, which may result in a fine of up to $100,000 maximum, 

or imprisonment up to 1 year. For Class A violations, one must 

demonstrate when prosecuting the offender that the party knowingly violated the law. So there is a significant difference in prosecution standards. 

And it is important to note that the current penalties do not 

mandate a minimum fine for either Class A or Class B misdemeanors. One thing the bill attempts to do is to establish a floor. 

As Ms. Estill noted in her testimony, we do understand that the 

Department of Justice will be providing the Committee a letter 

that will describe a number of technical, as well as substantive, 

issues that we think need to be addressed in order to accomplish 

the goals of this legislation. 

Additionally, because DOJ and not the Department of the Interior, or the Forest Service, makes the final decisions on prosecutions and penalties with respect to these violations. They obviously 

are an integral participant in all prosecutorial decisions and judicial proceedings. So we need to have their views as we perfect this 

bill. 

We also think that it would probably be useful to have the administrative office of the U.S. Courts involved in these discussions 

to assess the effects on the courts. And as a Federal Prosecutor in 

a former life, I can certainly attest to the fact that we need the 

Justice Department and the U.S. Attorneys on board as we go forward here. 

As noted earlier, we would like to work also with the Subcommittee on some modifications to ensure that we include other 

entities within this legislation. As I indicated, that currently it refers to Forest Service, BLM, and the National Park Service. 

We would like to discuss, and I think the intent of the legislation, is to be more comprehensive, including lands managed by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which include our national refuge 

system, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

By way of background, in 2002, over 240 human-caused fires occurred within the National Wildlife Refuge System, which is part 

of the Fish and Wildlife Service. And 53 of those were the result 

of arson. 

And during the last 10 year period between 1992 and 2001, the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs reported a total of 9,643 arson-caused 

fires in Indian country that burned over 210,000 acres. I thank you 

again for your leadership on this issue, particularly Mr. Tancredo, 

and the co-sponsors, and I look forward to working with the Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Parkinson follows:]

13

Statement of Larry R. Parkinson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Law 

Enforcement and Security, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1038

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Larry Parkinson and I am the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Law Enforcement and Security 

at the Department of the Interior. I am here to present the Department’s views on 

H.R. 1038—the Public Lands Fire Regulations Enforcement Act of 2003. 

We want to thank Congressman Tancredo and the co-sponsors of H.R. 1038 for 

their recognition of this issue and their efforts to reduce destructive and costly 

human-caused wildfires. We support the goal of H.R. 1038. However, we would like 

to work with the Committee to address changes that we believe would ensure consistent application of penalties among other bureaus and services within the Department that are also impacted by the devastating effects of human-caused fires and 

to ensure the bill’s effectiveness in deterring such behavior. 

After the devastating effects of the 2000 and 2002 fire seasons, we are all keenly 

aware of the destructive nature of wildland fire. The effects are even more tragic 

when these fires are caused by human beings. The resulting loss of life and property 

ultimately changes lives forever. For example, the Hayman fire, which was started 

on July 2, 2002 and took 17 days to control, destroyed more than 137,000 acres at 

a cost to taxpayers of $39.1 million. Six hundred structures were destroyed, including 133 private residences. Similarly, as a result of the Rodeo–Chediski fire which 

began on June 18, 2002 and took 20 days to control, 455,000 acres burned at a total 

cost to taxpayers estimated at $50 million. That fire destroyed 450 homes. As these 

figures amply demonstrate, the results of these human-caused fires can be devastating. 

As currently drafted, H.R. 1038 applies to lands managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), National Park Service (NPS), and the USDA Forest Service. 

The bill states that violations of the rules regulating the use of fire by visitors and 

others on these lands would be punishable by a fine of not less than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, if the violation results in damage 

to public or private property. 

Currently, the BLM and NPS operate under different rules for criminal penalties. 

For the NPS, similar to the USDA Forest Service, these violations are classified as 

Class B misdemeanors, which may result in a fine of up to $5000 or up to six 

months in prison. Class B violations are strict liability in nature, which means that 

intent need not be proved. For BLM, such violations are currently classified as Class 

A misdemeanors, which may result in a fine of up to $100,000 or imprisonment of 

up to one year in prison. For Class A violations one must demonstrate that the 

party knowingly violated the law. It is important to note that the current penalties 

do not mandate a minimum fine for either Class A or Class B misdemeanors. 

We understand that the Department of Justice will be providing the Committee 

a letter that will describe a number of technical and substantive issues that will 

need to be addressed for this bill to accomplish its goal. Additionally, as the Department of Justice (DOJ), not the Department of the Interior, makes the final decision 

on prosecutions affecting penalties for such criminal violations and is an integral 

participant in all prosecutorial decisions and subsequent judicial proceedings, we 

suggest that the Subcommittee consult with the Department of Justice and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to further assess the effects this bill may have 

on prosecutorial resources within the Department and the courts. 

As noted earlier, we would like to work with the Subcommittee on some modifications to the bill to ensure that those who would cause these destructive, tragic fires 

know that there are serious penalties associated with such behavior. We would like 

to bring together both the Department of the Interior as well as the USDA Forest 

Service to discuss the effects of this bill on their programs. We want to do everything possible to ensure positive results in reducing human-caused fires and the loss 

of life and property destruction that so often result. In addition, we would like to 

discuss including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the bill. By way of background, in 2002, over 240 human-caused fires occurred within the National Wildlife Refuge System, of which 53 were the result of 

arson. During the period between 1992 and 2001, the Bureau of Indian Affairs had 

a total of 9,643 arson-caused fires that burned 210,586 acres. 

H.R. 1038 calls for the use of collected fines by the affected agencies for the purposes stated in the bill. The Administration is concerned about and is currently examining the potential PAYGO affect of this provision. 

Thank you for your support in helping to address the many law enforcement challenges we face at the Department of the Interior. We look forward to our continued 

positive working relationship to improve our Federal law enforcement and investigative responsibilities. 

14

Mr. RENZI. Mr. Parkinson, thanks for your testimony. Moving 

now to questions from our members. I want to recognize the 

Ranking Minority Member from the great State of Washington, Mr. 

Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. My understanding of the bill is that it 

would effectively raise these citations to a Class A Misdemeanor, 

which I understand is a year in jail. My rusty recollection of criminal law is that would then give defendants the right to a jury trial; 

is that your understanding? 

Mr. PARKINSON. That’s correct. 

Mr. INSLEE. And if we raise the fine, the automatic fine, to 

$1,000, can’t we look forward to defendants then demanding a jury 

trial and prosecutors dismissing the case because of their case load 

requirements? 

Mr. PARKINSON. I think that is a good observation, and that is 

why I emphasis the need to involve the Justice Department in 

these discussions, because obviously we don’t want to cause incentives unnecessarily for people to take these kinds of cases to trial, 

and particularly we don’t want to have U.S. Attorney’s Offices 

backing off because they think the penalties are too strong. 

At the same time as the legislation is intended to do, we need 

to tell everybody, including the Justice Department, I think, that 

the penalties that are currently being meted out are not serious 

enough. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, if somebody starts a 1,000 acre fire, and you 

really believe that sanctions should be a year in jail or more, do 

we not have other charging authorities that we could use in those 

kinds of context? 

Mr. PARKINSON. It depends on whether you can prove that it was 

intentionally created. This bill is focused on negligence. If it is an 

intentionally created fire, you clearly do have felony provisions, 

both Federally and state provisions, that allow you to seek a higher 

penalty. 

Mr. INSLEE. So if it were mere negligence, and it burns up 10,000 

acres, is there some other charging situation where you could get 

over a year, a year or over? 

Mr. PARKINSON. Not that I am aware of if it is mere negligence. 

Mr. INSLEE. How about if it was wanton disregard? 

Mr. PARKINSON. If it is wanton, yes, certainly you could. That 

would take you into felonyland and you can get much higher penalties than 1 year in prison. 

Mr. INSLEE. I will just tell you one Congressman’s reaction, and 

I have not thought a lot about this, but my reaction is that the 

cases where prosecutors are going to really want more than 6 

months of jail time, or we would, are probably going to involve 

some element of wantonness and substantial destruction, where I 

think we probably already have, my sense is, an ability to charge. 

And I really do have a concern of weakening our ability to enforce these laws if we get into this situation. I think we should talk 

to DOJ about this to see whether my concern is a valid one or not. 

I guess the other question that I have is as far as a thousand 

dollars, we have a ticket program that has been really effective in 

Washington, and I think the fine is $100, I think, or $200. I am 

not sure. Is there any sort of empirical research on what number 

15

you need to get to have an impact on people’s consciousness about 

simple things like this? Is it $1,000 or is it $200? 

Mr. PARKINSON. I am not aware of empirical research. There may 

be some out there, and we will take a look, and if we identify it, 

we will certainly present it to the Committee. I would like to just 

comment on your observations. 

Certainly as a prosecutor, a prosecutor would certainly be most 

interested in those fires that are willfully caused. But I think that 

this really addresses a need to take seriously those fires that are 

caused not necessarily because somebody was engaged in arson, 

but in those situations where there is a willful violation of existing 

fire regulations. 

And I would not want to minimize those kinds of offenses, and 

certainly this structure would put them in a far different category 

than arson, and so you have a maximum of a year in prison, but 

it certainly—I just would not want to minimize the carelessness 

and the damage that is caused by violations of existing regulations. 

Mr. INSLEE. So could we solve that problem by just raising the 

level of the collateral forfeiture statute to 200 or some number, and 

not change the incarceration number? 

Ms. ESTILL. Well, currently there are about 86 Federal District 

Courts that establish that collateral level, and the Forest Service, 

as an example, has the ability to request a level, but it is finally 

the court’s decision. 

Mr. INSLEE. Is it possible if my concern turns out to be valid 

about the incarceration issue, then triggering a jury trial, we can 

set a higher fine without changing the incarceration schedule, can 

we not? We could do that? 

Mr. PARKINSON. Yes, we certainly could do that. By changing this 

to a 1-year misdemeanor, you do increase—there is a technical 

glitch here that I am sure was unintended, which appears according to the Justice Department’s preliminary views on this, appears 

to set both a minimum and a maximum. 

Mr. TANCREDO. If the gentleman would yield. 

Mr. INSLEE. Yes. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Yes, that is accurate, there was a drafting error, 

and it is addressed by the amendment. 

Mr. INSLEE. By the technical amendment. 

Mr. PARKINSON. But once that is rectified, which I am sure that 

it will be, that takes the maximum fine into the $100,000 range. 

