[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 1811, H.R. 2386 and H.R. 5081
=======================================================================
JOINT LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND
FOREST HEALTH
joint with the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION,
AND PUBLIC LANDS
and the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION,
WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
July 25, 2002
__________
Serial No. 107-145
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
80-967 PS
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Greg Walden, Oregon Hilda L. Solis, California
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Betty McCollum, Minnesota
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Tim Holden, Pennsylvania
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Tim Stewart, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel/Deputy Chief of Staff
Steven T. Petersen, Deputy Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH
SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado, Chairman
JAY INSLEE, Washington, Ranking Democrat Member
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania, Tom Udall, New Mexico
Vice Chairman Mark Udall, Colorado
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Betty McCollum, Minnesota
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
------
SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Samoa
Jim Saxton, New Jersey, Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Vice Chairman Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Richard W. Pombo, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North
Carolina
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands Ranking Democrat Member
Elton Gallegly, California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Joel Hefley, Colorado Samoa
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Tom Udall, New Mexico
Carolina, Mark Udall, Colorado
Vice Chairman Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mac Thornberry, Texas Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Chris Cannon, Utah Hilda L. Solis, California
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Jim Gibbons, Nevada
Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 25, 2002.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland, Prepared statement on H.R. 1811,
H.R. 2386 and H.R. 5081.................................... 62
Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah, Prepared statement on H.R. 2386............. 62
McInnis, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 42
Prepared statement on H.R. 1811.......................... 44
Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 54
Prepared statement on H.R. 5081.......................... 55
Udall, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Mexico.............................................. 59
Statement of Witnesses:
Barnett, Sherry, Deputy Assistant Director, Renewable
Resources and Planning, Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 2
Prepared statement on H.R. 2386.......................... 4
Cable, Linda, County Administrator, Swain County, North
Carolina, on behalf of the National Association of Counties
and the County Commissioners Association of North Carolina. 51
Prepared statement on H.R. 1811.......................... 53
Davis, Hon. Don, Commissioner, Rio Blanco County, Colorado,
on behalf of the National Association of Counties and
Colorado Counties, Inc..................................... 48
Prepared statement on H.R. 1811.......................... 49
Horn, William P., America Outdoors........................... 6
Prepared statement on H.R. 2386.......................... 8
Kearney, Chris, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Policy and
International Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior..... 44
Prepared statement on H.R. 1811 and H.R. 5081............ 46
Kimbell, Abigail, Associate Deputy Chief, Forest Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture............................. 16
Prepared statement on H.R. 2386.......................... 18
Mackey, Craig W., Public Policy Liaison, Outward Bound USA... 9
Prepared statement on H.R. 2386.......................... 11
Wallace, C. Brent, County Administrator, Tuolumne County,
Sonora, California......................................... 56
Prepared statement on H.R. 1811 and H.R. 5081............ 57
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1811 TO PROVIDE PERMANENT FUNDING FOR THE
PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES PROGRAM AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 2386 TO
ESTABLISH TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LANDS BY
OUTFITTERS AND TO FACILITATE PUBLIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE RECREATIONAL
USE AND ENJOYMENT OF SUCH LANDS; AND H.R. 5081 TO PROVIDE FULL FUNDING
FOR THE PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES PROGRAM FOR THE NEXT FIVE FISCAL
YEARS, TO PROTECT LOCAL JURISDICTIONS AGAINST THE LOSS OF PROPERTY TAX
REVENUES WHEN PRIVATE LANDS ARE ACQUIRED BY A FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT
AGENCY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
----------
Thursday, July 25, 2002
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, joint with the
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, & Public Lands &
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife & Oceans
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Scott McInnis
[Chairman of the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health]
presiding.
Mr. McInnis. The Committee will come to order.
I apologize for the delay, but the House finished last
night about 2:30 in the morning. So the absence of our members,
they are probably all snoozing, trying to get some sleep.
The Subcommittees on Forests and Forest Health; Fisheries
Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans; and National Parks,
Recreation and Public Lands is now in order.
The Subcommittees are meeting today to hear testimony on
H.R. 5180, to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey
real property in the Dixie National Forest in the State of
Utah; H.R. 2386, outfitter policy of 2001; H.R. 1811, PILT and
Refuge Revenue Sharing permanent funding Act; H.R. 5081,
Property Tax Endowment Act of 2002; and H.R. 5032, to convey
National Forest System lands in the Mendocino National Forest
of California, to authorize the use of proceeds from such
conveyances for National Forest purposes.
Two of the bills on our agenda today weren't jointly
referred, H.R. 5180 and 5032. Because of members' schedules,
H.R. 5180 will be first on the agenda, and 5032 will be at the
end. Also, because of today's tight schedule, I am going to ask
that each of the Ranking Members and Chairmen from the other
Subcommittees simply submit their statements for the record.
Thank you.
I ask unanimous consent that Representative Mike Thompson
of California have permission to sit on the dais and
participate in the hearing when he arrives. Hearing no
objection, it is so ordered.
The first two bills on the agenda are the Chairman's H.R.
5180 and H.R. 2386.
I would like to introduce our witnesses from the Department
of Agriculture and Interior. Ms. Sherry Barnett, Deputy
Assistant Director, Renewable Resources, Bureau of Land
Management, will be testifying on H.R. 2386. Ms. Abigail
Kimbell, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System, will
be testifying on each of the bills. I am going to ask that all
of you remain at the witness table and testify on each of the
bills with the other witnesses.
Our other witnesses for H.R. 5180 are Mr. Kirk Harrison,
property owner, State of Utah; and on H.R. 2386, we will have
Mr. Horn with America Outdoors, and Mr. Mackey, Public Policy
Liaison, Outward Bound USA.
I would remind all the witnesses that we do restrict your
comments to 5 minutes. I ask that you as a courtesy recognize
that and would ask all the witnesses to go ahead and be seated
at the table.
Welcome to the witnesses. I think we will go ahead and
start right off. I have no opening statement, and any statement
that I have I will go ahead and submit the comments for the
record.
Mr. McInnis. I now recognize Ms. Barnett for her statement.
STATEMENT OF SHERRY BARNETT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
RENEWABLE RESOURCES, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Ms. Barnett. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today on H.R. 2386, the Outfitter Policy Act of 2001.
The Department appreciates the need to establish consistent
terms and conditions for outfitter and guide services and the
continuing need to enhance opportunities for recreational use
of public lands. Outfitters and guides are important partners
to the Department. More than just visitor service providers,
outfitters and guides are critical Ambassadors and extensions,
if you will, of the public land agencies in providing safe and
enjoyable trips or activities for millions of visitors using
their public lands.
The Department supports the purpose of H.R. 2386 and shares
a common goal to develop consistent terms and conditions while
facilitating public opportunities for recreational use and
enjoyment of the public lands. However, we note that the
Department is currently developing new regulations that we
believe will address many of the purposes of this legislation.
Also, the Department does have concerns with some of the
provisions as outlined in the current bill. We look forward to
working closely with the Committee to address them so that we
can provide the best services to both outfitters and visitors
on our public lands.
We also want to ensure that these policies are beneficial
to the visiting public, are fair and equitable and are
efficient, consistent, collaborative, convenient and
accountable.
Outfitters and guides are critical providers of visitor
services, ranking from river rafting, back country horse pack
trips, wilderness adventures, dog mushing, and a variety of
other activities on the public lands.
To manage these outfitting services provided by public
entities, long-term policies and regulations, including a
permit system, have been in place for many years for all
agencies within the Department. While outfitters and guides are
important providers to visitors to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service refuges and Bureau of Reclamation projects, the
majority of outfitter and guide permits, well over 3,000, are
issued and managed by the Bureau of Land Management into the
large acreage and the diverse resources managed by the BLM
throughout the Western States.
The Department is committed to further enhancing our
regulatory framework as identified in H.R. 2386. Recently, BLM
has been reviewing policies and procedures and developing
updated regulations for managing the partnerships between
outfitters, guides, and the Department. Most of the goals in
H.R. 2386 are currently contained in existing BLM regulation
and policy and are further addressed in the new regulations now
under review.
H.R. 2386 proposes a term of 10 years for all outfitter
permits. The Department can support a term of a permit for up
to 10 years as outlined in the legislation, providing that
flexibility is allowed for agencies such as the BLM to respond
to changes in resource conditions or other reasonable and
substantial changes such as resource management plan updates or
other unforeseen changes in public demand in a given field
location.
While the Department recognizes that small business owners,
such as most outfitters and guides, often face the need for
more stability in order to secure financing, insurance and
other demands, it is important that the agency retain the
flexibility to manage the issues with outfitters and guides,
specifically issues that could affect visitor safety, resource
responsibilities, or some other change in the original permit.
Such a policy would balance the principles of efficiency and
convenience, while ensuring that the visiting public benefits
and BLM is accountable to the public for the resources that it
manages.
H.R. 2386 addresses allocation of use. For the BLM, the
proposed 508 location of use provisions in the bill are a
conflict with current regulations and policy.
Under current law and policy, BLM allows outfitters and
guides as much freedom as possible under a special recreation
permit to operate and use lands as they need to operate their
business and provide services to the visitors. Specific
allocations are only granted when there has been an established
limit of use allowed in a particular area as a result of
analysis, public involvement, consultation through the resource
management plan process, and an environmental impact statement.
Although an allocation of use may be more secure, such a
policy would compromise the principles of fairness, efficiency,
and accountability,k and it may not be beneficial to the
visiting public. We would be happy to work with the Committee
on this issue to better balance these principles so that the
outfitters can maximize their operations while providing
quality visitor services.
The Department is concerned about provisions for temporary
permits. The Department suggests temporary permits should have
terms not exceeding a year. This method has worked well. It is
fair, consistent, efficient; it requires accountability; and,
it provides flexibility to the Department so that we can
maintain the highest standards required under existing law and
policy for visitor protection and resource management. The
allocation of use for temporary or transferred permits as
allowed for in H.R. 2386 raise similar concerns as expressed
earlier for permanent permittees.
We would also like to work with the Committee on the
provision in the legislation to ensure timely processing and
approval of transfer permits.
H.R. 2386 contains many positive goals and procedures for
outfitter and guide services on public lands managed by the
Department.
Mr. Chairman, while we discussed most of our concerns
today, let me assure you, we stand ready to assist and address
remaining issues so the purposes of this legislation can be
realized for the many partners that provide outfitter and guide
services to many of the public land users. We have offered our
concerns today in the spirit of maintaining the highest
standards for the public and permittees providing outfitter
services. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to
discuss these issues with the Outfitter Policy Act of 2001. I
will be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Barnett follows:]
Statement of Sherry Barnett, Deputy Assistant Director, Renewable
Resources and Planning, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of
the Interior
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on
H.R. 2386, the Outfitter Policy Act of 2001. The Department appreciates
the need to establish consistent terms and conditions for outfitter and
guide services on public lands and the continuing need to enhance
public opportunities for recreational use of Public Lands. Outfitters
and guides are important partners to the Department. More than just
visitor service providers, outfitters and guides are critical
ambassadors and ``extensions'' of the public land agencies in providing
safe and enjoyable trips or activities for thousands of visitors using
their public lands.
The Department supports the purpose of H.R. 2386 and shares a
common goal to develop consistent terms and conditions while
facilitating public opportunities for recreational use and enjoyment of
public lands. However, we note that the Department is currently
developing new regulations that we believe will address many of the
purposes of this legislation. The Department does have concerns with
some of the provisions as outlined in the current Bill. We look forward
to working closely with the Committee to address them so that we can
provide the best services to both outfitters and visitors on our public
lands.