Mr. INSLEE. One more question, Mr. Chair, and maybe Mr. 

Tancredo could help. Is DOJ not kind of cooperating in this? I am 

told that they were invited to this and declined to attend. What is 

the situation here? Can anyone help us on this? 

Mr. RENZI.: I am told the gentleman’s statement is accurate. 

They were invited. 

Mr. INSLEE. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. RENZI. I thank the gentleman from Washington. Let’s do 

this. Let’s adjourn temporarily for votes, and come back so that we 

don’t have to rush, and let the author of the bill have his time for 

questions. We have three votes, and we are temporarily adjourned. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the Subcommittee recessed, to 

reconvene at 2 p.m. the same day.] 

16

Mr. TANCREDO. [presiding] The Subcommittee will come to order. 

Thank you very much for waiting through this process, and I apologize for the many inconveniences, but both of you have been 

around here long enough to know that is how it works. I have a 

question. 

Well, I should say first of all that a number of the questions that 

arose earlier in the discussion of the bill I believe have been addressed by the amendments that we have proposed for the bill. 

Others we are certainly willing to discuss with you. One of the 

questions that I have though, Mr. Parkinson, specifically, is that 

part of the bill that does direct the use of the fees, and allows for 

their distribution in various ways to cover the costs of any improvement to reimburse affected agencies, and increase public awareness, what is your impression of the efficacy of having that kind 

of a provision in the bill. I mean, does that help or does that hinder 

the efforts. 

I will tell you on the front end that my purpose in doing that 

originally, putting that in there, was to first of all make sure that 

we get as much publicity of this change in statute, or change in 

law, as possible, because that is the deterrent effect that we are 

hoping for. 

And second to help the agency, or to give the agency a little bit 

of incentive I guess to pursue these things aggressively, and that 

is why I was doing it that way. Now, I know that there is some 

concern that has been raised about PAGO and that sort of thing, 

but I just would like your impression. 

Mr. PARKINSON. My impression is that providing an agency incentives to do this kind of thing is a good thing, particularly when 

it comes to public awareness, and that is one of the provisions in 

the statute, because that is a significant part of deterrence obviously, is educating the public. 

I think conceptually that it makes a lot of sense to directly have 

collected fines go into those kinds of efforts. What it does do, and 

it is beyond me, it does raise a precedent issue that I think the Administration as a whole is a little bit concerned about, at least concerned about taking it a little bit slowly. 

I know that the whole PAGO provisions, and not just in this statute, but those kinds of proposals in other arenas, does cause the 

Administration some general concern at broader levels. So I feel obligated to say that, and they are certainly beyond my expertise to 

opine about how of a precedence this might set for other areas. 

Mr. TANCREDO. You will note that in the—and, Elizabeth, do you 

have any comments? 

Ms. ESTILL. I would agree with that. There has been precedent 

for returning fines to agencies, and typically the experience is that 

does work really very well in education and performance. So from 

that perspective, we like that. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you. I don’t know if you had a chance to 

look at the amendment that I have provided for this bill. Do you 

have a copy? 

Mr. PARKINSON. I have not seen that. I don’t believe that either 

one of us has. I know that there was one floating. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Maybe I could ask the staff to get it to you right 

away, and just have you quickly—I certainly understand that you 

17

don’t have time to review it in-depth. But we changed the language 

specifically dealing with the term of potential imprisonment. 

And we use the language, ‘‘Whether in conjunction with or in lieu 

of imprisonment authorized by such sections.’’ Then that should 

not, at least as we understand it, that should not change the 

present situation. They could still—the Park Service could still—I 

mean the Forest and Park Services both still use the Class A. 

Excuse me, the Class B for the Forest Service and Park Service, 

and Class A for BLM, and that would therefore not change anything. I have no other questions, and since no one else is here to 

ask you questions, I guess that must mean we are finished. 

Mr. PARKINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you very much. I sincerely appreciate 

your testimony today and again I apologize for having to have you 

hang over here. 

Mr. TANCREDO. OK. I would like for the witnesses who are here 

for H.R. 1651 to please join us. Mr. Radanovich will be here in just 

a moment to present his bill. 

As I said the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Radanovich, will be here 

shortly. We have Mr. Bob Glassman, property own; and Mr. Jan 

Perkins, Chairman of the National Advancement Committee, the 

National Council of the Boy Scouts of America; and Mr. John R. 

Fielder, of Southern California Edison. Mr. Radanovich has joined 

us, and we will go to Mr. Radanovich for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Tancredo, thank you very much. I apologize for being late. We are in a Medicare Mark-Up across the street 

in Commerce. But I appreciate the Subcommittee on Forests and 

Forest Health for holding this hearing on my bill, H.R. 1651, the 

Sierra National Forest Land Exchange Act of 2003. 

And I first want to welcome my constituents who are testifying 

here today; Mr. Bob Glassman, Mr. Jan Perkins, both of whom are 

residents of my congressional district in Fresno, California. 

The bill that we are here to discuss would complete a land exchange between Mr. Glassman and property now owned by the Forest Service within the Sierra National Forest. The Forest Service 

has a strong desire to obtain Mr. Glassman’s parcel, which is an 

80 acre in-holding within the Sierra National Forest. 

Upon completion of the land exchange with the Forest Service, 

my bill states that Mr. Glassman will convey the newly acquired 

land parcel of 160 acres to the Sequoia Council of Boy Scouts. 

The Boy Scouts have operated a recreational camp on a portion 

of this land for over five decades. Thousands of scouts use the camp 

each year to experience outdoor activities. Owning the property will 

allow the Sequoia Council of the Boy Scouts to make improvements 

to the facilities located on this land, and thus allowing the scouts 

to provide a continued outdoor learning experience for young men. 

Recently, Southern California Edison approached me with some 

concerns that they have about this bill. Edison owns and operates 

a hydroelectric facility at Shaver Lake, partially located on the current Forest Service land to be exchanged under H.R. 1651. 

18

Specifically, Edison wants to ensure that it can continue to operate its hydroelectric facility in the same manner that it does now 

once the land exchange takes place. I understand Edison’s concerns, and as a strong supporter of hydroelectric power, I want to 

make certain that their interests are protected. 

My bill as written has a provision under Section 2(b)(1) that 

states that the conveyance of the Federal land shall be subject to 

valid existing rights, and under such terms and conditions as the 

Secretary may prescribe. 

This language was written in-part to guarantee that Edison’s existing rights to operate the hydro facility are protected after the exchange. Now, I have discussed this matter with most of the witnesses testifying here today on this bill, and though a resolution 

has not yet been reached, I appreciate and commend the willingness of both parties involved to work toward an acceptable solution. 

I encourage them to consider to continue along this vain, and 

offer any services that I or my staff can provide. Mr. Chairman, 

thank you again for holding this hearing, and I look forward to listening to the testimony of my constituents, the witnesses. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Radanovich. We will go right to 

that testimony. 

We will recognize Ms. Estill. 

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH ESTILL, DEPUTY CHIEF, 

PROGRAMS, LEGISLATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, FOREST 

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Ms. ESTILL. Thank you again for inviting me to appear before the 

Forest Service to testify on a very important bill. H.R. 1651 authorizes the exchange of 160 acres of Federal land on the Sierra 

National Forest in California, with 80 acres of non-Federal land, 

within a year. 

A portion of the Federal parcel is subject to an existing Federal 

hydropower license. The Department supports H.R. 1651 as introduced. The bill will provide for the exchange of a private end-holding for two isolated parcels of Federal land, thus improving management efficiency for the Sierra National Forest. 

The bill specifies the value of the Federal land to be $250,000 

and the value of the non-Federal land to be $200,000. H.R. 1651 

gives the Secretary the authority to accept a cash equalization payment in excess of the 25 percent value of Federal land. 

These funds shall be available for the acquisition of lands and interest in lands for the National Forest System in the State of California. The conveyance is subject to a condition that the recipient 

of the Federal land will agree to convey the land within a time period agreed to by the Secretary and the recipient to the Sequoia 

Council of the Boy Scouts of America. A conveyance will also be 

made subject to valid existing rights, including a provision to ensure the continued operation of the FERC license held by Southern 

California Edison. We understand that one or more amendments to 

this bill may be under consideration by the sponsor. 

We would like to work with the Subcommittee to provide our 

comments on any proposed changes to the bill. This concludes my 

statement. I will submit the entire thing for the record. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Ms. Estill. 

19

Mr. Glassman. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT GLASSMAN, PROPERTY OWNER 

Mr. GLASSMAN. Good afternoon. My name is Robert Glassman. 

My wife, Linda, and I are parties to the proposed land exchange. 

We purchased the 80 acres inside the Sierra National Forest in 

1997 for the sole purpose of exchanging it with the USDA for their 

small lake front Chawanakee land that is part of our larger Boy 

Scout camp, located at Shaver Lake, California. 

The Boy Scouts have had their summer camp at that location for 

over 50 years, and it serves Boy Scout organizations throughout 

the State of California. The Scout Camp utilizes only a small portion of the 160 acres being acquired, but we require the entire 160 

acre parcel so that the camp can exist even if Shaver Lake is abandoned in the future. 

My wife, Linda, and I have been active volunteers in the Sequoia 

Council of Boy Scouts of America for 15 years. I have served on the 

Executive Council of the Board all of that time. Both of our sons 

are Eagle Scouts and successful young men. 

We are convinced that their experience in the Boy Scouts taught 

them many skills and gave them the leadership traits that have led 

to their successes. Our 25 year old son, Rodney, is both a Ph.D. 

student at the University of Arizona, and is currently a legislative 

aide for Congressman Raul Grijalva. 

Our 18-year-old son, Jeremy, is a sophomore in Electrical Engineering at Arizona State University. We both know the experience 

of being Boy Scout parents. The Forest Service staff approved this 

Boy Scout Camp land exchange tentatively in 1995. Linda and I 

then purchased the land outside the National Forest for the Scout 

Council in 1997, and initiated the transaction in 1998. 

We negotiated in good faith through 2001, but the transaction 

was terminated for a technical easement problem. The Forest Service, who also wanted the exchange to go forward, suggested that we 

contact our Congressman, and proceed with this bill to complete 

the exchange. 

We then contacted Congressman Radanovich, and worked out the 

appraised values with the Forest Service to our mutual satisfaction. It was determined that the consolidation of the 80 acre inholding further north in the mountain for the Forest Service 

Shaver Lake parcel that is not in the National Forest was in the 

public interest. 

We have spent the last 2 years working together with the U.S. 