Relationship of H.R. 2386 to Existing Regulations and Policies
Outfitters and guides are critical providers of visitor services
ranging from river rafting, backcountry horse pack trips, wilderness
adventures, and a myriad of other activities on public lands. To manage
the outfitting services provided by private entities, long-term
policies and regulations, including a permit system, have been in place
for many years for all agencies within the Department. For the BLM
these are codified as regulations (43 CFR 8372) and are managed through
a Manual and Handbook to maintain consistency across the 262 million
acres the agency manages. H.R. 2386 also affects other agencies within
the Department: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the
Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). At the USFWS, most outfitter or
guide permits are handled through a permit system on a case by case
method that considers biological soundness, economic feasibility,
effects on other refuge programs, and public demand. Reclamation
manages its outfitters and other visitor services, through commercial
concession operations under a licensing authority using a special
recreation permit. While outfitters and guides are important providers
to visitors to USFWS refuges and Reclamation projects, the majority of
outfitter and guide permits--well over 3,000--are issued and managed by
the BLM due to the large acreage and diverse resources managed
throughout the western states.
Recently, BLM has been reviewing and updating policies and
procedures to develop updated regulations for managing the partnership
between outfitters, guides, and the Department. These regulations have
not yet been finalized, but most of the goals in H.R. 2386 are
currently contained in existing BLM regulation and policy as well as
further addressed in the new regulations now under review. The
Department is committed to further enhancing our regulatory framework
as identified in H.R. 2386. We also want to ensure that these policies
are beneficial to the visiting public, fair and equitable, efficient,
consistent, collaborative, convenient, and accountable.
Special Recreation Permits
Section 6(e)(1)(D) of H.R. 2386 proposes a term of 10 years for all
outfitter permits. The Department can support the term of a permit for
up to 10 years as outlined in the legislation providing that
flexibility is allowed for agencies such as the BLM to respond to
changes in resource condition or other reasonable and substantial
changes such as Resource Management Plan (RMP) updates or other
unforseen changes in public demand in a given field location. While the
Department recognizes that small business owners, such as outfitters
and guides, often face the need for more stability in order to secure
financing, insurance, or other demands, it is important that the
authorized officer in an agency has the flexibility to manage issues
with an outfitter or guide that may affect visitor safety, resource
responsibilities, or some other change in the original permit. Such a
policy balances the principles of efficiency and convenience while
ensuring that the visiting public benefits and that BLM is accountable
to the public for the resources that it manages.
Allocation of Use
H.R. 2386 addresses Allocation of Use in Sections 4(2) and (9).
For BLM, the proposed allocation of use provisions in the Bill are a
conflict with current policy and regulations. BLM issues permits on a
first-come, first-serve basis until the affected area's desired use
level is reached. The desired use level is determined primarily through
the RMP process which is the primary tool under the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act (FLPMA) to allocate use of Federal lands managed by
the BLM. Under current law and policy, BLM allows outfitters and guides
as much freedom as possible under a special recreation permit (SRP) to
operate and use lands as they need to operate their business and
provide services to the visitors. Specific allocations are only granted
when there has been an established limit of use allowed in a particular
area due to analysis, public involvement, and consultation through the
RMP and associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The provisions
for allocation of use currently in H.R. 2386 conflict with these
existing policies and laws and may also have the unintended consequence
of limiting competition in a certain area, thereby compromising the
competitive approach that currently provides the highest quality
services for visitors. In addition, allocation of use could be contrary
to the public interest currently protected under FLPMA by providing an
implied or perceived ``right and ownership'' to the outfitter's permit
contrary to current provisions. Although allocation of use may be
convenient, such a policy also would compromise the principles of
fairness, efficiency, accountability, and may not be beneficial to the
visiting public. We would be happy to work on with the Committee on
this issue to better balance these principles so that the outfitters
can maximize their operations while providing quality visitor services.
Temporary Permits
The Department is concerned about provisions for temporary permits.
The Department suggests temporary permits should have terms not
exceeding one year. Currently, a probationary period is granted to
maintain the highest safety and resource protection values for
visitors, while providing new outfitters and guides the opportunity to
grow their business. If an outfitter's performance is found to be
satisfactory, a second one year extension is easily granted. This
method, which is fair, consistent, efficient, and requires
accountability, has worked well while providing flexibility to the
Department to maintain the highest standards required under existing
law and policy for visitor protection and resource management.
Transfer of Temporary Permits
The allocation of use for temporary or transferred permits, as
allowed for in H.R. 2386, raise similar concerns as expressed earlier
for permanent permittees. We would like to work with the Committee on
the provision in the legislation for the threshold for automatic
approval of transfer permits. As written in H.R. 2386, the 90 day
threshold for automatic transfer may cause unintended problems for both
the agencies and the outfitter permittees in complex cases or in the
case of unforseen workload issues.
Fee Structure Issues
While many of the provisions in H.R. 2386 for fees are consistent
with current regulation, a fee structures based on whether a permittee
can conduct a ``successful business venture``may not be fair and
equitable, consistent, efficient, and accountable. While the agencies
strive to work in the most reasonable way to accommodate the needs of
running an outfitting or guide service, fees for commercial operations
on public lands must provide a fair market return to the American
public. Existing regulation provides a fair and equitable fee structure
that has been working well for both outfitters and the Department's
land managing agencies.
Access to Records and Performance
We would like to work with the Committee to clarify the provisions
in H.R. 2386 for access and auditing of business records and
performance evaluation procedures. While we agree with the principle of
accountability and with most of the provisions in H.R. 2386 for these
activities, we would like to suggest some clarification amendments to
protect the public interest in these permits and maintain the highest
and fairest methods for managing the outfitter and guide services
provided to the public.
Conclusion
H.R. 2386 contains many positive goals and procedures for
outfitter and guide services on public lands managed by the Department.
Mr. Chairman, while we discussed most of our concerns today, let me
assure you we stand ready to assist and address remaining issues so
that the purposes of this legislation can be realized for the many
partners that provide outfitting and guide services to millions of
public land users. We have offered our concerns today in the spirit of
maintaining the highest standards for the public and the permittees
providing outfitter services.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss these
important issues in the Outfitter Policy Act of 2001. I will be happy
to answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Horn.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM P. HORN, AMERICA OUTDOORS
Mr. Horn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear on behalf of America Outdoors.
America Outdoors is a professional association of over 600
outfitters, guides, dude ranchers, and others who provide a
wide range of outdoor recreation services to the public.
Substantial segments of the public need and rely on guides and
outfitters to provide recreational access to the public lands.
Indeed, the primary purpose of this bill is to ensure the
accessibility to public lands by all segments of the population
by assuring that quality recreational services are available.
Indeed, the outfitted public, if you will, is the prime
beneficiary of this measure; and we are fortunate that this
element of the public has strongly supported Chairman Hansen's
bill.
I know that the Committee is in receipt of a letter from
one noteworthy public user of guide services. Former Secretary
of the Interior, Cecil Andrus, under President Carter, has
written the Committee endorsing H.R. 2386 as a necessary and
beneficial act to facilitate guide services and public access
to public lands.
The need for this bill arises from the inconsistent rules
and policies implemented on the ground that often hinder or
prevent guides and outfitters from providing quality services.
Its inconsistent administration creates almost crippling
uncertainties for many individuals; and we are able to provide
this Committee with a litany of horror stories, if you will,
that demonstrate the need for clear statutory guidance,
statutory guidance that presently does not exist.
We note that Congress has previously established statutory
standards for the administration of guide and outfitter permits
on National Park Service lands. America Outdoors is persuaded
that it is fully appropriate to set similar legislative
standards for other public land systems, including national
forests, BLM lands, and wildlife refuge units.
Now, the Outfitter Policy Act provides some of the basic
terms and conditions necessary to sustain the substantial
investment often needed to provide the level of service
demanded and needed by the public. The bill also provides the
agencies ample flexibility to adjust use, impose reasonable
terms and conditions on permits, and to assure that the permit
and permit administration is consistent with agency resource
management plans and policies.
We fully appreciate the need to protect and conserve the
basic public land resources upon which guides and outfitters
and the outfitted public have a chance to recreate. We need to
state clearly and unequivocally that the bill does not allocate
use opportunities for guides and outfitters. Allocation issues
remain at the discretion of the land managing agencies under
its other statutory and regulatory frameworks. There are no use
ownership rights confirmed by this measure on permits issued,
and the allocations that are issued may be changed subject to
due process during the term of the permit. Any charges to the
contrary that this bill creates use ownership in permits is
trumped-up nonsense and belies a misreading of the legislation.
One critical feature of the bill is its provision for
performance-based renewal. Each outfitter is to be evaluated
annually according to the services provided and rated by the
agencies as good, marginal, or unsatisfactory; and an outfitter
with more than one annual unsatisfactory rating does not earn
the right to renewal. Consistent good performance is necessary
to achieve that right, and the way the bill is written in
essence is that an outfitter needs to bat 900. They need to
provide satisfactory services 9 years out of 10 in order to
assure a performance-based renewal. We believe that is an
important incentive, but it sets a very, very high bar to
assure that the public is being provided quality services
during the terms of a permit.
Now there have been questions about the need for the
legislation, and some have contended that the agencies have
sufficient authority. We, unfortunately, continue to encounter
grossly inconsistent on-the-ground circumstances and an utter
lack of stability in too many areas, and we are convinced that
statutory guidance provided by this measure will indeed help
eliminate these inconsistencies.
On behalf of America Outdoors, we greatly appreciate the
leadership of Chairman Hansen and other members of the
Committee for introducing H.R. 2386; and we look forward to
working with the Subcommittees, the Committee, and indeed the
agencies to refine the measure and hope that it can be enacted
within the context of this Congress. Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Horn.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Horn follows:]
Statement of William P. Horn, America Outdoors
Mr. Chairman: On behalf of America Outdoors, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before the Committee to register our strong
support for H.R. 2386, the Outfitter Policy Act.
America Outdoors is a professional association of outfitters,
guides, dude ranchers and others who provide a wide range of outdoor
recreation services to the public. With over 600 member entities, it
represents outfitters and guides as well as the public they serve to
maintain access to recreation resources while pursuing a goal of
responsible shared use of our precious natural heritage.
Substantial segments of the public need and rely on guides and
outfitters to provide recreational access to public lands. These
outfitters and guides provide opportunities for outdoor recreation for
many families and groups who would otherwise find the backcountry
inaccessible. To ensure accessibility to public lands by all segments
of the population, quality recreation services must be available to the
public. That is the primary purpose of the Outfitter Policy Act.
The outfitting business is highly competitive. Multiple operators
provide the same or similar services at most resources. H.R. 2386
assures competition that drives quality services and will provide a
level, consistent regulatory playing field for those outfitters.
Present inconsistent rules and policies often hinder or prevent guides
and outfitters from providing quality services, and inadequately
provide for evaluation of guide/outfitter operations to encourage and
assure quality services. Inconsistent administration of existing
policies also creates often crippling uncertainties for quality
operators.
Congress has previously established statutory standards for
administering guide/outfitter permits on National Park Service (NPS)
lands. Therefore, it is appropriate to set similar legislative
standards for other public land systems including National Forests and
public domain administered by the Bureau of Land Management.
Congress has previously determined that guides and outfitters need
reasonable permit terms and conditions and has addressed in NPS
concessions legislation permit length, performance evaluation,
renewals, fair fees, and regulated transfer of permits. The Outfitter
Policy Act provides the basic terms and conditions necessary to sustain
the substantial investment often needed to provide the level of service
demanded by the public. However, the bill provides the agencies ample
flexibility to adjust use, conditions and permit terms, which must be
consistent with agency management plans and policies for the resource.
A stable, consistent regulatory climate which encourages qualified
entrants to the guide/outfitting business and gives the agencies and
operators clear directions are among the goals of the bill.
We need to state clearly and unequivocally the bill does not
allocate use opportunities to guides and outfitters. Allocation issues
remain at the discretion of the land managing agencies. There are no
``use'' ownership rights associated with permits since use allocations
may be changed, subject to due process, during the term of the permit.
Also, Section 5 of the bill specifically protects the rights of private
citizens to use their public lands without the services of a guide or
outfitter.