Forest Service to create a bill acceptable for both the government 

and the Sequoia Council of the Boy Scouts of America, who will receive the deed to the camp land as part of the exchange. 

All three of our local Congressmen support our exchange. A few 

weeks ago our Congressmen received calls from Southern Cal Edison, who operate the hydroelectric power plant on Shaver Lake, 

and own all of the remaining undeveloped land on, in, and around 

the lake. Many thousands of acres. 

Several years ago, I was frightened by a written offer by Southern Cal Edison to acquire our Forest Service Camp land, and by 

their prior submittal for a Fresno County general plan amendment 

20

which would replace the entire Boy Scout camp with residential 

housing. 

FC has recently told us that their only current concern is if this 

small, mostly under water, land parcel is exchanged, and their ability to operate their power plant might be somehow negatively impacted. 

Based on a June 17th, 1998 letter from the U.S. Forest Service 

to Congressman Radanovich, we always understood that he Forest 

Service would have placed appropriate conditions on the exchange, 

providing for the continued use by FC of the lake so long as there 

was a lake, and they operated the hydroelectric system. 

After the land exchange is completed, our Scout Council can continue to invest significantly locally raised funds in our camp. We 

are in the process of installing a new water and sewer system to 

enhance environmental quality, and we continue to do that. 

This land trade is very fair to all concerned parties. As required 

by law, both trade properties have been appropriately valued by 

the U.S. Forest Service approved third-party appraisers. 

The exchange serves the public interest by in-filling the existing 

forest and trading away a small parcel that will never be part of 

the forest. We assure you that this proposed exchange has been 

subjected to the precise rigorous process that all trades should be 

required of in public interest land. 

I want to personally thank the Forest Service staff that helped 

make this day possible on behalf of my family and the other volunteer members of our Executive Council of the Boy Scouts. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Glassman follows:]

Statement of Robert Glassman on H.R. 1651,

Sierra National Forest Land Exchange 

My name is Robert Glassman. My wife Linda and I are parties to the proposed 

Land exchange. We purchased the 80 acres inside the Sierra National Forest in 

1997 for the sole purpose of exchanging it with the USDA for their small lakefront 

Chawanakee land that is part of our Boy Scout Camp, located at Shaver Lake, California. The Boy Scouts have had their summer camp at that location for over 50 

years and it serves Boy Scout organizations throughout the State of California. The 

Scout camp utilizes only a small part of the 160 acres being acquired, but we need 

the entire 160-acre parcel so that the camp can exist even if Shaver Lake is abandoned in the future. 

My wife Linda, and I have been active volunteers in the Sequoia Council Boy 

Scouts of America for 15 years. I have served on the executive council of the Board 

all of that time. Both of our sons are Eagle Scouts and successful young men. We 

are convinced that their experience in the Boy Scouts taught them many skills and 

gave them the leadership traits that have led to their successes. Our 25-year-old 

son, Rodney, is both a PhD. Student at the University of Arizona and a Legislative 

Aide for Congressman Raul Grijalva. Our 18-year-old son, Jeremy, is a sophomore 

in Electrical Engineering at Arizona State University. We know first hand the benefits of being Boy Scout parents. 

The Forest Service staff approved the Boy Scout camp land exchange proposal in 

1995. Linda and I purchased the land inside the National Forest, for the Scout 

Council, in 1997 and initiated the transaction in 1998. We negotiated in good faith 

thru 2001 but the transaction was terminated for a technical easement problem. 

The Forest Service, who also wanted the exchange to go forward, suggested we contact our Congressman and proceed with this Bill to complete the exchange. We then 

contacted Congressman Radanovich and worked out the appraised values with the 

Forest Service to our mutual satisfaction. It was determined that the consolidation 

of the 80 acre ‘‘inholding’’ (Summit 80) for the Forest Service Shaver Lake parcel, 

that is not in the National Forest, was in the Public interest. 

21

We have spent the last two years working together with the USFS to create a 

Bill acceptable to both the Government and the Sequoia Council Boy Scouts of 

America who will receive the Deed to the Camp land as part of the exchange. All 

three of our local Congressmen support our exchange. A few weeks ago, our Congressman received calls from Southern California Edison (SCE), who operate the hydroelectric power plant on Shaver Lake and own all of the remaining undeveloped 

land on, in, and around the lake, many thousands of acres. Several years ago, I was 

frightened by a written offer by SCE to acquire our Forest Service camp land and 

by their prior submittal for a Fresno County general plan amendment which would 

replace the entire Boy Scout camp with residential housing. SCE has recently told 

us their only current concern is if this small mostly underwater land parcel is exchanged, their ability to operate their power plant might somehow be negatively impacted. 

Based on a June 17, 1998 letter from the United States Forest Service to Congressman Radanovich, we always understood that the Forest Service would have 

placed appropriate conditions on the exchange providing for the continued use by 

SCE of the lake, so long as there was a lake and they operated their hydroelectric 

system. 

After the land exchange is completed, our Scout Council can continue to invest 

significant locally raised funds in our camp. We are in the process of installing new 

water and sewer systems to enhance the environmental quality of both the land and 

the outdoor scouting experience for over 4,000 boys each year. We hope to build new 

dining facilities and renovate all of our campsites. Our fund raising efforts will now 

have a more solid footing based on our ownership of the important lakefront property. I have been assured by SCE that they will continue to lease the balance of 

our camp land for use by the Boy Scouts unless or until they decide to sell their 

property. If that occurs, we will raise the funds, as we have now, to purchase that 

property for our Scout camp. 

This land trade is very fair to all concerned parties. As required by law, both 

trade properties have been appropriately valued by USFS approved third party appraisers. The exchange serves the public interest by infilling the existing National 

Forest with the single 80 acre parcel not now included in that area of the forest 

and trades out a smaller parcel that has no current or future value to be included 

in any National Forest. We assure you that this proposed exchange has been subjected to the precise rigorous process that should be required for all public interest 

land exchanges. 

I want to personally thank the Forest Service staff that helped us make this day 

possible on behalf of my family and the other volunteer members of our executive 

council of the Sequoia Boy Scout board. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Glassman. 

Mr. Perkins. 

STATEMENT OF JAN T. PERKINS, ESQ., CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL 

ADVANCEMENT COMMITTEE, THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF 

THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA 

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, we appreciate you inviting us here to testify in support of H.R. 1651. We 

would also like to thank Congressman Radanovich, Congressman 

Dooley, and Congressman Nunez, for their sponsoring of this legislation. 

I am Jan Perkins, from Fresno, California. I am an attorney 

practicing law there. For the past 28 years, I have been a Boy 

Scout volunteer, currently serving on the Executive Board of the 

local council, the Sequoia Council of the Boy Scouts of America, 

and also serve as the Chairman of the National Advancement Committee of the Boy Scouts of America. 

I am here today to testify on behalf of both the National Council 

of the Boy Scouts of America and the Sequoia Council. Currently, 

the National Council supports more than 300 local councils, which 

like the Sequoia Council in Fresno, advance the scouting mission 

and vision. 

22

The Sequoia Council exists to provide an educational program for 

boys, and to help instill within them the ability to make ethical 

choices. This program uses the outdoors, adventure, and fun, to 

build character, train responsible citizenship, and develop personal 

fitness. 

The service area of the Sequoia Council includes the Fresno, 

Madera, Kings, and Tulare Counties in Central California. The 

Council currently has 10,000 youth members, and approximately 

3,500 adult volunteers. 

The Council has been designated as a quality council by the 

National Council of the Boy Scouts of America. For the past 55 

years, as has already been indicated, the Council has operated a 

long term camp on the shores of Shaver Lake. The camp is known 

as Camp Chawanakee. 

And we prepared a map over there so that you can get a look 

at it, and the numerous camping sites. As you might guess, this 

camp is extremely important to the Council’s ability to provide programs to the youth. 

Over the past few years the camp has provided a camping experience for thousands of the residents of the San Joachim Valley, and 

in the past 10 years, as circumstances have required other camps 

to close, Camp Chawanakee is evolving into a regional camping 

facility. 

Indeed, last year 40 percent of our campers came from the Central Valley of California, and 28 percent came from Northern California, and 38 percent from Southern California, and the balance 

from Arizona and Nevada. 

Camp Chawanakee currently sits on two parcels of land. One 

parcel is leased to the council by the current Federal licensee of the 

Hydroelectric Project, Southern California Edison. The second parcel, which is the subject of H.R. 1651, is currently licensed to the 

council by the United States Forest Service. 

As has been indicated, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Glassman have for 

the benefit of the Sequoia Council, been negotiating a land exchange with the Forest Service. Under the terms of that exchange, 

Mr. and Mrs. Glassman will transfer an 80 acre parcel which they 

own, and which is located in the Sierra National Forest, to the Forest Service in exchange for the land that the Forest Service owns 

and currently licenses to the Sequoia council. 

Mr. and Mrs. Glassman will then immediately transfer the 

Shaver Lake property to the Sequoia Council. Ownership of this 

property and fee by the council will be a great benefit. It will allow 

the council to continue to maintain existing improvements and giving an impetus, because they know that those improvements will 

remain there. 

And it will also help ensure that the council will be able to continue to provide outdoor camping and learning experiences in some 

form into the future. We have been contacted by Southern California Edison. They seem concerned that the proposed transfer 

might in some way interfere, although we don’t fully understand 

how, with their operation of the hydroelectric facility. 

Given the Forest Service’s conditions to the transfer and what 

has been testified to today, the council just does not understand 

how there could be a problem. We believe that the RadanovichVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:51 Sep 12, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\87805.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
23

Dooley-Nunez legislation expressly protects the existing rights of 

all parties affected by the exchange, including the hydroelectric 

project of Southern California Edison. 

However, let me assure the Committee that Congress and the 

SCE that it is not the intent of the Sequoia Council, nor will it ever 

been the intent of the Sequoia Council, to interfere in any way with 

the current licensee’s operation or any further licensee’s operation 

of the hydroelectric facility at Shaver Lake. 

Our only intent is to continue to serve youth by helping to develop character, responsible citizenship, and personal fitness 

through the outdoor programs offered at Camp Chawanakee. Congress has expressed a similar intent in the National Forest Organizational Camp Fee Improvement Act of 2003, which is Public Law 

108-7, where they said that organizational camps such as those administered by the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and faith-based and 

community-based organizations, provide a valuable service to 

young people, individuals with disabilities, and their families by 

promoting physical, mental, and spiritual health through activities 

conducted in a natural environment. 

We urge the passage of H.R. 1651 as a means of upholding the 

expressed intent of Congress, and to allow the Sequoia Council to 

continue to serve the youth of its service area. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Perkins follows:]

Statement of Jan Perkins, Esquire, on behalf of the National Council of the 

Boy Scouts of America, Chairman of the National Advancement 

Committee, The Sequoia Council of the Boy Scouts of America, Vice 

President and Executive Board Member, on H.R. 1651

Introduction 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to testify before your Subcommittee on 

H.R. 1651, the Sierra National Forest Land Exchange Act of 2003. I also want to 

express my gratitude and thanks to Congressman Radanovich, Congressman Dooley, 

and Congressman Nunes for leading this effort for the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). 

I am testifying today on behalf of the National Council of the Boy Scouts of America, for which I am the Chairman of the National Advancement Committee. I am 

also representing The Sequoia Council of the Boy Scouts of America, for which I am 

the Vice President and an Executive Board Member. I have lived in Fresno, California for 30 years with my family, Peggy, Jennifer, Rebecca, Sarah, Michael, Robert, and Ryan. I was a Boy Scout as a youth, and have been involved in Scouting 

as an adult for the past 25 years. My three sons are all Eagle Scouts, and all four 

of us attended Scout camp at Camp Chawanakee. I am truly honored to sit before 

you today to speak about Scouting, Camp Chawanakee, and the generous land exchange that will help Scouts in my home town, throughout California, and across 

the Western United States. 

The Sequoia Council 

The Sequoia Council is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. We offer the educational, value-driven program of the BSA to different age groups, from 1st Grade 

to adulthood. The Sequoia Council has a history of more than 80 years of helping 

to shape and mold the values and character of youth in the Central Valley of California. The organization continues to help strengthen youth, families, and communities through comprehensive programs for its members. 

The Sequoia Council is a service area within the BSA that covers Fresno, Madera, 

Kings and Tulare Counties in California. We serve over 10,000 youth members, 

their parents, and the 3,500 adult volunteers who volunteer their time to Scouting. 

A map of our service area is attached to this testimony. The Council is further divided in Districts, which are service areas run by a committee of volunteers and 

counseled by a full-time District Executive. District volunteers service the units by 

providing advice and training, maintaining membership growth, promoting camping, 

raising money for even better service, providing programs such as camporees, recVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:51 Sep 12, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\87805.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
24

ognition dinners, day camps, ‘‘together-we-plan’’ conferences, and promoting the 

good Boy Scout name within the community. 

Scouting Promotes Healthy Development 

As a former Scout yourself, you know that the extensive nature of BSA’s Cub 

Scouting, Boy Scouting, and Venturing programs allows the organization to address 

six critical elements of healthy youth development. • Strong personal values and character: Specific character-related values that 

parents see communicated through Scouting to their children include respecting 

the environment, staying away from drugs, helping at home, learning moral values, learning self-reliance, becoming involved in community service, meeting important physical and emotional needs, and developing empathy with other people in need. • Positive sense of self-worth and usefulness: Scouting provides youth with a safe, 

friendly environment, a sense of belonging, involvement in community service, 

improved self-esteem through goals setting, and an atmosphere of teamwork. • Caring and nurturing relationships with parents, other adults and peers: Scouting programs provide positive role models and encourage family togetherness. 

Scouts receive encouragement to do their best by a leader. Scouting parents and 

their children do projects together. They read together. Scouts talk to their parents about what they learn • A desire to learn: Scouting programs provide youth the opportunity to develop 

new interests, build reading skills that are the foundation for higher learning, 

and do things they have never done before, often because they didn’t have the 

opportunity. • Productive/creative use of time: Scouting allows youth to constructively use 

their time in child-centered learning activities such as art, music, theater, and 

religion. Boys overwhelmingly cite the Scouting program activities as the key 

reason for joining scouting. A clear majority of parents of Scouts say that Scouting is a positive alternative to watching TV and playing video games. • Social adeptness: Scouting helps youth develop social skills and competencies by 

providing opportunities for them to plan and lead activities, work in groups, and 

interact with youth of different racial and ethnic backgrounds. In a year’s time, 

a majority of parents report that the program helped their children to respect 

the feelings of others, learn social skills, learn to be a team player, participate 

in democratic decision making, and resolve conflicts with peers. 

In 2000, BSA celebrated the welcoming of its 100 millionth Scout. Scouting has 

served and will continue to serve a significant portion of America’s youth. 

Public Service 

Scouting also instills in its participants—youths and adults alike—a strong sense 

of public service. In May of this year, BSA and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a partnership to promote preparedness in both youths and 

adults. Building on DHS’s Ready Campaign, Scouting participants will go through 

age-specific training for individual, family, and unit preparedness. 

In February 2003, the BSA and the American Red Cross signed a first-ever agreement between the two organizations that will enable more youth and adults to ‘‘be 

prepared’’ for lifesaving situations in their local communities. Local BSA councils, 

in conjunction with local Red Cross chapters, will train and certify BSA volunteers 

to teach potentially lifesaving courses in first aid, CPR, emergency response, and 

lifeguard training. 

Answering President George W. Bush’s call for each child in America to earn or 

give $1 to be used for providing food and medical help for the children of Afghanistan, the BSA fully endorsed the effort. Previously, during World War II, the Scouts 

collected almost two billion pounds of metal, rubber and other materials for the war 

effort and sold more than $1.957 billion in war bonds. Scouts more recently completed more than 200 million hours of community service working with America’s Promise. Since the tragedies of September 11, Scouts have supported hundreds of 

local efforts to assist those in need. 

In the next few years, the National Park Service will be the recipient of one million hours of volunteer service through the Presidents’ Summit for America’s Future 

and the BSA. The Summit is aimed at bringing America to a new level of commitment to volunteer service. The project is a small part of the 200 million service 

hours pledged to America from the BSA. 

Scouting and Congress 

I have provided with this testimony a letter from the Boy Scouts of America 

endorsing H.R. 1651, which includes a list of Members of the 107th Congress who 

are now or were involved in Scouting. When the list was compiled, more than 50 

25

percent of the Members serving had participated in Scouting. We believe that this 

is not just a coincidence. The values that Scouting instills in youths, their families, 

and our volunteers have a very real impact on our society. 

Services Provided by the Sequoia Council 

The Sequoia Council provides a wide array of necessary services to the youth and units within our Council. Most families realize that it costs $20 to $50 to keep their 

child in Scouting for a year. The Sequoia Council spends an additional $125 to $175 

per year in support of each youth in our council. The Council provides professional 

staff and office support staff services, two service centers, liability insurance for 

adults and accident insurance for youth, training for adults, camping opportunities 

(which is the focus of H.R. 1651), including a Cub Scout day camp, program equipment for camps, recognition and awards, a Trading Post, advancement and training 

records, and special activities. 

As a not-for-profit organization, we rely heavily on user fees and charitable contributions to provide our services. Camping and activities provide forty-five percent 

of our revenue. Donations provide another 26 percent. Sales of products account for 

12 percent, and the balance comes from endowments, special projects, and the 

United Way. 

Our revenues are returned to the Scouts, their families, and our community. Summer camp and activities use 45 percent of our revenue. Direct service to units uses 

another 43 percent. Fundraising and administration use the balance. 

We serve our 10,000 Scouts with 12 professional staff members, a Board of Directors comprised of adults and youths, and a number of committees that oversee the 

overall operation of the council in accordance with the national directives. 

Camp Chawanakee 

This year, the Sequoia Council will have operated Camp Chawanakee on the 

shore of Shaver Lake, in Fresno County, California, for 56 years. In that time, 

Camp Chawanakee has provided great adventure and environmental learning opportunities for scouts and the council and has evolved with hundreds of thousands 

of dollars of improvements. 

In recognition of our benefit to the community, the Fresno County Board of Supervisors issued a proclamation in December 2002 calling for the preservation of the 

camp. A copy of that proclamation is included with my testimony. 

Camp History 

Camp Chawanakee sits among towering pines on a peninsula that is fondly referred to as ‘‘The Point.’’ Conservation efforts that began in the 1950’s have preserved Camp Chawanakee and have turned what used to be a muddy little creek 

into a flower studded meadow, framed by ferns and filled in with several species 

of grasses. These conservation efforts include an expansion of our recycling program, 

drastic reduction in the use of disposable eating equipment and a stepped up emphasis on low impact camping. 

Opening of the Camp was made possible by the use of World War II surplus, including a jeep that was used until 1980. The original camp was located above today’s rifle range, which itself, is the old camp parking lot. Each site had its own 

waterfront, evidence of which can still be seen today in the form of old docks and 

boards from towers that occasionally wash up on shore. 

The Point was not utilized as a program and camping area until the late 1970’s. 

Originally the Point was known as ‘‘Woodbadge Point,’’ because that was the premier area for Woodbadge training in the area. Baden Powell Lodge was built as a 

dining hall and training facility. The lodge was remodeled in 1994–95 into a 

scoutmaster’s lounge, meeting room, medical facility and volunteer housing. The 

area that is now used as the medical facility once served as the Camp Trading Post 

and Handicraft Area. A map of the camp land leased from the Federal licensee is 

included with my testimony. 

The camp has developed many traditions over the last 50 years. The most pronounced is the Tribe of Chawanakee. This is a service organization for boys and 

adults of all ages. Other traditions include a high quality program in a pristine setting, and weekly campfires that some consider to be the best show in the Western 

Region of the Boy Scouts of America. 

Conservation 

Camp Chawanakee is a leader among Boy Scout camps in the area of conservation. The present day meadow was originally a muddy little creek and wash. Due 

to concerted efforts by scouts in the 1950’s and 1960’s, the wash was fitted with 

water holding logs, which in turn encouraged the lush plant growth that we now 

see as we enter the main camp area. A recycling program was implemented in the 

26

late 1980’s. In 1997 the camp adopted the ‘‘emergency use only’’ policy on disposable 

eating equipment. 

Programs 

The camp has adopted many programs over the years. Originally the camp focused on the waterfront, high adventure and wrangler programs. Since then, the 

camp has evolved into a center for all scouting activities including younger boy programs as well as older boy programs. The horse program was dropped in the 1960’s but revived in 1991. Project C.O.P.E. (Challenging Outdoor Personal Experience), an 

outdoor program stressing personal fitness, was added in 1987 to challenge the older 

boys to new heights. The ‘‘Trail to First Class’’ was added in 1991 to help younger 

scouts advance through the early ranks of scouting. The Mountain Man program 

was added in 1991. The purpose of this program was to teach outdoor survival skills 

to scouts. Kayaks made their appearance at our waterfront area in 1997. The Mountain Bike program came in 1999. In 2000, a high adventure program called Leave 

No Trace made its debut for older scouts. 