America Outdoors has worked hard and long with Federal agency
officials on this measure. Over a two-year period more than 125
technical and substantive changes were incorporated into the draft
legislation to accommodate agency interests. For example, references to
``profit'' were changed to ``successful business venture'' to reflect
the agency concerns that the legislation should not infer any right for
a outfitter/guide to realize a profit. Language setting a two-year
probationary period for new authorized outfitters was added. The
liability section was completely rewritten to balance the interests of
the agencies and those of the outfitters. Most importantly, amendments
were added to expressly authorize changes in permit terms and
conditions, at agency discretion, to reflect changed environmental
conditions or circumstances. Our review of H.R. 2386 indicates that the
agencies concerns are fully reflected in its text.
The bill provides for performance-based renewal. Each outfitter is
evaluated according to the services provided and rated ``good,''
``marginal,'' or ``unsatisfactory.'' An outfitter with more than one
annual ``unsatisfactory'' rating does not earn the right of renewal.
Consistent good performance enables an outfitter to obtain renewal of a
permit without engaging in a new round of bidding. This renewal system
encourages outfitters to provide quality services by providing them
with incentive to maintain a high level of service. By allowing an
outfitter to ``earn'' renewal through quality outfitting services, the
agencies can ensure that outfitters maintain quality operations and
invest the capital needed to provide these services.
There have been questions about the need for this legislation. Some
have contended that the agencies have sufficient authority to achieve
these goals and no statutory guidance is necessary. Unfortunately,
outfitters and guides continue to encounter grossly inconsistent
directions from land managers and an utter lack of stability in too
many areas. Last week we learned of a case that is symptomatic of the
problems this bill would correct. Two years ago an outfitter was
directed by the Forest Service to upgrade the facilities at one of its
camps. As a result, the outfitter invested thousands of dollars in new
tents, tent frames, and a small boardwalk system which were all
approved by the responsible Federal official. The agency also directed
the outfitter to work with a state agency on water quality issues. The
state agency insisted that traditional pit toilets were inadequate and
ordered that a small septic system be installed. At substantial cost,
the outfitter complied.
Then a new Federal District Ranger assumed office. The outfitter
was informed that the upgraded facilities were insufficiently
``temporary'' and would have to be either substantially scaled down or
removed. Additionally, the new official objected to the septic system,
questioned the jurisdiction of the state agency in the matter, and has
told the outfitter that the septic system will likely have to removed
at the outfitter's cost. To make matters worse, this outfitter is
presently operating on annual permits and the Ranger has specified that
compliance will be an ``ongoing process'' and that ``annual
modifications (to his permit) are highly likely.'' The outfitter faces
bankruptcy if compliance with the new edicts a complete reversal of the
prior directions is enforced. These kinds of horror stories come up
often and demonstrate the need for statutory standards. At present, the
agencies have almost unfettered discretion which can be too readily
abused.
In addition, as noted earlier, Congress has twice addressed these
issues with respect to outfitter and guide operations on National Park
Service lands. Statutory standards were first established in 1965 in
the original concessions Act and that system was amended with 1998
legislation. It is clearly appropriate to set similar statutory
standards for other public land systems.
America Outdoors greatly appreciates the leadership of Chairman
Hansen and other Members of the Committee for introducing H.R. 2386.
The case for this legislation is clear and we stand ready to work with
Committee in any way that we can to secure enactment of this important
bill.
______
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Mackey.
STATEMENT OF CRAIG W. MACKEY, PUBLIC POLICY LIAISON,
OUTWARD BOUND USA
Mr. Mackey. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and
members of the Committee.
I am Craig Mackey and I represent Outward Bound USA, a non-
profit educational institution and a leader in wilderness and
experiential education. For over 40 years, Outward Bound has
had the privilege of conducting extended back country
expeditions to teach young people leadership, self-reliance,
and outdoor skills. Federal lands and waters are our
classrooms.
I represent a leader in wilderness education. I also speak
to you as an outfitter. All of Outward Bound's use on Federal
lands is fully authorized commercial or outfitted use.
Since 1994, Outward Bound has worked with the outfitter
community, Congress, and the Federal land agencies on
concessions and permit reform. Through numerous negotiations
and bills, Outward Bound has focused on five consistent themes:
No. 1, the key roll educators like Outward Bound and other
outfitters play in providing a vast array of quality
opportunities and experiences on Federal lands.
No. 2, the growing role outfitters play in furthering
agency objectives, such as education, interpretation, safety,
and resource protection.
No. 3, the need for and benefits of congressional action in
establishing the foundation and philosophy for outfitted
activities and use on Federal lands.
No. 4, the tangible benefits to the public, the outfitter,
the manager of a performance-based system for the award and
renewal of special use permits.
And, No. 5, inherent to this performance-based system is
the subordination of fees or revenue generation for the
agencies or the Federal treasury.
I am here to testify this morning because all five of these
themes are embodied in H.R. 2386. And why is it important to
testify this morning?
First, we support the codification of outfitting and
guiding in law. The connection between the outfitter and the
American public is undeniable. Americans continue to look to
public lands for adventure and renewal. Many look to outfitters
to provide the access, the equipment, the expertise, and the
interpretation. What the outfitters seek is recognition of
these partnerships and the value they provide to both visitors
and our Federal system of public lands.
Second, we are here to promote accountability and
incentives. Accountability, incentives, and performance are
intertwined. The goal should be to identify and retain
outfitters who will team with the agencies in providing quality
visitor services, education and interpretation, resource
protection, and a fair return to the government.
Third, we are concerned about trends evolving in the field.
Outfitters are not afraid of competition. We operate daily in a
highly competitive market-based economy. We are concerned about
competition for competition's sake. The market is competitive,
turnover exists, and turnover is not always healthy. Regional
permit administrators will tell you that business failures
among new permittees are a leading administrative and fiscal
drain for the agencies.
Outfitters are not afraid of appropriate fees. Outward
Bound may pay more fees on more Federal units than any single
entity in the country, and we do so willingly for the privilege
of operating on the greatest system of public lands in the
world. We are concerned about competitive or open fee bidding
for the permits. The danger is the enhancement of Federal or
field office revenues at the cost of quality programs and
services, and let me provide one quick illustration.
Service is at the core of Outward Bound. Young people
repair trail or build bridges to learn teamwork, citizenship,
and community values. Outward Bound wrote the book on safety
protocols for wilderness adventure and outdoor education
programs. We raise over $2 million a year in scholarship funds
to promote economic, ethnic, gender, and age diversity in our
programming on public lands; and we teach with at least two
instructors on every course to maximize safety and educational
paradigms.
Each of these elements is at the core of Outward Bound,
woven into our mission part of how we do business. Each has
become a formal or de facto partnership with our public lands,
but all would be jeopardized by fee bidding. If the goal is
management based on common mission, partnerships, incentive,
and performance, what the agencies need is a strong program to
evaluate outfitters. This includes the authority and will to
eliminate inappropriate practices and bad outfitters. It also
includes the tools and capacity to clean up illegal outfitting.
The agency will find quality outfitters willing to work under
tough compliance standards if afforded the incentives of
performance-based renewal.
I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Mackey.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mackey follows:]
Statement of Craig Mackey, Public Policy Liaison, Outward Bound USA
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, Outward Bound would like
to thank you for the opportunity to address this hearing on the
Outfitter Policy Act.
I represent Outward Bound USA, a non-profit educational institution
and a leader in wilderness and experiential education. For 40 years,
the Outward Bound system has teamed with America's wild lands to
provide adventure-based education to youth and adults. Outward Bound
has the privilege of conducting extended backcountry expeditions
primarily on public lands to teach leadership, personal development and
wilderness values.
The Outward Bound system in this country comprises five wilderness
schools and two urban centers. We operate in 25 states and scores of
forests, ranger districts and resource areas. From the Carolinas to
Alaska; from the forests of New England to the Sierras; Outward Bound
has four decades of experience dealing with an astonishing array of
permits, policies and administrative procedures.
Outfitted Use
I speak to you today representing a leader in the non-profit
wilderness and experiential education communities. I also speak to you
and an outfitter and guide. Outward Bound as is the case with sister
organizations such as the National Outdoor Leadership School (Lander,
WY) and Wilderness Inquiry (Minneapolis, MN) operates as a full
``commercial'' user of Federal lands. As a non-profit, educational
organization we compete for and hold Federal concessions authorizations
in the same manner as for-profit members of the outfitting and guiding
industry. All of Outward Bound's operations on Federal lands are fully
authorized concessions or permits for which we compete for use, comply
with administrative procedures and pay appropriate fees.
At this juncture, I should state that the Outward Bound system is
in full support of this classification as commercial users of Federal
lands. In valuing our ongoing partnerships with land managers and
America's wild lands, Outward Bound recognizes the need for and merits
of proper administration and management of these resources. This
includes competing for and defending our use; performing as an
accountable user of public resources; protecting the public health and
safety; paying an equitable and appropriate share of the cost of
administration and management; and working with land managers to
educate the American people on natural resources, public lands,
responsible recreation and wilderness values.
Effective and efficient permit administration should work to
strengthen these relationships by recognizing and sustaining the
highest quality visitor services and partnerships.
Partners on Public Lands
Wilderness educators such as Outward Bound and other members of the
outfitter community play vital roles in working with Federal resource
managers to meet the demand for quality educational and recreational
opportunities, and in meeting agency missions related to interpretation
and resource protection.
The importance of outfitters and guides as partners and service
providers is acknowledged by the Forest Service in its publication in
1997 of a staff reference entitled ``Guidebook on Outfitting and
Guiding``:
On the public lands of the United States, and in particular the
National Forests, outfitter and guides provide visitors seeking
their assistance a quality experience as an extension of the
agency's mission. Outfitting and guiding provides a small
fraction of the total visitor days experience on the National
Forests, but it is an important segment to the visitor, the
agency, the resources and the economy of the communities where
outfitters are based.
Through legislation such as H.R. 2386, Congress must establish the
foundation or the vision from which the agencies and their private-
sector partners can collaborate to meet the public's goals and
aspirations in utilizing their public lands. The agencies' challenge is
to identify and retain those permittees that will:
LPartner with the agency in providing quality visitor
services.
LPartner with the agency in protecting the resource.
LPartner with the agency in providing educational and
interpretive services.
LProvide a reasonable return to the agency.
Public Lands: A Spectrum of Values, Benefits and Opportunities
Public lands and waters host an incredible range of values and
benefits. The American people draw from and visit their public
resources in a broad array of ways and means. An increasingly diverse
America looks to public lands to satisfy ever broadening wants and
needs.
In frontcountry, backcountry and wilderness management, agencies
staff needs to recognize that each unit holds an inherent range of
values: recreational, educational, biological, cultural, spiritual,
historical and others. In addition to resource protection, a
fundamental element of each agency's mission is to identify, manage
for, provide interpretive services about, and accommodate public
interest in the elements that constitute each unit's inherent values.
Key provisions of H.R. 2386 relating to performance-based renewal,
fee considerations, etc., will allow educators, outfitters and guides
to provide diversity in the commercial opportunities offered on public
lands and the people who enjoy them.
The Outfitted Public
By choosing to visit public lands under the guidance of trained,
professional instructors, Outward Bound students become members of the
outfitted public. For many of our students this is their first exposure
to Federal lands and certainly to the vast tracts of wilderness and
backcountry America has to offer. Given the young age of our students,
parents are looking for the experience and safety offered by
professional programs such as Outward Bound. Older students come for
the Outward Bound experience, but also to learn the wilderness ethic,
stewardship and safety skills that will allow them to be intelligent,
efficient users of our public resources.
Given the dramatic decline in agency field staff assigned to
wilderness and backcountry management, Outward Bound has now become a
de facto provider of educational, interpretive and safety information
on resources where we operate.
People want to know more about the wild lands they visit. This
knowledge makes a difference in their lives. It increases their own
quality of living. The majority of Americans polled recently by Roper
Starch believe that even the unstructured experiential aspects of
outdoor recreation play a positive role in reducing various key social
concerns, such as childhood obesity, parent/child communication, and
tough social problems such as juvenile crime, underage drinking, and
illegal drug use. Lessons learned in wilderness make us less tolerant
of urban decay when we return home, and more prepared to take effective
action to improve our communities:
The importance of recreational use as a social force and
influence must be recognized and its requirements met. Its
potentialities as a service to the American people, as the
basis for industry and commerce, as the foundation of the
future economic life of many communities, are definite and
beyond question.
Robert Y. Stuart
Forest Service Chief, 1928-33
Who will teach these important lessons to visitors to public lands?
Too few personnel in the field and an overwhelming workload have
distanced rangers from their role as hosts in parks, forests, and on
public lands. Agency personnel simply cannot reach out to each of the
millions of families and individuals that visit each year. Face to face
interpretive talks in visitor centers are an important component of the
educational effort, but these are not the same opportunities to educate
as those teachable moments that occur from one minute to the next on an
extended outfitted expedition.
Codification of Outfitting and Guiding
Given the historical and ongoing role of outfitting and guiding on
Federal lands, and the sizeable and growing body of Federal regulation,
Congress needs to play a direct role in establishing the philosophy and
direction of Federal oversight. Congress has established and updated
statutes for administering outfitter activities in the National Park
Service.
H.R. 2386, by establishing similar legislative guidelines for the
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, will provide direction
and consistency for outfitters and the outfitted public.
If providing the public with high quality commercial recreation and
education services while preserving the resource for future generations
are the goals; Federal statute and agency regulation must:
LRecognize both the role and value of outfitters and
guides in providing access to and enjoyment of quality recreation and
education experiences.
LRecognize the outfitters need for a reliable and stable
business climate. Beginning with reliable and consistent permit
mechanisms, resource managers have an obligation to work with
commercial operators in a manner that is consistent with the
development and operation of successful, competitive, long-term
business operations.
LEstablish incentives for managers and concessioners to
effectively meet public demand for commercial services on public lands
while satisfying agency mandates for resource protection. For
outfitters and guides, the foundation should be performance-based
permit renewal based on a system of regular performance evaluations.
LCreate incentives for sound resource management and
stewardship. Incorporation of resource protection and visitor education
elements in performance standards will establish outfitters as full
partners in ensuring these resources remain unimpaired for future
generations.
LRecognize and accommodate the full spectrum of outfitted
services provided on these Federal lands. For most outfitters, the full
range of ``market forces'' is a daily reality, including strong
competition and the need to excel through superior customer service.
LRecognize the undeniable role fees will play in the
future of authorized use on public lands. The goal should be to ensure
that franchise and user fees equitably compensate for the privilege of
operating a business on public lands. Return to the government, while a
fundamental element in the awarding and renewal of permits, should not
supplant customer service and resource protection as the primary
factors in these processes. Fees should be applied equitably across all
public land users and user groups. Fees should stay with the resource
or collecting agency. Franchise and user fees should be used to
supplement, not supplant, congressional appropriations.
Each of these elements is represented in H.R. 2386.
Performance as the Foundation
In the long run, effective management is predicated on determining
the public demand for goods and services and identifying and retaining
quality operators to meet those demands. A system which provides
incentives for the resource manager and the permittee will prove to be
the most effective and efficient, serve the needs of the manager and
permittee, and, most importantly, serve the long-term goals of
providing quality visitor services and protecting the resource.
H.R. 2386 provides the framework for performance-based renewal and
places fee or revenue generation as a secondary consideration in the
award and renewal of outfitter permits.
Contractual agreements, based upon a program of formal performance
evaluations coupled with performance-based permit renewal, represent
the most effective means of ensuring permitting practices meet both
agency objective and the public's needs.
The awarding of a permit is typically based upon three primary
factors:
LThe experience, related background and past performance
of the outfitter.
LResponse to prospectus requirements for quality visitor
services.
LThe offeror's financial capacity.
Herein lie the incentives for both the manager and the
concessioner. These factors offer significant and substantial
opportunities for competition in the awarding, renewal or denial of
concessions. Categories 1 and 2 offer managers the opportunity to
identify non-compliant, dangerous or illegal performance, as well as to
reward exemplary performance.
The system must be anchored upon the value that commercial
operations can provide to the public and to the land itself. Fees must
remain subordinate to other performance-related aspects of the
evaluation system. Outfitters are not afraid of competition,
evaluations or reasonable fees. We are afraid of competition for
competition's sake and evaluations that weigh general Federal revenue
enhancement above quality service
What is at stake here is relatively straightforward. Should the
award of a Federal permit be based upon on-the-ground performance or
how much money a prospective outfitter can offer the Federal
Government? Are consolidation of the outfitting industry and
enhancement of Federal revenues the goal or should we establish permit
administration policies that recognize and enhance:
LCommon missions
LPartnerships
LDiversity in opportunities offered and publics served
LIncentives and performance?
I will close with one illustration: Outward Bound, as a non-profit
educator, has well-defined institutional missions related to diversity
on our courses. The Outward Bound system in the United States raises
over two million dollars annually in scholarship funds to promote
economic, ethnic, gender and age diversity among our students.
Agency documents, speeches and memos detail the desire to attract
and educate new, diverse populations of American in the enjoyment and
preservation of Federal lands.
The more agency concession, permit and fee policies promotes
incentives, common missions and partnerships, the more emphasis Outward
Bound can place on diversity. To the extent the agencies promote
revenue generation and competition through fee bidding, Outward Bound
is forced to downplay scholarships and focus on boosting course costs.
Performance-based renewal and consideration of fees as a secondary
factor as outlined in H.R. 2386 will allow Outward Bound and other
educators and outfitters to operate as effective and efficient
providers of quality programs on Federal lands.
______
Mr. McInnis. I want to compliment on Outward Bound. Two of
my three kids went there. And my brother, ironically--kind of
an interesting story--was one of the first people--I think I
have told you this. I am not sure.
Mr. Mackey. I was wondering if you were going to tell your
Outward Bound story.
Mr. McInnis. It could be of interest.
Outward Bound was really the first, I think, in the field
out there. My brother went to Outward Bound probably in 1965,
maybe 1963, when Outward Bound was first started.
Mr. Mackey. I think it was 1963. It started in Colorado, in
Marble, Colorado in 1961.
Mr. McInnis. Which--our whole family lives about 30 miles
from Marble.
Mr. Mackey. Right.
Mr. McInnis. And of interest, he and his--for the group
here. He and another young man were climbing with their
instructor up Maroon Bells, which is known for its rotten rock,
meaning that it peels off kind of like an iceberg at times. And
a rock came off the top and, unfortunately, cut the
instructor's head off, close to it. And here are these two
kids, 14 and 15--and I think you probably only had one fatality
or maybe two during the entire history, and that was the first
one.
Outward Bound was tough. They--some campers down below saw
what had happened. These two young men managed to get off the
mountain, and they went up and brought the instructor down.
Then they brought another instructor up and everything went
back to camp except the two kids and the instructor. The
instructor and Outward Bound make them hike, go right back up
past the same spot, because Outward Bound was sure they would
never climb again if they didn't force them up.
Mr. Mackey. It is called getting back in the saddle.
Mr. McInnis. Yeah.
Mr. Mackey. I am not sure we would do that today.
Mr. McInnis. Well, I don't know. Now, today, maybe we are
too politically correct. But I will tell you, in all three
cases I think it was a life experience for them.
You do an outstanding job with Outward Bound. I can commend
you, and also our former director here, Mr. Udall, who did an
excellent job while he ran Outward Bound in Colorado. I know
you are proud to have Outward Bound out here.
Mr. Mackey. For good or bad, he is the reason I am sitting
here this morning.
Mr. McInnis. Well, that is probably debatable. But I
think--because I think you are both good. And I think, in
either case, Outward Bound is well served.
So, I appreciate you coming. I know it is a little off the
subject there, but I am proud of you guys out there and gals.
Let me move now to Ms. Kimbell, who will offer testimony on
both the outfitter bill and H.R. 5180.
I hate to start off this way, Ms. Kimbell, but I am reading
today's newspaper, a little comment about one of your district
rangers in regards to the Chairman of the whole Committee, who
says on the bill:
What's Hansen--referring to our Chairman--got to lose? It's
his last term. He's going to do something nice to cut the
government's throat.
It is from a ranger, Devon Kilpack. You might pass on to
Mr. Kilpack that his comments are seen as unfortunate and
misplaced and that it is probably more appropriate he let you
speak for the Forest Service instead of him.
Ms. Kimbell. Mr. Chairman, I only learned of those comments
moments before coming in the room. They are most unfortunate,
and they do not reflect the attitude and the relationship-
building need of the agency, certainly not of the region or the
forest.
The regional forester was contacted this morning. I will be
visiting with the forest supervisor immediately upon leaving
here. Those comments were most unfortunate; and, again, they do
not reflect the attitude of the agency.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you. You may proceed, and thank you for
being here today.
STATEMENT OF ABIGAIL KIMBELL, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL
FOREST SYSTEM
Ms. Kimbell. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify on these two bills. I would like to
briefly discuss the Outfitter Policy Act of 2001 and H.R. 5180,
conveyance of certain lands on the Dixie National Forest.
H.R. 2386, the Outfitter Policy Act of 2001, establishes
terms and conditions for use of Federal lands by outfitters.
The Department of Agriculture supports the purpose of H.R. 2386
but would like to work with this Subcommittee to resolve
several important issues that we feel would make this an even
better bill.
There are millions of people who lack outdoor skills yet
want to experience the beauty and diversity of their public
lands. Many of these Americans seek out the skills and
experience of commercial outfitters and guides to help them
enjoy a safe and pleasant journey through spectacular forests
and deserts and over rivers and lakes often found only on
Federal lands. Without outfitters and guides, many of our
citizens and international visitors would never experience the
awesome grandeur of America's great outdoors.
For more than half a century, the Forest Service has had a
positive working relationship with the outfitter guide
industry. We currently have approximately 6,000 permit holders
who provide very necessary and sought-after services. These
services include hunting and fishing trips, llama treks, Jeep
tours, whitewater rafting, prehistoric treks, and many, many
other opportunities. The providers of these services range from
traditional small-family operations to large commercial
entities, small local government programs, large educational
institutions, both non-profit and for profit.
Commercial outfitters and guides serve as an extension of
the agency by introducing the public to their lands and by
providing positive environmental understanding and teaching
skills to enjoy the outdoors. In fact, outfitters and guides
have often gone above and beyond the requirements of their
permits. One example is the Raft Alone program in our Region 4
where police officers raft with at-risk youth.
In addition, as the agency has become more involved with
various tourism associations, we have learned that many
international groups wish to provide eco-tourism trips to the
United States to visit our public lands.
This positive relationship continues, but increasingly
complex challenges in managing the national forests, aged
business practices, competing demands have placed an increased
burden on the agency and its outfitters and guides and is
affecting this critical relationship. This challenge can be
illustrated by the explosion in the types of outfitter and
guide activities competing for a limited resource, increased
competition within the general public for space, increased
activism by the public on how they wish to see their public
land managed, and, again, those aged business practices
creating inefficiencies in the day-to-day program
administration. There is also the need to update agency policy,
including obtaining market value for rights and privileges
granted in the use authorization.
Because of these challenges, I can understand why
venerable, well-established businesses feel threatened and
devalued.
Our challenge is to manage this program by having an
efficient business management approach and a balanced
administrative system that addresses public concerns and
provides a pleasant, safe, and healthy visitor experience while
protecting the environment. In addition, we must address local
and national program management issues protecting the interest
of the government, while using appropriate business practices
that allow business stability for our outfitters and guides. We
have been working with all interested parties and other
agencies for the last couple of years to resolve these issues,
and we would like to expedite that process.
Ms. Kimbell. On H.R. 5180, H.R. 5180 directs the Secretary
of Agriculture to convey approximately 560 acres of National
Forest System land within the Dixie National Forest to Kirk
Harrison. The conveyance is intended to be a fair market value
for all right, title, and interest of the United States using
appraisal standards acceptable to the Secretary. While we do
not oppose the bill, we believe it may be unnecessary. We have
been working with Mr. Harrison since the 1990's and are
optimistic that a solution can be found that satisfies his
needs.
Mr. Harrison owns property in the town of Pinto, located in
Washington County in Southwest Utah. Pinto consists of
approximately 767 acres of private property, including Mr.