Camp Chawanakee changed to the patrol site method of camping in 1995, in order 

to promote the Scouting way. The patrol method lent itself to a return to family 

style feeding, patrol competition and a feeling of togetherness. Camp Chawanakee’s program now ranks as one of the most comprehensive in the nation. 

While many other camps in California have closed in recent years, Camp 

Chawanakee has grown to become one of the premier scouting camps in the nation. 

It provides a beautiful setting, an ideal altitude, a central location, a tradition of 

exceptional programs, and a quality staff that maintains and operates the camp. 

Camp Users 

Camp Chawanakee is open year round to scouts, church and service organizations, businesses and other community groups. Over the years, well over 250,000 

youths and leaders from California, Nevada and Arizona have attended Camp 

Chawanakee; recently, summer camp attendance has exceeded 3,000. 

Our participants come from all over the State of California. While the largest percentage of participants (40 percent) come from the Central Valley, we also draw 

large numbers from Northern (28 percent) and Southern California (38 percent). 

Scouts from Nevada and Arizona are frequent participants in our programs. The 

Council’s goal is to make Camp Chawanakee available to Scouts from all over the 

Western United States. 

Continued Improvements 

The Sequoia Council is currently making further improvements Camp 

Chawanakee to enhance public safety and first responder services, to expand sanitation and dining facilities, and to improve the Camp’s facilities for younger campers 

and their families. As one example of our plans, we are currently included in the 

State of California’s Multiyear Project Priority List for a $250,000 Safe Drinking 

Water State Revolving Fund grant for a 60,000 gallon water storage tank and 

pipeline. 

Camp Lands 

Camp Chawanakee sits on two parcels of land. The Sequoia Council has a Special 

Use Permit from the United States Forest Service (USFS) for use of approximately 

2–2/3 acres of an approximately 160-acre plot of Federal land. Since the Camp’s inception, the Council has also leased approximately 110 acres from the current 

Federal licensee of a hydroelectric project located on Shaver Lake, in Fresno County, 

California. The Federally licensed hydroelectric project on Shaver Lake is partially 

located on the Federal land proposed for conveyance. Other parts of the project are 

located of privately held lands. 

On this land, the Sequoia Council has built facilities to provide equestrian opportunities, a 52 foot climbing wall, fishing, tomahawk and firearm ranges, sailing, a 

ropes course, canoeing, kayaking, swimming and snorkeling, and motorboating. The 

Camp has 22 camp sites as well as a director’s cabin, a warehouse, water tanks, 

and other improvements. 

H.R. 1651

Congressman George Radanovich, of Mariposa, has led the effort to authorize the 

land exchange since July 2002 when he introduced H.R. 5302 in the 107th Congress. Congressman Cal Dooley, of Visalia, joined Mr. Radanovich as a cosponsor in 

October 2002. In the 108th Congress, Congressman Devin Nunes, of Pixley, joined 

the effort as an original cosponsor with Messrs. Radanovich and Dooley in January 

2003. After extensive and very close collaboration with the USFS, the legislation 

was revised and reintroduced by all three of our champions in April 2003. 

27

The purpose of the legislation is to provide for the permanent enjoyment by the 

Boy Scouts of America of the Federal land to be exchanged for privately held lands 

within the Sierra National Forest. 

Background 

In the early 1990s, the USFS decided that a land exchange involving an approximately 80-acre inholding within the Sierra National Forest (Summit 80) would help 

it advance its Land and Resource Management Plan for the forest. The inholding 

is entirely surrounded by National Forest Service land, is habitat to wildlife, contains cultural resources, and, given its proximity to the Sierra Summit Ski Area, 

would likely be developed in the future. 

In 1993, the Sequoia Council considered a land exchange to acquire the USFS 

land it uses under a Special Permit. At that time, the Council decided that it would 

be unable to complete such a transaction. 

In 1997, Mr. Robert Glassman, a member of our Board of Directors, purchased 

Summit 80 for the express purpose of completing the land exchange with the USFS 

and transferring the Federal land to the Sequoia Council. That exchange is the subject of H.R. 1651. 

Summary 

H.R. 1651 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey approximately 160 acres 

of land to Mr. Glassman upon receipt of an offer of Summit 80 and a cash equalization payment. The conveyance is conditioned upon three factors: • The protection and preservation of all existing valid rights, inclusive of the 

United States, Mr. Glassman, the Boy Scouts, and other affected parties not directly involved in the exchange; • Mr. Glassman’s subsequent conveyance of the Federal land to the Sequoia 

Council; and • Any other terms and conditions that the Secretary may prescribe. 

In conversations with the USFS, we understand that it would complete this transaction only after these requirements are fully met, as is the intent of Congress. 

When asked if the USFS believed that any additional requirements should be added 

to the legislation, we were informed that no additional requirement were necessary 

or needed. 

H.R. 1651 assigns value to both pieces of property. According to the USFS, without the legislation the Federal land would be appraised at a significantly lower 

value. The legislation would require Mr. Glassman to pay to the Secretary the difference in value of the lands, or approximately $50,000. Those funds would then be 

available to the Secretary without further appropriation to acquire additional public 

land in California under the Sisk Act. Mr. Glassman would also be responsible for 

all direct costs associated with processing the land exchange 

Benefit to the Scouts 

We view the acquisition of this property as our version of the American Dream: 

we would become homeowners after half a century of renting. Shaver Lake currently 

inundates the majority of the land. However, if in the future Lake Shaver is 

drained, the Sequoia Council will be able to reclaim the land and expand our facilities further. 

Access to Shaver Lake is critical for many of the programs at Camp Chawanakee. 

In many respects, Chawanakee is a water-focused camp. We offer fishing, sailing, 

canoeing, kayaking, swimming and snorkeling, and motorboating. We train Scouts 

and adults in water safety, conservation, and land-water border reclamation. As I 

mentioned earlier, a major camp project in the 1950s and 1960s reclaimed a wash 

area, stopping the erosion of the soil, and today we have a healthy meadow that 

benefits the camp and the community. 

Federally–Licensed Hydroelectric Facility 

Approximately 110 acres of Camp Chawanakee is leased from the licensee of a 

Federally licensed hydroelectric project. Chawanakee and the hydroelectric project 

have co-existed and complemented each other for over 50 years. 

The Sequoia Council supports the continued operation of the project. The project 

enhances the camping experience of those who attend the Camp, and we hope the 

project continues to provide both camping benefits and low cost power to the State 

of California for years to come. 

We understand that the licensee of the facility is concerned that H.R. 1651 may 

not adequately protect and preserve its rights to operate and maintain the project. 

We also understand that its license requires the licensee to acquire the ‘‘right of use 

in perpetuity’’ of all lands necessary or appropriate for the maintenance and operation of the project. The Sequoia Council has no intention to nor will it interfere 

28

with the project’s operation or maintenance. If H.R. 1651 is enacted into law, we 

would commit to working in good faith with the licensee to allow its use of the land 

in perpetuity on terms similar to those required by the USFS. Chawanakee would 

not be the same without Shaver Lake. 

Summary 

Camp Chawanakee has been the summer camp of hundreds of thousands of young 

Scouts, some of the Committee’s members’ staff among them. The enactment of 

H.R. 1651 will allow the Sequoia Council to continue to offer the same experiences 

and opportunities to Members of the 208th Congress and their staff. We recognize 

the concerns of affected parties not directly involved in the exchange, and we commit to you, Mr. Chairman, this Subcommittee, and Congress to ensure that the intent of the legislation, to protect and preserve all existing rights, is upheld. 

Attachments 

• Map of Sequoia Council Service Area 

• Letter from the Boy Scouts of America endorsing H.R. 1651

• Fresno County Board of Supervisors Proclamation endorsing preservation of 

Camp Chawanakee 

• Map of Camp Chawanakee

29


87805.001
30


87805.002
31


87805.003
32


87805.004
33

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you very much, Mr. Perkins. 

Now, finally, Mr. Fielder. 


87805.005
34

STATEMENT OF JOHN R. FIELDER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 

Mr. FIELDER. Thank you and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and 

Committee members. My name is John Fielder, and I am a senior 

vice president with Southern California Edison. We appreciate the 

opportunity to speak to H.R. 1651. 

Let me begin by making our position perfectly clear, I hope. We 

support the transfer of this land to the Boy Scouts through Mr. 

Glassman, assuming that we can preserve the right that we currently have to operate the hydro facility located on Shaver Lake. 

And from what I hear this afternoon, that should not be a problem. The amendments that we have proposed we believe do exactly 

that, and that is give us the rights in the legislation to continue 

to operate our hydroelectric facilities just as we have in the past. 

Why is this important to Edison? We have operated our Big 

Creek Hydro Facilities since 1928. It produces about a thousand 

megawatts of electricity serving approximately a million homes in 

Central and Southern California. 

All of the land associated with our hydroelectric facilities is either owned outright by Edison, or is licensed from the Forest Service under the authority of the Federal Power Act, and our FERC 

hydroelectric license. 

The land transfer that is at issue in this legislation to the Sequoia Council will be the first time that a private owner will own 

property within our hydroelectric project boundaries, and so we are 

kind of plowing new ground in that regard. 

We are concerned that a private party could change SCE’s rights. 

The ownership by a private party could change SCE’s rights with 

respect to the way that water is managed in the Shaver Lake area, 

particularly Shaver Lake, and thereby impair hydroelectricity. 

But I think it is important to understand that of the 160 acres 

that are being transferred under this exchange, approximately 148 

are basically in Shaver Lake. That is, that they are under water 

most of the time. So when you operate a hydrofacility, what we do 

through the operation of our dams, and our penstocks, and the tunnels in the area, is that we manage the water levels in the lakes 

to run through the power houses to produce the power. 

And so any potential interference with the water usage through 

docks, or marinas, or any other kinds of usage that would impair 

our ability to use this water, could present a serious threat to our 

hydroelectric operation. 

I am not sure—and what I have heard today is that there should 

not be any problem in resolving this issue because I understand everybody wants us to be able to operate our hydroelectric facilities, 

and nobody wants to encumber our rights. 

We have had a long history with the Boy Scouts. This Camp 

Chawanakee that was mentioned, most of it is provided under a 

lease by Edison to the Boy Scouts, about 100 acres, and we have 

leased that to them for over 40 years. 