Harrison's property, and is surrounded by the Dixie National
Forest. The Forest Service has thoroughly reviewed Mr.
Harrison's title claims and, under existing laws and
authorities, is unable to approve or give validity to these
claims. In addition, there are a number of other factors that
must be taken into consideration.
All of the Federal lands surrounding Pinto and subject to
this bill lies within the East Pinto grazing allotment
currently used by two local families. Removing acres from the
allotment would result in a prorated reduction in permitted
numbers of cattle of approximately 98 percent.
The property of another landowner in the Pinto area is
partially bordered by Harrison's property and otherwise
adjacent to National Forest System lands. If the proposed 560
acres were transferred to Mr. Harrison, the other landowner's
property would be totally surrounded by Mr. Harrison's property
and without guaranteed access.
In addition, conveying 560 acres to Mr. Harrison would
place all known sources of water in the Pinto Valley on private
land. Water rights of others and their use of those rights
could be affected if this land goes into private ownership.
The sale of up to 560 acres to Mr. Harrison would increase
the amount of private land in Pinto by over 70 percent. The
future subdivision of this land could change the rural
character of the area and create additional issues with other
long-term owners in the area.
The Forest Service has processed two legitimate cases under
the Small Tracts Act in the Pinto area. In one case, 4.78 acres
were conveyed to a local family based on a color of title
claim. In the second, an interchange occurred with a net gain
of 1.38 acres for the forest. These families may feel that a
land sale or exchange with Mr. Harrison is inequitable.
In 1996, Mr. Harrison submitted three Small Tracts Act
applications totaling 25 acres to the Dixie National Forest.
The basis of the application was occupancy of National Forest
System lands in the form of fences and cultivation. In 1997,
after a thorough review, it was determined that the application
did not meet the criteria of the Small Tracts Act.
We do not oppose this bill, but we believe it is
unnecessary because there are reasonable alternatives. We would
support selling Mr. Harrison 20 acres involving the disputed
area. This would include Mr. Harrison's entire Small Tracts Act
application called Springfield and the Small Tracts Act
application for Platt Field. The third Harrison Small Tracts
Act application, Reservoir Field, is not included because the
Harrison family did not own the adjacent property until after
1965.
The sale of 20 acres to Mr. Harrison would remove a spring
and over a mile of Pinto Creek from public ownership. Land
exchange is an important tool for solving a variety of critical
resource and social issues, and we would prefer a public
interest equal-value land exchange between Mr. Harrison and the
National Forest, either in the immediate Pinto area or within
the State of Utah.
Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with you and other
members of the Subcommittees on these--on both these bills and
would be happy to take questions.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Abigail. You bring up some very
valid points.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kimbell follows:]
Statement of Abigail Kimbell, Associate Deputy Chief,
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on these five bills before
us today. I am Abigail Kimbell, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest
System. I would like to briefly discuss H.R. 2386--``Outfitter Policy
Act of 2001,'' H.R. 5032--Conveyance of certain lands on the Mendocino
National Forest, and H.R. 5180--Conveyance of certain lands on the
Dixie National Forest. We defer to the Department of the Interior on
H.R. 1811 and H.R. 5081.
H.R. 2386 Outfitter Policy Act of 2001
H.R. 2386, the ``Outfitter Policy Act of 2001'' establishes terms
and conditions for use of Federal lands by outfitters. The Department
of Agriculture supports the purpose of H.R. 2386, but would like to
work with the Subcommittee to resolve several important issues that we
feel would make this a better bill.
There are millions of people who lack outdoor skills yet want to
experience the beauty and diversity of their public lands. Many of
these Americans seek out the skills and experience of commercial
outfitters and guides to help them enjoy a safe and pleasant journey
through spectacular forests and deserts and over the rivers and lakes
that are often found only on Federal lands. Without outfitters and
guides, many of our citizens and international visitors would never
experience the awesome grandeur of America's great outdoors.
For more than a half century the Forest Service has had a positive
relationship with the outfitter/guide industry. We currently have
approximately 6,000 permit holders that provide very necessary and
sought-after services. These services range from traditional hunting
and fishing trips to llama treks: from jeep tours and white water
rafting, to prehistoric treks. The providers of these services range
from the traditional small family operations to large commercial non-
profit entities, from small local government programs to large
educational institutions.
Commercial outfitters and guides serve as an extension of the
agency by introducing the public to their lands and by providing
positive environmental understanding and teaching skills to enjoy the
outdoors. In fact, outfitters and guides have at times gone beyond the
requirements of their permits. One example is the ``Raft-Along''
program in Region 4 (Utah/Idaho) where police officers raft with ``At
Risk'' Youth. In addition, as the agency has become more involved with
various tourism associations, we have learned that many international
groups wish to provide eco-tourism trips to the United States to visit
our public lands.
I believe this positive relationship continues, but increasingly
complex challenges in managing the National Forests, antiquated
business practices, and competing demands have placed an increased
burden on the agency and its outfitters and guides, and is affecting
this critical relationship.
This challenge can be illustrated by the explosion in the types of
outfitter and guide activities competing for a limited resource,
increased competition with the general public for space, increased
activism by the public on how they wish to see their public lands
managed, and antiquated business practices creating inefficiencies in
the day to day program administration. There is also the need to update
agency policy, including obtaining market value for the rights and
privileges granted in the use authorization. Because of these
challenges, I can understand why venerable, well-established businesses
feel threatened and devalued.
Our challenge is to manage this program by having an efficient
business management approach and a balanced administrative system that
addresses public concerns and provides a pleasant, safe, and healthy
visitor experience while protecting the environment. In addition, we
must address local and national program management issues protecting
the interests of the government while using appropriate business
practices that allow business stability for our outfitter and guides.
We have been working with all interested parties and other agencies for
the last couple of years to resolve these issues. We would like to
expedite that process.
H.R. 5032--Land Conveyance on the Mendocino National Forest
H.R. 5032 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 time of conveyance, Faraway Ranch will make full payment of the
fair market value as determined by an appraisal that is acceptable to
the Secretary and cover all direct costs associated with completing
this transaction. We support this bill, however, we would like to work
with the Subcommittee to develop a workable timeline that takes into
account the time needed to properly complete the survey and appraisal.
H.R. 5180--Conveyance of Real Property in the Dixie National Forest
H.R. 5180 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey
approximately 560 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land within the
Dixie National Forest to Kirk R. Harrison. The conveyance is intended
to be at fair market value, for all right, title and interest of the
United States using appraisal standards acceptable to the Secretary.
While we do not oppose the bill, we believe it may be unnecessary. We
are working with the landowner and are optimistic that a solution can
be found that satisfies his needs, but does not require legislation. If
this is not the case, we are willing to work with the Subcommittee.
Mr. Harrison, who resides in Las Vegas, Nevada, owns property in
the town of Pinto, located in Washington County, in southwest Utah.
Pinto consists of approximately 767 acres of private property,
including Mr. Harrison's property, and is surrounded by the Dixie
National Forest. The Forest Service has thoroughly reviewed Mr.
Harrison's title claims, and under existing laws and authorities, is
unable to approve or give validity to any of his claims. In addition,
there are a number of other factors that must be taken into
consideration.
All the Federal land surrounding Pinto and subject to this bill
lies within the East Pinto Grazing allotment currently used by two
local families. Removing acres from the allotment would result in a
prorated reduction in permitted numbers of cattle.
The property of another landowner in the Pinto area is partially
bordered by Harrison property and otherwise adjacent to NFS lands. If
the proposed 560 acres were transferred to Mr. Harrison the other
landowners' property would be totally surrounded by Harrison property
and without guaranteed access. In addition conveying 560 acres to Mr.
Harrison would place all known sources of water in the Pinto Valley on
private land. Water rights of others and their use of those rights
could be lost if this land goes into private ownership.
The sale of up to 560 acres to Mr. Harrison would increase the
amount of private land in Pinto by over 70 percent. The future
subdivision of this land could change the rural character of the area
and create additional issues with other long-term landowners in the
area.
The Forest has processed two legitimate cases under the Small
Tracts Act (STA) in the Pinto area. In one case, 4.78 acres were
conveyed to a local family based on a color of title claim. In the
second case, an interchange occurred with a net gain of 1.38 acres for
the Forest. These families may feel that a land sale or land exchange
with Mr. Harrison is inequitable.
In 1996, Mr. Harrison submitted three STA applications totaling 25
acres to the Dixie National Forest. The basis of the application was
occupancy of NFS lands in the form of fences and cultivation. In 1997,
after thorough review, it was determined that the application did not
meet the criteria of the Small Tracts Act. All levels of the agency
concurred with this decision.
We do not oppose this bill, and believe it is unnecessary because
there are reasonable alternatives. We would support selling Mr.
Harrison 20 acres involving the disputed area. This would include Mr.
Harrison's entire STA application area called Spring Field and the STA
application for Platt Field. The third Harrison STA application,
Reservoir Field, is not included because the Harrison family did not
own the adjacent property until after 1965.
The sale of 20 acres to Mr. Harrison would remove a spring and over
a mile of Pinto Creek from public ownership. Land exchange is an
important tool for solving a variety of critical resource and social
issues and we would prefer a public interest equal-value land exchange
between Mr. Harrison and the National Forest, either in the immediate
Pinto area or within the State of Utah.
Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with you and the other
members of the Subcommittees on these important issues. This concludes
my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may
have.
______
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Harrison, in your comments I would like it
if you can also address--because I have some concern about the
permit issue, the access issue, the subdivision issue, and the
water issue. Those were four that were brought up in the
previous testimony. So, if you would include that in your
remarks, I would appreciate it. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF KIRK R. HARRISON, PROPERTY OWNER, STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Harrison. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, members of this Committee, my name is Kirk
Harrison; and I appreciate the opportunity to testify in
support of this bill. I particularly want to thank Chairman
Hansen for sponsoring the bill.
I would first like to mention the reference to Devon
Kilpack's statements. Devon Kilpack is a district ranger there.
I have talked to him numerous times. He has told me numerous
times how bad he feels about the way I have been treated, how
inequitable he thinks the circumstance is. He cannot believe
that we have not been able to reach a resolution where I get my
family property.
In addressing some of the comments that were just made, the
conveyance of these disputed lands would not result in my land
surrounding someone else's land without access. Their access is
directly upon a county road that runs through the valley, and
it would be the same as it has always been.
I have no intention of subdividing this land. My
predecessors' interest in the Reservoir Field settled that land
in 1860. My dad bought it from his brother--in 1860, and my dad
bought it from his brother in 1960.
I do not believe the Forest Service has any interest
whatsoever in the waters of the Pinto Creek. Landowners such as
myself own shares of water in the Pinto Creek, in the Pinto
Valley, and further to the south in Newcastle. I don't think
the Forest Service has any interest whatsoever in those waters.
This land was settled by my great, great grandparents in
1860. They cleared the lands, the trees, the rocks. It was
before the invention of barbed wire, and they used the trees
that they used to clear the land with to build rip-gut fences
that exist today.
The first survey in the area was not until 1881, 21 years
after they were there; and the survey only did section corners,
so there was no notice to them that there was any discrepancy
between any survey and their boundaries.
The second survey was not until 1905, 24 years later. And,
again, the same thing--only section corners. There was no
notice to them there was any discrepancy between their
boundaries and that survey, and that was when the Dixie
National Forest was first established.
It was not until 1984, 124 years after my family was there
and owned and cultivated and worked these lands, was there a
survey done by an outside firm for the Forest Service that put
up the orange markers that we have all seen.
There are significant discrepancies in the surveys in that
valley. For example, the southwest corner of this section in
the 1881 survey is 37 feet from the 1905 survey. The Washington
County surveyor recognizes rock monuments that the Forest
Service survey crew in 1984 did not recognize. I have aerial
photographs of the area dating back to 1949; and, as you can
see, this is a sparse, arid environment. It is primarily sage
brush, rabbit brush. There is a lesser amount of cedar trees
and small pine trees.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Harrison, if I may interrupt just for a
moment. You keep talking about this area. In Abigail's
testimony, she talked about the 20 acre allotment and the 500
acre allotment, and your initial under the Small Claims Act--or
Small Partial Act, I think three different ones. So tell me how
we get from 20 to three claims for approximately 75 acres, and
now we are at 500. Maybe you can point them out on your map.
Mr. Harrison. Absolutely.
Mr. McInnis. I guess my focus here is, did you figure--I am
trying to determine whether you thought you would be successful
to 75 and so went ahead and decided to ask for an additional
425.
Mr. Harrison. No, what happened--
Mr. McInnis. Help me through that.
Mr. Harrison. Absolutely. The land I own is in pink on this
chart. The disputed areas that have been fenced in, except for
the one area, since 1860, are in orange. What happened 4 years
ago is the Forest Service made it very clear to me that one of
the reasons that they rejected the Small Tracts Act is that
my--when my great, great grandparents settled that area, they
put these rip-gut fences as the terrain and the topography
allowed. It made sense to enclose the water sources and the
level ground that could be cultivated.
The Forest Service, starting 4 years ago--and it is in the
materials I provided--made it very clear that that was contrary
to their management objectives of straight lines, sectional
lot, blocked-up ownership, right angles.
The 560--you get to 560 because that is the minimum amount
necessary to satisfy the Forest Service objectives that they
have outlined to me both orally and in writing for the last 4
years.
Mr. McInnis. It took me a second to see the orange. So, you
have got the strawberry red or the strawberry color.
Mr. Harrison. Correct.
Mr. McInnis. Is there any orange in that strawberry color
from this distance? I can't see it. Or is just the orange that
little block that sits off it?
Mr. Harrison. Where it is something other than the straight
line, it is orange.
Mr. McInnis. OK. And then the yellow, what does the yellow
represent? Is that the 500-acre tract as a whole? Or what is
the yellow?
Mr. Harrison. The yellow is the orange plus the--the yellow
plus the orange is the 560.
Mr. McInnis. OK. And the strawberry colored is what is
owned in fee right now, presently.
Mr. Harrison. Right.
Mr. McInnis. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Harrison. If I might clarify, the reason that it
expanded from three areas to five areas, when they did the
survey in 1984, there was one section lot--section 6, I
believe--that was in the ownership of the State of Utah. In
1999, by Federal act, that was transferred from the State of
Utah to the Federal Government; and it is under the auspices of
the Forest Service presently.
In addition, the southwest field, which still has the rip-
gut fences that my family put up in 1860, that was added as
well. So it is the three areas subject to the Small Tracts Act
plus the additional two.
The Forest Service has confirmed that there are no
significant public values on these lands, no identifiable
resources to be protected. These lands that are beyond the area
that--I have had them fenced all my years, my family has had
fenced since 1860, have been for the service of grazing cattle.
The grazing permittee would not be adversely affected. This
would be subject to whatever existing rights they have. They
have got a 10-year lease. They can raise cattle for another 10
years. So, it is not in any way taking away any present rights
that they have.
The loss of these disputed areas would be devastating to my
family lands. All access to the Pinto Creek would be lost and
my two largest meadows. Third parties and their cattle would
have unrestricted access to my best spring; third parties and
their cattle would be but a few short feet from two of my other
springs, one of which is a source of culinary water for my home
there. The priority of my springs goes back to 1860 as well.
Third parties and their cattle would be but two feet from my
great, great grandparents' cabin.
I respectfully ask for your favorable consideration. I look
forward to working with the Committee and the staff to resolve
any issues. Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you very much for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harrison follows:]
Statement of Kirk R. Harrison, Property Owner, Pinto Valley, Utah
Mr. Chairman, thank you for conducting this hearing today and I
thank all of
the Members for their time and interest. My name is Kirk Harrison
and I own property in Pinto Valley, Utah. I want to thank Chairman
Hansen for sponsoring the legislation before the Subcommittee today.
This legislation will solve a dispute involving my family's property
that my family settled in 1860 more than 140 years ago. This
legislation calls for the directed sale of approximately 560 acres of
land to me for fair market value. The proceeds of this sale would then
be utilized by the Forest Service to acquire truly valuable in holdings
where public values are much greater. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is
critical to restoring my family property and unfortunately is the only
mechanism available to me to solve this age old dispute.
I. History and Use of the Property
A. Historical Use
My great great grandparents, Richard Harrison and Mary Ann Whitaker
Harrison, settled in the Pinto Valley in 1860. The Pinto Valley is
located in the high desert region of Southwestern Utah. They
constructed and lived in the log cabin situated in the area of my
property known as the Spring Field.
They cleared the fields that exist today by chopping down and
removing the cedar trees so they could plant and grow their crops. From
those cedar trees came the cedar posts that they utilized to construct
the rip gut fences that defined the boundaries of their property.
Anyone that has ever chopped a cedar fence post with an ax can
appreciate the tremendous effort and amount of time it took to
construct these fences. In light of the dramatic difference in the
effort necessary to construct a rip gut fence as opposed to a barbed
wire fence, if barbed wire was available, it surely would have been
utilized. However, the first patent on barbed wire was not filed until
1873 and barbed wire was not available in Southern Utah for many years
thereafter.
In order to appreciate the priority of use and superior claim of
ownership to this property by my family, it is helpful to place it into
a chronological context. My family had settled, homesteaded, owned,
worked, tilled the soil, planted and harvested crops, raised, fed and
watered livestock, maintained the boundary fences, raised their
children and lived upon their property for five (5) years before the
outbreak of the Civil War.
Evidence of my family's early use of the property is indisputable.
As of 1870 there were only 105 people living in the Pinto Valley. In
1873, the people of Pinto produced 1,614 bushels of wheat, 160 bushels
of oats, 1,693 bushels of barley, 210 bushels of corn, 6 bushels of
beans, 7,195 bushels of potatoes, 287 bushels of vegetables, and 120
tons of hay. Id at 200. Consistent with the foregoing, LDS Church Pinto
Ward records between 1867 and 1876 prove that both my great great
grandfather, Richard Harrison, and my great grandfather, John Heber
Harrison, were growing crops and raising livestock on this property.
These records show contributions from both men of wheat, barley, hay,
potatoes, corn, vegetables, fruit, butter, cheese, eggs, pork,
chickens, mutton, and wool. Copies of these records between 1867 and
1876 are attached hereto as Exhibit ``2.''
The State of Utah, which was made a state on January 4, 1896, did
not exist for the first thirty-six (36) years that my family settled,
homesteaded, owned, worked, tilled the soil, planted and harvested
crops, raised, fed and watered livestock, maintained the boundary
fences, raised their children and lived upon their property. Our family
had done all of this for over forty-five (45) years before the Dixie
National Forest was created in 1905.
There is further evidence of my family's use and ownership of the
property since 1860. The priority date of the springs situated upon our
property is 1860. Since that time those springs have been utilized to
irrigate pastures, crops and orchards; water livestock; and for
culinary purposes.
My great great grandfather, Richard Harrison, who was born on April
30, 1807, passed away while living in Pinto on March 4, 1882 and is
buried at the Pinto Cemetery. My great great grandmother, Mary Ann
Whitaker Harrison, who was born on August 10, 1811, passed away while
living in Pinto on September 4, 1889 and is also buried at the Pinto
Cemetery.
My great grandfather, John Heber Harrison, died while still living
at Pinto on July 1, 1923 and is buried at the Pinto Cemetery. My great
grandmother, Ellen Eliza Eldridge Harrison, who was born on July 28,
1850, died on October 10, 1937 and is also buried in the Pinto
Cemetery.
My grandfather, Heber Eldridge Harrison, was born in Pinto on May
12, 1874.
My father, Joseph Ross Harrison, was born on May 18, 1915 and died
in Pinto on October 30, 1990.
B. Federal Government Surveys In The Pinto Valley And Discrepancies
Among Them
The first government survey of the area, which was conducted by the
U.S. Surveyor General's Office, was not made until 1881. This effort
consisted of crews, utilizing a rod and chain, merely establishing
section corners and the like. Undoubtedly, these crews, given the miles
upon miles they were surveying, of which the Pinto Valley was only a
very small part, did not take the time to follow existing fence lines
and boundaries that had existed for over twenty (20) years. Similarly,
a second government survey of the area was not made until the creation
of the Dixie National Forest in 1905. Like the survey crews before
them, these crews, understandably, did not take the time to follow,
with their rod and chain, the existing fence lines and boundaries that
had existed for over forty-five (45) years. My family had no reason to
believe there existed any discrepancy between these surveys and their
fenced property lines.
My family had no reason to believe there was any discrepancy in the
boundaries between their property and the Forest Service until 1984,
when the Forest Service retained an outside firm to perform surveys in
the area and orange boundary markers were set, which were inconsistent
with the historic use and occupancy of the lands that had been cleared,
cultivated, irrigated, grazed, and fenced for over one hundred twenty-
four (124) years.
There are numerous discrepancies in the surveys in the Pinto
Valley. A prime example is the location of the southwest corner of
Section 2 of Township 38 south--Range 15 West. The 1881 rock monument
is thirty-seven (37) feet away from the 1905 rock monument. For reasons
unknown, neither of these rock monuments could be found, and therefore,
utilized by the surveyors that performed the survey for the Forest
Service in 1984. The Forest Service surveyors did not accept an
historic ``rock mound'' monument, in spite of the fact that other
surveyors had accepted it, including the surveyors for Washington
County. There should be only one survey monument at each corner
location. However, because of the survey discrepancies in the area,
there are several corners that have at least two different survey
monuments.
There are five areas where there are disputed lands with the Forest
Service. Those five areas are: (1) the Spring Field; (2) the Southwest
Field; (3) the Platt Field; (4) the Corn Field, and; (5) the Reservoir
Field.
The Spring Field
My great great grandparents' log cabin is situated but a few feet
from the supposed ``boundary line'' resulting from the 1984 survey for
the Forest Service. Beyond this ``boundary line'' to the west is a
field and stream that has been fenced in by my family since 1860.
Substantial portions of the original rip gut fence still exist on the
northern boundary of this field. A barbed wire fence is located just a
few feet north of and parallel to this rip gut fence. This barbed wire
fence continues west and turns in a southerly direction enclosing this
field and stream.
There has been grass in this field for as long as I can remember. I
have aerial photographs dating back to August 26, 1949 that were taken
by the Aerial Photography Field Office of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture that clearly depict the grass condition of the field. I
have also confirmed with my ``Harrison'' aunts and uncles, who are in
their eighties, that there has been grass in these fields for as long
as they can remember as well. I have been told that my grandfather
grazed his cattle upon this property. I know of my own knowledge that
my father, many times with my help, re-seeded this field, railed the
field every spring, mowed the hay in some years, grazed horses and/or
cattle every year in the field, watered the field utilizing sprinklers
and a pump from the reservoir located just east of the field in some
years, utilized a portion of the field to store farm equipment, and
maintained the fences on an annual basis. My father did all this from
the time he acquired the property in 1950 from his grandfather's
estate, John Heber Harrison, until I acquired the property from my
father in 1988.
Since my acquisition of the property, I have railed the field every
spring, grazed horses and/or cattle every year within the fenced area,
grubbed the sage brush and rabbit brush, utilized a portion of the
field to store farm equipment, and maintained the fences on an annual
basis.
Attached as Exhibit ``3'' are photographs depicting my great great
grandparents log cabin in the Spring Field as well as the disputed part
of the Spring Field and the rip gut fences around that disputed area.
The Southwest Field
The Southwest Field is located to the southwest of the Spring
Field. To the best of my knowledge the only rip gut fences remaining in
the Pinto Valley are those rip gut fences that marked the boundaries of
my family's property. The rip gut fences built by my family when they
cleared the Southwest Field are still in existence on the southern and
northern sides of this field. The topography of the area is such that
the only access by wagon to the Southwest Field was through the Spring
Field.