The Boy Scouts are obviously responsible tenants, and it is a 

very camp ground, and there are thousands of Boy Scouts that 

have used it in the past, and we expect will use it in the future. 

We have been talking to the Sequoia Council about a 10 year extension, and are even looking forward to talking about a 30 year 

35

extension of this lease, which would guarantee the use of the camp 

ground at least for that period. 

And I can tell you that in spite of a problem that we had with 

one of our map drawers that drew a map erroneously that showed 

this land being potentially developed, which is hard to imagine, we 

have no plans for that property in the foreseeable future. 

So we think that using it as a camp ground for the Boy Scouts 

is a fine use of that property, and we are prepared to enter into 

a lease of up to 30 years. But specifically what do the amendments 

that we have proposed do? There are basically two. 

One is that it imposes an easement. It asks that the Forest Service put an easement to preserve the rights that we currently have 

to operate the hydroelectric facilities and a deed restriction that 

mirrors that easement. 

And we believe that this will accomplish what we have talked 

about doing; that is, to enable us to use the water in the lake without nay encroachment so that we can operate the hydrofacilities. 

Second, since there is no provision in the bill as it exists today 

to prevent a private owner from subsequently reselling the land to 

another private owner, and I am not suggesting that the Boy 

Scouts would do that. 

But with land, you have got to make these provisions explicit, 

and we have a provision that says if the Boy Scouts, Sequoia Council, in the future determine that they want to sell this land to another private party that Edison would have the right of first offer, 

so that we would be able to purchase the land back instead of having it go someplace else. That concludes my comments. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Right on the money. 

Mr. FIELDER. We urge the Committee to consider our amendments, and we look forward to answering questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fielder follows:]

Statement of John R. Fielder, Senior Vice President,

Southern California Edison Company, on H.R. 1651

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am John R. 

Fielder, Senior Vice President of Regulatory Policy and Affairs of Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE appreciates the opportunity to present testimony concerning H.R. 1651, the proposed conveyance of Federal land in the Sierra National 

Forest to the Sequoia Council of the Boy Scouts of America (Council). 

SCE’s purpose today is to express our support for H.R. 1651, provided that the 

bill is amended to ensure that SCE maintains the same ability it now possesses regarding the SCE-owned hydroelectric project located in part on the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service)-owned land that is the subject of the proposed land exchange 

(the ‘‘Federal land’’). Specifically, we request that the Congress amend H.R. 1651 

to ensure that SCE continues to have the right to enter upon, occupy, and use the 

Federal land for hydroelectric project purposes as we do today. The Committee 

needs to specify in the law that the Council or any other non-Federal owner cannot 

interfere or prohibit SCE’s existing rights to own, operate, and maintain the Shaver 

Lake reservoir for those power production purposes. Such amendments will ensure 

the continued operation of a reliable, renewable, and low-cost source of electricity 

for Central and Southern California residents, while allowing the Council to receive 

the Federal lands. 

To provide context to my testimony, let me briefly explain SCE’s role in operating 

the Big Creek Hydroelectric System. 

Southern California Edison 

SCE is the nation’s second-largest investor-owned electric utility company, serving 

more than 11 million people within a 50,000-square mile area in Central and Southern California. Headquartered in Rosemead, California, SCE is a regulated public 

36

utility that serves more than 4.5 million business and residential customers and has 

provided high quality, reliable electric service for more than a century. 

Big Creek Hydroelectric System 

SCE owns, operates, and maintains the Big Creek Hydroelectric System. This System consists of a series of dams, tunnels, powerhouses, and reservoirs tucked within 

the 1.3 million acre Sierra National Forest. A network of tunnels and penstocks connects six man-made lakes and many water diversions with the System’s nine 

powerhouses. After producing enough power to serve one million homes, the water 

returns to the San Joaquin River, a major source of both municipal and agricultural 

water throughout the San Joaquin Valley. 

The Big Creek System was originally envisioned in October of 1902 and has been 

producing power since 1923 to address the energy needs of Central and Southern 

California. While construction began in 1921, the Big Creek System expanded over 

the years to meet an increasing demand for electricity. Each new facility tapped the 

same water at different elevations, earning the System the reputation as ‘‘the hardest working water in the world.’’ As engineered, the Big Creek System maximizes 

electricity production efficiency, producing up to 1,056 MW of clean, renewable energy. The System is located on National Forest land and SCE-owned land. SCE 

holds seven licenses from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for 

Big Creek System operation. These FERC licenses give SCE the right to use the 

National Forest land (including the Forest Service-owned Federal land that is the 

subject of H.R. 1651) for hydropower project purposes. 

H.R. 1651 provides for the exchange of land between the Forest Service and the 

Council. The land exchange will result in Council ownership of about 160 acres of 

property at SCE’s Shaver Lake reservoir, with approximately 147.5 acres underwater in the lake and almost 13 acres of land along the Shaver Lake reservoir 

shore. The Federal land that is to be exchanged is part of Section 30, as shown on 

the map included as Attachment 1. 

The Shaver Lake reservoir is an integral component of SCE’s Big Creek System. 

Built by SCE in 1928, the reservoir covers 2,186 surface acres, and holds over 

135,000 acre feet of water when full. Water released from the reservoir travels 

through a series of tunnels and penstocks generating power at four different 

powerhouses. Importantly, when Shaver Lake Reservoir is near capacity, SCE may 

operate the ‘‘pumped storage’’ aspect of the project. The Eastwood powerhouse is capable of pumping water back through the reservoir to another small reservoir at 

night, taking advantage of inexpensive power. Then, during the peak energy use 

hours the next day, the water returns to Shaver Lake reservoir through the 

Eastwood powerhouse generating 200 MW of low-cost, renewable hydropower. After 

leaving the SCE Big Creek System, the water continues its natural course down the 

San Joaquin River into the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Millerton Reservoir for distribution to central valley farmers, businesses, and residences. 

Before initial operation of Shaver Lake reservoir in 1928, SCE purchased approximately 15,000 acres of privately held lands in the area, virtually all the land surrounding the Shaver Lake reservoir, including the vast majority of the land inundated by reservoir operations. The 147.5 acres of Federal land included within the 

proposed land exchange is owned by the Forest Service and constitutes less than 

seven percent of the total reservoir surface area. The Forest Service owned this 

property well before SCE commenced operations at the Shaver Lake reservoir. The 

Federal Power Act and the FERC license for Project No. 67 grant SCE the right 

to use the Federal land. 

If H.R. 1651 is signed into law, the Forest Service will no longer own the Federal 

land, and the Council will become the first private owner of the lands underneath 

the Shaver Lake Reservoir. The FERC license does not give SCE the right to use 

privately-owned lands. SCE is required under its FERC project license to obtain 

those rights. Thus, without sufficient protection, the land exchange proposed in 

H.R. 1651 to a private party could significantly change SCE’s rights to operate and 

maintain the reservoir for power production purposes. Accordingly, to assure the 

availability of this renewable and clean generating resource, H.R. 1651 must be 

amended to protect these rights. Our concerns with the proposed legislation are explained in detail below. 

Land Exchange Concerns 

With appropriate amendments, SCE supports the conveyance of the Federal land 

identified in H.R. 1651 to the Council. Our goal is to ensure that such a conveyance 

not result in any interference with SCE’s right to operate and maintain Shaver 

Lake reservoir, or any other part of the Big Creek System. 

37

1Section 24 of the Federal Power Act; 16 U.S.C. § 818 {emphasis added}

Shaver Reservoir is a part of the Project No. 67 license issued by FERC to SCE. 

As with all FERC-licensed hydroelectric projects located on government lands, the 

Federal land within the Project No. 67 boundary has been designated as a ‘‘power 

site reservation’’ pursuant to Section 24 of the Federal Power Act in recognition of 

the Federal property’s beneficial public use for the renewable generation of electricity. Section 24 provides that land necessary for the generation of hydroelectric 

power shall be ‘‘reserved from entry, location, or other disposal 1’’ unless otherwise 

directed by FERC or Congress. 

This means that the Forest Service is unable to transfer the Federal land without 

FERC or Congressional approval. Any FERC decision to approve the conveyance of 

the Federal land within a power site reservation may only occur if FERC determines 

that such conveyance would not injure or destroy the hydroelectric power development purposes associated with the land. To make that determination, Federal 

Power Section 24 provides for FERC to impose restrictions on the land transfer as 

necessary to protect the power purposes of the land. Further, FERC will ensure that 

such a conveyance is subject to a ‘‘reservation of the right to enter upon, occupy, 

and use’’ the Federal land for power development purposes. In 1920, when Congress 

enacted the Federal Power Act, these Section 24 protections were designed to protect hydroelectric project owners from the adverse affects of potential uses or conveyances of government lands. The H.R. 1651 land exchange, as currently proposed, 

does not offer the protections afforded by Section 24. Thus, Congress should accept 

the SCE-proposed amendments to H.R. 1651 to ensure the Shaver Lake reservoir 

receives the same protections envisioned in Federal Power Act Section 24. 

For example, the bill does not clearly provide SCE with a continuing right to use 

the 147.5 acres of Federal land within project boundaries for project purposes nor 

does it prohibit the new land owner from interfering with such project purposes. As 

with any hydroelectric project reservoir, water levels in Shaver Lake are raised and 

lowered depending on energy generation needs, water runoff, and state water rights. 

Without any legislative protection in the current bill, the new owner of the Federal 

land may attempt to prohibit SCE from inundating the Federal land or may impose 

conditions on the level, use and flow of water on the Federal land to be conveyed. 

As described earlier, no private person or organization currently owns inundated or 

shoreline property that would adversely affect SCE’s water rights or the Shaver 

Reservoir operations. Without the appropriate amendments, this bill could allow a 

private entity to control water-levels and continued operations of this hydroelectric 

facility, in turn offsetting long-term power availability for California consumers. 

Moreover, the transfer of ownership of this land to the Council does not preclude 

the organization from subsequently selling or subleasing the Federal land to either 

a for-profit user more interested in maximizing returns than maintaining the property in its current natural state, or to a person who may use the land in a manner 

incompatible with hydroelectric resources. 

The Existing Council Camp 

For the past 40 years, SCE has leased to the Council approximately 100 acres of 

land known as Camp Chawanakee. This land, which SCE has owned for about 80 

years, is immediately adjacent to the 160 acres of Federal land subject to the proposed land exchange. The Camp Chawanakee land is not a part of the land exchange, nor will the land exchange create any rights in this land for the Council. 

The Federal land proposed for conveyance by H.R. 1651 contains only about three 

acres of land actually used by the Council as part of Camp Chawanakee. The Forest 

Service issues a permit to the Council for those three acres. The other Federal land 

is not permitted for use by the Council and is not currently a part of Camp 

Chawanakee. Thus, H.R. 1651 by itself would not significantly further the Council’s stated goal of securing Camp Chawanakee. 

SCE is in the process of negotiating a new 10-year license or lease with the Council for the 100 acres. A longer term lease is also feasible. The Council has also expressed an interest in purchasing our land. However, Southern California Edison 

does not want to sell the land we lease to the Council and we are presently precluded from selling the land by California State Law. Furthermore, the land is currently included within the Project No. 67 licensed boundaries and is subject to California Public Utilities Commission regulation. The Camp Chawanakee lands are an 

integral part of the recreation component of Project No. 67, designed to meet FERC 

recreation objectives for hydroelectric projects. Thus, SCE is unwilling and unable 

to sell Camp Chawanakee, and since the Big Creek System is an essential part of 

our long-term resource base, we would oppose any efforts to force or require such 

a sale. 

38

SCE has offered to sell the Council other unencumbered SCE-owned lands at alternative sites in the immediate area. However, the Council has refused this offer 

and has expressed an intent, in writing and orally, to use the land acquired through 

H.R. 1651 as a way to ‘‘protect the status quo’’ of its lease of Camp Chawanakee 

and to ‘‘provide the Council with the assurance that the Camp will not be closed.’’

SCE is concerned that these statements suggest that the purpose of the proposed 

land exchange is to unduly influence future SCE decisions regarding the continued 

lease, sale, or other disposition of the Camp Chawanakee property. To ensure that 

SCE is not placed into this position with the Council in the future, H.R. 1651 must 

be amended to ensure that the Council, or any subsequent owner, cannot interfere 

with SCE’s operations at the Shaver Lake reservoir. 

SCE Proposed Amendments 

To eliminate our concerns with the current legislation, SCE is proposing amendments to the bill that would ensure the continued use of the 147.5 acres of inundated Federal land for Big Creek Hydroelectric System purposes and would grant 

SCE the first opportunity to purchase the Federal land if the Council ever sought 

to sell the forest service land for a profit. These amendments are shown in 

Attachment 2. 

First, the SCE-proposed amendments include the requirement for an easement 

and a deed restriction that would protect our right to maintain and operate Shaver 

Reservoir without interference by the new owner of the Federal land. These amendments also fulfill the objectives of Federal Power Act Section 24. 

Second, the amendments would grant SCE a Right of First Offer if the Council 

seeks to transfer an interest in the Federal land. The Right of First Offer ensures 

that the Council will be able to transfer the land on terms acceptable to the Council, 

but gives SCE the first opportunity to buy the land. The amendments still allow for 

the conveyance of Federal land to the Council from the initial recipient of the Federal land. Yet, these amendments also ensure that Council ownership will not interfere with our operation and maintenance of the Big Creek Hydroelectric System. 

Council Proposed Amendments 

The Council has also proposed certain amendments to H.R. 1651. Unfortunately, 

these amendments are unsatisfactory to SCE. First, the amendments would not give 

SCE the right to operate the property on the Federal land to be conveyed. Article 

5 of the Project No. 67 license requires that SCE obtain fee title or the permanent 

right to use the land for project purposes. Second, the amendments too narrowly define the prohibition on interference with project purposes. Over 100 years of experience dealing with private property owners who have electric utility assets on their 

property has shown SCE that without explicit definition of the terms ‘‘operation and 

maintenance’’ in the quit claim deed, disagreements over the nature of SCE’s rights 

to operate its utility assets will occur. Thus, SCE desires that this legislation be absolutely clear so that 20 years from now, no argument will arise over the meaning 

of the grant and prohibitions in the Federal land deed to the Council. Third, the 

Council’s proposed amendments do not include these restrictions in the quit claim 

deed to the Federal land. Recording such covenants in a quit claim deed and an 

easement is standard real estate practice and discloses the requirements to the public and any future owner of the Federal land. Such provisions ensure that future 

property owners will follow these same requirements. Finally, the Council’s proposed amendments do not offer the owner of the hydroelectric project the right to 

purchase the Federal land under terms and conditions acceptable to the Council or 

any subsequent owner. 

Conclusion 

For the continued successful operation of the Big Creek Hydroelectric System, current Federal law and regulation of Federal lands, if conveyed to the Council, must 

be articulated in H.R. 1651. H.R. 1651 must not result in the degradation of SCE’s 

rights to operate and maintain its hydroelectric system in the future. Accordingly, 

our proposed amendments to H.R. 1651 will permit the Council to obtain the lands 

it desires, while at the same time preventing any interference with the operations 

of our hydroelectric facilities in contravention of Federal Power Act Section 24. We 

ask you to let the ‘‘hardest working water in the world’’ continue to meet the energy 

needs of Central and Southern California. H.R. 1651 should be amended as SCE 

proposes. 

SCE appreciates the opportunity to participate in this hearing. Thank you for 

your consideration of our comments.

39


87805.006
40


87805.007
41


87805.008
42


87805.009
43


87805.010
44


87805.011
45

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Fielder, and the Chair has no 

questions, and we will go directly to Mr. Radanovich. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Tancredo. I have got about six 

questions, if I can go ahead and ask them. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Absolutely. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK. Thank you very much, and also for the 

valuable testimony here today. I do want to ask about six questions 

just to get the information down on the record. And, Ms. Estill, if 

I could begin with you, I would like to be able to do that. 

When the Forest Service performs land exchanges with private 

parties, what types of terms and conditions has the Secretary of 

Agriculture placed on this conveyance as authorized by this bill? 

Ms. ESTILL. Well, they would be subject to valid existing rights, 

and we would ensure that the hydropower operation could continue 

on. Now, the specific language I can get to you, but that in essence 

that is what it would do. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Would you please get me the specific information? 

Ms. ESTILL. Certainly. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. If you would, I would like to have it as part 

of the Congressional record here. That would be just fine and I 

would appreciate it. Another question is would the Secretary, in 

making the conveyance authorized by 1651 protect and preserve 

Southern California Edison’s right under the Federal Power Act, or 

FERC regulations, and any other applicable law, to operate and 

maintain the hydroelectric facility located at Shaver Lake? 

Ms. ESTILL. That is certainly the intent, and we would try to do 

that. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK. Thanks. Why is the assessed valuation of 

the 148 acres of underwater land set at zero? 

Ms. ESTILL. This has not actually gone through an appraisal 

process. The values were set by the bill. 


87805.012
46

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK. Great. Thanks. Could the Forest Service 

grant Edison an easement for the use of the 148 acres for hydropower purposes before issuing a deed to Mr. Glassman? 

Ms. ESTILL. Just a second. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. That’s fine. 

Ms. ESTILL. We could do it in the deed as a restricted covenant 

in the deed. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. The Forest Service could do that? 

Ms. ESTILL. The Forest Service could do that. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK. Thank you. Mr. Fielder, thank you, too, 

for your testimony here, and I want to ask this question. Has 

Southern California Edison found precedent in law for the amendments that you seek in H.R. 1651, and if so, would you please be 

able to provide such a precedent prior to the mark-up of this bill, 

which will be the next step of this bill after this hearing. 

Mr. FIELDER. It is my understanding that this is a unique situation, where we are using a Federal statute to transfer the property, 

and there are property rights associated with it. 

I think the Forest Service normally can do this without a Federal 

law. So it is a little unique. We will look for precedence and see 

whether there is anything and get it to you certainly. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK. Thank you very much. Mr. Perkins, and 

welcome to the Committee as well. The testimony given by Southern California Edison says that you plan to use H.R. 1651 to unduly influence the future Edison decisions regarding the continued 

lease, sale, or otherwise disposition of Camp Chawanakee property. 

Is it true? 

Mr. FIELDER. No, and I have expressed that to their attorney in 

a meeting that we had with our executive committee of our board 

of directors, that we have no intention of forcing them. And quite 

frankly that is not the way that the Boy Scouts do business, and 

we respect their rights to make decisions about their property. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Very good. Thank you. I think that is about 

the only questions that I have. I would just say in closing that I 

know that there is some details to be worked out, and we are certainly not going to be able to work it out during this hearing of this 

bill. 

It did take quite a long time to get this hearing established, and 

so I don’t want to be the one responsible for limiting the progress 

of this issue. So if I could encourage both Southern California Edison and the Boy Scouts to work this out to mutual satisfaction to 

get what I think everybody recognizes as a worthy project done, it 

would be much appreciated. 

And if we can get it done and move to mark-up from here, and 

get the bill finished this year, that would be just a wonderful thing. 

So I would encourage both of you, and I applaud you and thank 

you for working together; and if you would continue to do so and 

get this resolved, it would be much appreciated. Thank you very 

much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Radanovich. I would thank the 

panel very much for their attendance here, and members may have 

additional questions for the witnesses, and we would ask that you 

please respond to those in writing. The hearing record will be held 

open for 10 days for those responses, and thank you all very much. 

47

Mr. TANCREDO. Now I want to introduce Congressman Rob 

Bishop, the First District of Utah, sponsor of H.R. 511, for his 

opening statement, followed by Ms. Estill. I recognize Mr. Bishop 

for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. BISHOP. I appreciate it. Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that this 

House passed last year, but the Senate in their wisdom did not get 

to it. And that has been remedied this time around, and so if you 

pass the Mount Naomi bill one more time, you will never Mount 

Naomi again as long as you live, unless you want to blow it up or 

something. 

The Mount Naomi Wilderness is a little over 44,000 wilderness 

acres in Northern Utah. It makes it one of the larger wilderness 

areas, and one of the problems that it faces is that it is very close 

to the city of Logan, and that means that when it was created 

there is a utility corridor that goes through the edge of this wilderness area that includes telephone, water, utility structures. 

They actually were there before the wilderness area was created 

and obviously since that is not a definition of wilderness area, they 

don’t really exist, but you can understand how Logan City has a 

difficult time of maintaining those facilities that don’t exist in this 

area causes a problem. 

One of the solutions would be very simply to take these 31 acres, 

which is the smallest full print that is possible, and in which this 

utility corridor exists, revert it back to where it was, and then give 

to the Forest Service or create on the other side actually, the southern side of this wilderness area, another 31 acres which does fit the 

criteria of wilderness. 