Attached as Exhibit ``4'' are relevant portions of aerial
photographs taken by the Aerial Photography Field Office of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. These photographs are dated August 26, 1949,
June 12, 1960, and August 30, 1977. These photographs confirm that the
Southwest Field was only accessible by wagon through the Spring Field.
These photographs also show how the Southwest Field is far from other
fields in the valley, except the Spring Field.
The name of the mountain above and to the southwest of the
Southwest Field is named Harrison Peak after my great grandfather. The
location of the Southwest Field relative to the other fields in the
valley, other than the Spring Field, is such that it is unreasonable to
conclude that anyone other than my great great grandfather and then my
great grandfather owned the Southwest Field. It is my good faith belief
that my great grandfather rented this pasture to Oscar Westover during
the early 1800s.
The Platt Field
The origin of the private ownership of the Platt Field is the same
as other property I own in the Pinto Valley in that it was first
settled prior to the Civil War. The first owner of the Platt Field was
Benjamin Platt. The Pinto Cemetery provides indisputable corroborative
evidence of Benjamin Platt's presence in Pinto in the 1860s. Josephus
Platt is buried in the Pinto Cemetery. He was born in Pinto on June 9,
1867 and died in Pinto on August 8, 1867. His father was Benjamin
Platt.
Just as my great great grandfather had done when he first moved to
the Pinto Valley, Benjamin Platt ``lived up in the field in a little
log house at first.'' Benjamin Platt was the seventh man to take water
from the Pinto Creek. Id.
Although he settled the property and worked the property beginning
sometime prior to 1867, Benjamin Platt did not obtain a patent to the
property from the United States of America until 1890. Our family
acquired title to the property when it was conveyed to our Great Aunt
Geneva H. Gillies and her husband R. Moroni Gillies in 1916.
The ``boundary line'' posted by the survey crew for the Forest
Service in 1984 cuts off approximately eleven and eight-tenths (11.8)
acres of our ground, including all access to the creek. One must
seriously question the implied assertion of the location of the
``boundary line'', namely that when this property was initially settled
in about 1860 that the settlers were so inept as to settle upon and
homestead property that just bordered, but did not include Pinto Creek,
which runs through the property. Luckily, there is clear indisputable
evidence that such is not the case. Just within and parallel to the
existing barbed wire fence on the eastern boundary of my property,
which encompasses all of Pinto Creek that runs through the property is
a rip gut fence. I have confirmed with my ``Harrison'' aunts and uncles
that this rip gut fence, and the barbed wire fence parallel to it, have
been in existence for as long as they can remember. Likewise, cattle
have grazed and watered in this area every year for as long as I can
remember and for so long as the ``Harrison'' aunts and uncles can
remember as well. This fence was maintained by my father and then by me
every year thereafter.
Attached as Exhibit ``6'' are photographs of the disputed area of
the Platt Field and the rip gut fences on the eastern side of the Pinto
Creek which enclose the disputed area.
The Corn Field
In 1860 my great great grandparents cleared the land and
constructed the rip gut fences that created the boundaries of the Corn
Field that still exist today.
As with the ``boundary line'' on the eastern side of the Platt
Field, the ``boundary line'' posted by the 1984 Forest Service survey
crew on the eastern side of the Corn Field cuts off all access to the
creek. Contrary to what this asserted ``boundary line'' implies, my
ancestors had sufficient intelligence to fence the creek within the
location where their livestock were located. In addition to the dated
barbed wire fence on the eastern boundary of my property, which
encompasses all of Pinto Creek that runs through the property, are also
remnants of the rip gut fence. I have confirmed with my ``Harrison''
aunts and uncles, that this fence has been in existence for as long as
they can remember. Likewise, cattle have grazed and watered in this
area every year for as long as I can remember and for so long as the
``Harrison'' aunts and uncles can remember as well. This fence was
maintained by my father and then by me every year thereafter.
It is my understanding that at the time of the Forest Service
survey in 1984, the State of Utah was the legal title owner of
Sectional Lot 6. For that reason the survey map prepared by the Forest
Service surveyor did not show any discrepancy in the boundary on the
east side of the Corn Field. However, since that time the Forest
Service has obtained the legal title from the State of Utah and this
area is now in dispute. It is my understanding that legal title was
obtained by the Forest Service on January 8, 1999 pursuant to the Utah
Schools and Lands Exchange Act of 1999, P.L. 105-335.
The Reservoir Field
The origin of the private ownership of the Reservoir Field is the
same as other property we own in the Pinto Valley in that it was first
settled prior to the Civil War. There is a rock memorial in Pinto of
the first church constructed in Pinto. The memorial identifies the very
first settlers of Pinto, who arrived in 1856. One of the nine names on
this memorial is David W. Tullis. It is believed that David W. Tullis
settled what is now known as the Reservoir Field in 1856. The Pinto
Cemetery provides further indisputable corroborative evidence of David
W. Tullis's presence in Pinto in the middle 1800s. David W. Tullis, who
is buried in the Pinto Cemetery, was born in England on June 3, 1833
and died in Pinto on November 26, 1902. Euphemia Tullis, the daughter
of David W. Tullis, was born in Pinto on February 11, 1866. Other
children of David W. Tullis were born in Pinto in 1872, 1875, 1878 and
1885. The Tullis family worked and owned this property until my family
acquired the property.
My father acquired this property, the Reservoir Field, in 1960. The
``boundary line'' posted by the survey crew for the Forest Service in
1984 cuts through the southwestern portion of our property. Appurtenant
to this property is the best water spring that I own. The priority date
of this spring is 1860. If a new fence were constructed on the
``boundary line'' and my family's old fences torn down, it would be
catastrophic. The headwaters of my best spring could then be interfered
with and placed at considerable risk by access from third parties and
their livestock.
The fence line that the Forest Service now claims encroaches upon
the Forest Service has been in existence for as long as I can remember.
Moreover, I have confirmed with my older siblings and my ``Harrison''
aunts and uncles that the fence line has been in that location for as
long as they can remember as well.
Every year when my father owned the property and every year that I
have owned the property, which is since 1975, I have maintained the
fence, grazed and watered livestock on the property, shoveled and hoed
the weeds, and sprayed the thistle. In addition, every year when my
mother was alive my family would pick the berries from the elderberry
and currant bushes on the property that my mother would then make into
jam. My family used to have picnics in the grassy meadow area of this
property as well. One year our father and we railed a portion of this
ground and planted seed.
Attached as Exhibit ``7'' are photographs of the disputed area of
the Reservoir Field and the old fences which enclose the disputed area.
II. Legal Title History
A. Conditions Between 1860 and 1890
During this time period the only mode of transportation was by
horse, wagon or foot. Pinto was an extremely remote location. ``The
people of Pinto were isolated as to transportation and had few cultural
contacts from the outside... .'' The Pinto Valley is over 6000 feet in
elevation. The winters were extremely harsh. It was noted that, ``One
year it snowed quite a lot and it covered all the fences with snow
twelve to fifteen feet deep so they traveled over fences and all.'' Id.
at 6. Many days were spent simply trying to survive.
As noted previously, my great great grandparents were part of a
settlement party that was the first settlers south of Provo, Utah. It
took those settlers from December 16, 1850 until January 13, 1951 to
travel from Provo, Utah to Parowan, Utah a distance of about 200 miles.
The settlement party averaged less than 7 miles a day.
Presumably because of the lack of any section corners, there were
no deeds to any lands in the Pinto Valley until 1890. The first
government survey of the area, which was conducted by the U.S. Surveyor
General's Office, was not made until 1881. Shortly thereafter, my great
grandfather and Benjamin Platt made the first patent applications in
the Pinto Valley. Both men received the first land patents in the
valley on July 3, 1890.
Both the law and reality of their circumstances dictated that the
applications had to be by aliquot part. A metes and bounds survey
simply was not an option. Presumably, both men had to travel 300 miles
to Salt Lake City, Utah to find an attorney and/or a surveyor to
prepare their respective applications for patent. The Pinto Valley is
about 300 miles from Salt Lake City, Utah. Even if these two men could
travel on horseback or wagon an average of 15 miles per day (more than
twice as fast as the 1850 settlement party), it would have taken them
40 days to travel to Salt Lake City and back for this purpose. The
point is that under these circumstances there was no way to compare the
land to be patented against the existing rip gut fence lines whose
location had been determined by the topography, terrain, and location
of water.
The only plausible explanation as to why my great grandfather was
unable to obtain a patent to the Southwest Field, is that the Federal
Government had the same policy during the late 1800s as the Cedar City
Office of the Forest Service has had during the 1990s through the
present the local office arbitrarily does not want any private
ownership in Section 3, Township 38 south Range 15 west, regardless of
the equities involved. This is despite the same office of the Forest
Service recently, in response to FOIA requests, conceding that there
are no significant public values on the lands to be acquired and that
there are no identifiable resources to be protected in this area. This
also is despite there being private ownership both north and south of
this Section
3. Abstracts of Title Depicting Legal Ownership from 1890 to the
Present
Attached as exhibits hereto are abstracts of title for the Spring
Field & Corn Field (Exhibit ``8'', Platt Field (Exhibit ``9''), and the
Reservoir Field (Exhibit ``10''). Each abstract of title confirms that
I am the legal owner of each of these properties.
III. Dealings With The Forest Service Since 1991
A. Forest Service Unlawfully Gives Permittee Permission To Trespass
Upon The Platt Field With Small Tract Act Application Pending
During the evening of July 1, 1991, I learned that the grazing
permittee with the allotment located on the east side of the Pinto
Creek had started to build a fence in the Platt Field. I telephoned the
permittee the following day. He said that he needed to move the fence
because his access to water somewhere else had been cut off. I told him
that I was aware of discrepancies in the surveys of the area and to
cease immediately. He acknowledged that he too was aware there were
discrepancies in surveys in the valley and that he would stop.
My sister met with the Forest Service soon thereafter and was
advised to file a Small Tract Act application for the disputed area,
which she did in 1991. She was told that once the Small Tract Act
application was filed, the permittee would not be allowed on our
property, including the disputed area, until the matter was resolved.
As of 1994, our Small Tract Act application was still pending as it
had not been acted upon by the Cedar City Office of the Forest Service.
On Saturday afternoon, May 28, 1994, I went for a walk with one of
my children to the Platt Field. I soon discovered that a fence had
recently been constructed on the east side of the Platt Field and to
the west of the Pinto Creek. This fence cut off all access to the Pinto
Creek. I discovered that our fence located on the east side of Pinto
Creek had been torn down in five different locations. The only access
to the location of the new fence was through the west side of the Platt
Field that was prominently posted with ``NO TRESPASSING'' signs. I
learned later that weekend that one of the other landowners had
witnessed the permittee's trespass upon our property through the west
side.
I spoke with two other property owners in the Pinto Valley and
learned that Forest Service grazing permittee that had the allotment on
the east side of the Pinto Creek had very recently constructed the
fence. This is the same permittee that had started to build the fence
in early July of 1991. He had been bragging to land owners in the
valley that the Forest Service had given him permission to trespass
upon our property and build the fence. This was in spite of the pending
Small Tract Act application for this very area!
One of the people I spoke with that day was the President of the
Pinto Irrigation Company who told me that every member of the
irrigation company was against this action. He said that they were
appalled and outraged by the permittee's conduct. In addition, as the
irrigation company controlled and managed the Pinto Creek through the
Pinto Valley, they were concerned the permittee, who owns no land in
the Pinto Valley, would interfere with that management and control.
I spent all day Sunday, May 29, 1994, and Memorial Day, May 30,
1994, rebuilding our fence where the permittee had torn it down and
tearing down and removing the entire fence the permittee had unlawfully
constructed on our property.
At 8:00 a.m. on Tuesday, May 31, 1994, I was at the Cedar City
Office of the Dixie National Forest when it opened. I immediately met
with the Forest Supervisor. I explained what had happened in 1991. More
specifically, that my sister had met with the Forest Service in Cedar
City was advised to file a Small Tract Act application, which we did,
and was assured that the filing of the application would preserve the
status quo and that we did not need to worry about the permittee
attempting to construct a fence on our property. In addition to the
Forest Supervisor, I met with the Lands Staff Officer and the Realty
Specialist. I requested they meet me at the ranch later that day so I
could show them what had occurred, as well as the locations in the
Spring Field and the Reservoir Field where there was also a conflict
between the fence lines and the 1984 Forest Service Survey.