Therefore, the acreage would not take place, and Logan City 

would be able to facilitate their lines, electricity would flow evenly 

to Logan City and their football team, and Utah State would never 

again have an excuse for losing games in their stadium. 

This I believe has the excitement and enthusiastic endorsement 

of the Forest Service, as well as Logan City, Cash County, and it 

seems to be a simple and common sense solution to a problem. 

That is under 5 minutes, right? 

Mr. TANCREDO. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. Good. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Rob Bishop, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Utah, on H.R. 511

Mr. Chairman, thank you for including this important bill in today’s legislative 

hearing and thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

Mount Naomi is located in the Wasatch–Cache National Forest near Logan Utah. 

The Wilderness area is composed of 44,523 acres, making it one of the largest wilderness areas in the state of Utah. 

Mount Naomi was designated as a Wilderness Area by the Utah Wilderness Act 

of 1984, in a bill sponsored by my predecessor and the former Chairman of the Resources Committee, Congressman James V. Hansen. However, since its creation, 

complications in the management of the Wilderness Area have arisen due to the 

proximity of the wilderness boundary to the Logan City, Utah, limits. A utility corridor, containing water and power lines, runs through the southwest portion of the 

Wilderness Area. You can only begin to imagine the problems this has presented 

48

to the utility owners and the Forest Service in seeking to gain access to and manage 

this portion of the Wilderness Area. 

The utility corridor existed prior to the designation of the wilderness area. It’s inclusion in the Wilderness Area was a congressional oversight. A simple adjustment 

of the wilderness boundary will provide a common-sense solution to both the utility 

corridor’s maintenance and the Forest Service’s management problems. This legislation will adjust the wilderness boundary to exclude the 31-acre parcel that houses 

the utility corridor. The new boundary will follow the natural contour lines of Mount 

Naomi. To compensate for this adjustment, and prevent a net loss of wilderness, the 

Forest Service has identified a separate 31-acre parcel with wilderness characteristics located adjacent to the southern boundary of the wilderness area. This needful 

adjustment will provide a manageable, natural boundary for the wilderness area. 

This legislation has the support of the local Forest Service Office, Logan City, and 

people of Cache County, and is the smallest area needed to alleviate the problem 

with the utility corridor. 

Additionally, a small portion of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail has been proposed 

within the 31 acre area adjacent to the Logan City limits. This portion of the trail 

would connect with a number of other trails in the Bonneville Shoreline Trail system, and provide outstanding recreational opportunities to thousands of people each 

year. When completed, the trail system will travel along the shoreline of the ancient 

Lake Bonneville, which stretched from northern Utah to southern Utah, near 

present-day Cedar City. This trail system has been incredibly popular for hikers, 

mountain bikers, and equestrian traffic. This is the only portion of this trail system 

that lies within the wilderness area. 

This is good legislation and I thank my colleagues on the Committee for holding 

this hearing today. I urge its quick discharge out of the Subcommittee and Committee, so that this long-standing problem may be corrected. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. I look forward to 

working with you on issues of mutual interest. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Ms. Estill. 

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH ESTILL, DEPUTY CHIEF, 

PROGRAMS, LEGISLATION, AND COMMUNICATIONS, FOREST 

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Ms. ESTILL. The Department supports H.R. 511, the bill that 

would adjust the boundary amount in the Naomi Wilderness and 

the Wasatch-Cache National Forest in Utah. We believe that the 

boundary adjustments will add a higher level of wilderness values, 

including solitude, scenery, and pristine qualities. 

The adjustment will provide for the alignment of Bonneville 

Shoreline Trail, a multi-county recreational trail, designed predominantly for heavy, non-motorized use, including mountain 

bikes, that wouldn’t be allowed in the wilderness area, and which 

does not conform to the criteria of a wilderness trail. 

The boundary adjustment would also eliminate the need for the 

power line easement within the wilderness area, which is another 

non-conforming use. So we wholeheartedly support this. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you very much, Ms. Estill. 

Does the gentleman have any other questions? 

Mr. BISHOP. The gentleman has no further questions. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Then I think we have taken care of this one. So, 

thank you very much again. Actually, I kept apologizing to you earlier because I thought I kept you over. I didn’t realize that you 

were the permanent witness. 

Ms. ESTILL. I am your permanent witness in five bills today. 

Mr. TANCREDO. OK. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 

Bishop. I want to introduce Congressman Mike Thompson, from 

the First District of California, the sponsor of H.R. 708, for his 

opening statement, followed again by Ms. Estill. 

49

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am here as you 

stated to provide testimony on my bill, H.R. 708, and this measure 

is supported by the property owner whose property it affects, as 

well as the National Forest Service. 

And what it attempts to do is resolve a longstanding problem, 

one that I have been working on not only the entire time that I 

have been in Congress, but I think when I was first elected to the 

State Senate when this issue first came about, and there is a private property owner that purchased a ranch, a longstanding ranch 

in my district, and operated it more as a recreational venue than 

a ranching venue. 

And after a while they had some problems with the Forest Service, and a dispute over a road that was eroding, and the property 

owner wanted to close off the road, and the Forest Service said, no, 

it is our property, and you can’t close it off. And he said, no, I have 

got a deed right here that says that it is my property. 

And so the dispute ended in a new survey which found out not 

only was the road the property of the Forest Service, but the land 

upon which the barn was built was the Forest Service property 

also. 

And so we have been working to try and resolve this. We finally 

came up with the idea that the Forest Service is going to just sell 

120 acres to the landowner, and then they will use that money to 

buy more appropriate property. 

This 120 acres, the way it is situated, is of no or little value to 

the Forest Service, and if it is taken away from the property owner, 

it is an area that is of no value to him either, and this is an amicable way, and an equitable way, to resolve the issue. 

And as I pointed out, everybody supports it; the Forest Service, 

the landowner, the county, and anyone else who knows about it 

and understands the situation. And I would really appreciate your 

favorable consideration of the bill. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Mike Thompson, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California, on H.R. 708

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

provide testimony on H.R. 708. I appreciate the Committee’s continuing leadership 

on sound resources legislation. 

H.R. 708 would resolve a long-standing problem regarding the property boundary 

between the Mendocino National Forest and the Faraway Ranch in rural Northern 

California. The National Forest Service and the local landowners jointly support 

H.R. 708. 

The Faraway Ranch is a tract of several hundred acres of private land in Lake 

County, California, surrounded by Mendocino National Forest lands. The original 

ranch was settled and patented as private land in 1884, prior to establishment of 

the National Forest. Various dwellings, roads, fences, water impoundments and 

other improvements have been constructed on the ranch over the years. The current 

owner purchased the main portion of the ranch in 1989. 

An updated survey of the area conducted in the 1990’s revealed substantial errors 

in the official historical survey. However, because the past owners had relied on the 

historical survey for the last century, long-standing buildings unintentionally 

encroached onto Federal lands. 

The corrected property boundary lines are in an untenable location for the ranch 

owner and for the public use and management of the adjacent Mendocino National 

Forest lands. This bill adjusts the property boundaries to eliminate the encroachVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:51 Sep 12, 2003 Jkt 087420 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\87805.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
50

ments and provides a buffer around the ranch dwelling area. A buffer will enhance 

safety and provide reasonable privacy for public hunting, camping and motorized vehicle use and access on national forest lands in the area. The new boundaries outlined in this legislation will also simplify and reduce administrative expenses for the 

Forest Service. 

The ranch owner and Forest Service have been working cooperatively for several 

years on land exchange proposals to provide adjusted boundaries between the ranch 

and the Mendocino National Forest. In 1999, the parties reached a basic agreement 

regarding the configuration of bordering lands that should be transferred to the 

ranch to resolve the encroachment and property boundary management issues. 

These parcels total approximately 120 acres. 

This bill provides for prompt transfer of the 120 acres of national forest lands to 

the current ranch owner, in exchange for a payment equal to the fair market value 

of these lands according to Federal appraisal standards. The ranch owner will pay 

the direct costs of the transfer, including the title work, survey and appraisal. The 

payments will be deposited in the Treasury fund established by Public Law 90–171, 

known as the Sisk Act. 

This bill designates these funds for use by the Forest Service to purchase priority 

non-Federal lands adjacent to other national forest lands in California. 

No significant environmental or other issues have been identified regarding transfer of the specified 120 acres to the Faraway Ranch. These parcels are not considered to be of particular value for retention in the Mendocino National Forest. 

National forest boundary maintenance costs, use conflicts and safety risks will be 

reduced at the ranch location. The priority lands to be acquired by the Forest Service will be identified based on their proximity and contribution to national forest 

lands, wildlife habitat and for other uses. These lands will be purchased from willing sellers. Boundaries will be simplified and national forest values will be enhanced 

at the locations where the Forest Service acquires these lands. 

Thank you for this opportunity to discuss this important issue with the 

Committee. I would now like to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. 

Ms. Estill. 

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH ESTILL, DEPUTY CHIEF, 

PROGRAMS, LEGISLATION, AND COMMUNICATIONS, FOREST 

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Ms. ESTILL. With your permission, I will submit my entire testimony for the record, and jump to the bottom line. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Permission granted. 

Ms. ESTILL. Which is that the Department supports this bill, because it will improve the management efficiency for the forest, 

while recognizing the value of the public’s assets. 

I would like to also say that as H.R. 708, the Mendocino 

National Forest Land Exchange, and H.R. 1651, the Sierra 

National Forest Land Exchange, both illustrate that the Department has a number of facilities and pertinent administrative lands 

in excess to agency needs. 

The Fiscal Year 2004 budget contains a proposal for the establishment of a facilities acquisition and enhancement fund that 

would enable the Secretary to sell such units, and utilize the proceeds from those sales for the acquisition or development of land 

and improvements for administrative purposes. 

Funds collected under this authority would address backlogs and 

administrative consolidations, while improving efficiencies. 

The Department will submit proposed legislation to establish this 

fund in the upcoming weeks, and it might reduce your time and my 

time as a witness on these kinds of bills in the future. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you very much. 

51

Mr. THOMPSON. I would just like to add that this measure passed 

both this Committee and the House in the last Congress. Unfortunately, it was part of an Omnibus effort that didn’t do as well over 

in the Senate. So it is a bill whose time has come a number of 

times, and it would help both the Service, as well as the private 

property owner if we could expedite this action. Thank you. 

Mr. TANCREDO. Thank you very much, Mr. Thompson, and thank 

you very much, Ms. Estill, and if there is no further business to 

come before the Subcommittee, then we will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:38 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