Later that morning, at 10:15 a.m., I met with the Forest Service
representatives at the ranch. There on behalf of the Forest Service was
the Land Staff Officer and the Realty Specialist I had met earlier that
morning, as well as the District Ranger and his assistant, who were
based in St. George, Utah.
The next day, June 1, 1994, in response to my request, the District
Ranger sent a letter assuring me that no fences would be removed or cut
and no new fences would be constructed until the matter was resolved. A
copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit ``11.''
I later learned that the Forest Service employee in the Cedar City
Office in charge of grazing permits and allotments had given permission
to the permittee to construct the fence. The Forest Service did this
with our Small Tract Act application pending and knowing the permittee
would have to trespass upon our property, where ``NO TRESPASSING''
signs were prominently posted, from the west side of the valley to do
so!
B. Forest Service Representatives Indicated That Disputed Areas
Qualified Under The Small Tracts Act And Advised The
Applications Be Filed
As set forth above, on Tuesday, May 31, 1994, at 10:15 a.m. I met
the Land Staff Officer and Realty Specialist from the Cedar City Office
and the District Ranger and his Assistant from the St. George Office at
the ranch in Pinto.
We first drove onto the Platt Field just west of the Pinto Creek.
The Land Staff Officer had a copy of the November 12, 1984 map
entitled, ``Dixie National Forest South Pinto Boundary Survey'' and
placed it on the hood of his truck for all of us to review. A copy is
attached hereto as Exhibit ``12.'' This showed the area in dispute at
that location to be 11.8 acres. We discussed the fact that the pending
Small Tract Act application was for less acreage, but that the Small
Tract Act limitation was 10 acres. We then walked the area of dispute
in the Platt Field following the rip gut fences on the east side of the
Pinto Creek. As we walked the Land Staff Officer and I talked. He noted
the relatively good condition of the rip gut fence given its obvious
age. I confirmed to him that cattle feed in the disputed area every
year and had done so for as long as I could remember. There were forty
pair of cattle in the Platt Field at the time. I confirmed that we
maintained the fence all the time I was growing up. We spoke at length
about the fact the rip gut fence had been there since about 1860 when
the property was originally settled by Benjamin Platt. We spoke of how
the property had been improved by the removal of all of the trees, the
clearing of the ground, and the construction of the rip gut fence. We
discussed the fact that the rip gut fence had been there since before
the Civil War. We also discussed the fact that the surveys of 1881 and
1905 would not have put the property owners on notice of any
discrepancies. The Land Staff Officer agreed that the location of the
rip gut fence clearly showed the intent of the original settlers to
include the Pinto Creek within their property.
The Land Staff Officer told me that for purposes of the Small Tract
Act it was very important that we had always maintained the fence and
had always used the disputed acreage every year to graze livestock. At
that point in the discussion the Small Tract Act Specialist noted that
two other small tract applications in the Pinto Valley had each taken
three years to complete. I knew that the latter application was for an
area of about five acres with modern fencing and a shed that had been
there for less than 15 years and cost less than $500.00. It is my
understanding that the basis for the granting of that application was
the discrepancies in the surveys in the Pinto Valley.
The Forest Service representatives and I then went to the Spring
Field. I first showed them my great great grandparent's log cabin and
how the logs were connected using wooden pegs rather than nails. I
showed them how the Forest Service 1984 survey was just a couple of
feet from the northwest corner of the cabin. We then walked the rip gut
fence line located on the northern boundary of the field next to the
log cabin. I told them how there used to be small ponds on the south
side of the field with good fishing, as my Dad had planted rainbow
trout. However, I explained to them that we had a horrific flood during
the early 1960s that had destroyed the reservoir next to the log cabin
and had filled those ponds with silt.
The Land Staff Officer asked me who had planted the field with
crested wheat. I told him that my Dad had planted crested wheat many
years ago and that we would over seed the field periodically. I told
him how each spring we would ``rail'' the field which would spread the
manure and level the ground. The Land Staff Officer asked if we had
cattle on the area each year. I replied that we either had cattle or
horses on the area each year. I told him that I recalled my Dad mowing
and bailing hay from this area as I would chase cotton tails in the
tall grass during the mowing. Because the grass in this field came in
at a different time of year than the other fields my Dad would rotate
livestock into this area earlier in the year. The Land Staff Officer
asked if we ever watered the field. I told him how before the ponds
were filled with silt we would pump out of those ponds.
We then went to the disputed area in the Reservoir Field. The
District Ranger and I both recalled that we had met each other
previously when a fire on a neighbor's field had gotten away from them
and had burned the southern portion of my property, including the fence
line. As we walked the fence line I pointed out that I had left the old
wire at the outside base of the fence and had placed the metal posts
next to the stumps of the old fence. The Land Staff Officer and I
discussed the uses of the acreage. I said that every year livestock,
primarily cattle, but horses as well, grazed on this area. We also
discussed the fact that we maintained the fence each year and that we
would spray the Canadian Thistle each year.
Every question the Land Staff Officer asked me about the historical
use of each of the three areas I was able to answer in the affirmative.
After we finished walking all of the areas the Land Staff Officer said
that he had to get to a 1:00 p.m. meeting. Before he left he most
definitely led me to believe that in light of the historical use of the
properties that we had just discussed and reviewed, we qualified under
the Small Tract Act and advised me to make an application. I naturally
responded that I wished to make application under the Small Tract Act
for these areas. Consistent with the foregoing, I received a letter,
dated August 12, 1994, from the District Ranger, providing in part,
``During our visit to your property in Pinto, you indicated that you
would like to make application under the Small Tracts Act. Since the
ownership is not the same on all parcels, please submit a separate
application for each.'' A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit
``13.'' At no time during the discussions with the Land Staff Officer
on May 31, 1994 did any of the other three Forest Service
representatives state any disagreement with what I was being told or
question the relevance of any of the questions being posed to me.
C. During The Small Tract Act Application Process I Was Lead To Believe
That The Only Issue Remaining Was When The Applications Would
Be Approved
After the meeting at the ranch on May 31, 1994 I had several
telephone calls with the Cedar City Office Realty Specialist. I was
told that the office was ``backed-up'' and it was going to take several
years to process the Small Tract Act applications. I asked if there was
anything I could do to expedite the process. I was told that abstracts
of title had to be prepared, the historical use of the property had to
be researched, and any surveying discrepancies confirmed. I asked if I
spent the money and time to do those things up front would it shorten
the time to process the applications. I was told that it would.
I spent countless hours researching title records, locating and
reviewing personal histories, and locating and reviewing histories of
Pinto. I retained a surveyor to note all of the surveying discrepancies
in the valley. I spent days in the Archives Division of the Historical
Department in the LDS Church Office Building in Salt Lake City, Utah. I
spent many hours in university libraries attempting to locate histories
of the area. I corresponded with the National Archives in the same
effort. I photographed and cataloged the rip gut fences. I even
researched the history of barbed wire to reconfirm that the rip gut
fences had been there since the 1860s. I researched Pinto Cemetery
records to confirm the time when my predecessors-in-interest were in
the remote Pinto Valley. As seen from above, I found annals from 1870
proving all of the crops that were being grown and the livestock that
was being grazed on the properties. I put all of this together and had
the Realty Specialist review each of the applications before they were
finalized. I was told these were the most thorough and complete Small
Tract Act application she had seen. She told me this would
significantly expedite the time for approval. All three applications
were filed on July 1, 1996.
I telephoned the Realty Specialist during the spring of 1997 to
inquire when approval could be expected. She responded that there was a
possibility that it would be sometime in 1997, but that it was more
likely that it would take until the spring of 1998.
D. Forest Service Reverses Position After Three Years And Denies All
Small Tract Act Applications
During the first few weeks of August of 1997 I placed several
telephone calls to the Realty Specialist that went unanswered. I was
finally able to get her on the telephone on Wednesday, August 20, 1997.
I asked her the status of the approvals. She responded that after
looking at the applications (which she reviewed in detail before they
were filed) and the file, at that point there was not sufficient proof
to meet the Small Tract Act requirements. I then reviewed with her what
had been said during the review of the areas at my ranch. She responded
that although she understood what I was saying, no one made any
guarantees and that we may not meet the technical requirements of the
Small Tract Act.
On October 23, 1997 I had a meeting at the ranch with the new
District Ranger, the Regional Land Surveyor-Title Claims Officer, the
Forest Land Surveyor, the Realty Specialist, and my cousin. We
discussed my view that clearing the land, building the rip gut fences,
cultivating the soil, planting and harvesting crops, planting grass and
grazing livestock and doing all of this for 137 years was a very real,
legitimate, and significant improvement to the property. I contrasted
that with one of the other Small Tract Act applications the Cedar City
Office had approved in the Pinto Valley just a few years before. In
that case the owner had constructed a barbed wire fence within the last
15 years that added about 5 acres to his property. He had constructed
and had built a shed at a cost of less than $500.00. A shed that could
have been moved with a backhoe at the time. This area is located but a
few thousand feet from the disputed area in the Platt Field. The reason
for the encroachment in that instance, which had been accepted by the
Cedar City Office, was the same survey discrepancies that I had noted.
I questioned them how the latter could be determined to be an
``improvement'' under the Act by the same office that was now opining
that the improvements over 137 years on my property were not
``improvements'' under the Act. No one could answer the question.
During this meeting on October 23, 1997, I also had a discussion
with the Forest Land Surveyor concerning my family's property in
Section 3 of T38s - R15w which includes part of the Spring Field, as
well as the Southwest Field. I stated that it made no sense as to why
my great grandfather would apply for patent for property that included
the mountainous terrain to the south of the cabin and the dry fields
east of Pinto Creek in the southern part of the valley, if he had been
allowed to apply for those lands west of and adjacent to the log cabin.
There were no rip gut fences enclosing or even adjacent to the
mountainous terrain and the dry fields east of Pinto Creek. In
contrast, there were rip gut fences enclosing the west end of the
Spring Field and there were rip gut fences enclosing the Southwest
Field. Secondly, common sense cannot be ignored. The mode of
transportation was still horseback, wagon or by foot. Unless you were
told that the land was not open for patent, you would make application
for that land that is outside your door land that you had cleared,
cultivated, developed, worked, and used since 1860. You would apply for
that land as opposed to dry land on the other side of the mountain, the
other side of the valley, further south, and on the other side of the
Pinto Creek.
On December 1, 1997, I received a letter, dated November 24, 1997,
providing, ``Since there were no improvements located on any of the
three parcels for which you applied., we have determined that your
applications for the Platt Field, Spring Field, and Reservoir Field do
not meet the criteria of the Small Tracts Act and are hereby denied.''
After receipt of this letter I had several telephone calls with the
District Ranger about possible alternatives to obtain title to my
family's lands. He scheduled a meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah on July
14, 1998.
E. Forest Service Takes Adamant Position That Under No Circumstances
Will It Sell Or Convey Only The Disputed Areas, But That I Must
Agree To Buy Or Exchange Lands Whereby I Must Acquire
Significantly More Acreage Than The Disputed Lands
In attendance at the July 14, 1998 meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah
were the District Ranger, the Regional Land Surveyor-Title Claims
Officer, the Realty Specialist, an attorney for the Forest Service, and
myself. The purpose of the meeting was to explore viable alternatives
for my acquisition of the legal title to the disputed lands.
After listening to the statements of the Regional Land Surveyor-
Title Claims Officer (``Claims Officer'') during this meeting, it was
painfully obvious why the Forest Service had changed its position on my
Small Tract Act applications. It was not because the Forest Service
felt there were significant public values on the lands to be acquired
or there were identifiable resources to be protected the Forest Service
has conceded there are none. It was because my family's fence lines
followed the natural terrain and jogged this way and that depending
upon the topography. According to the Claims Officer, and he was
emphatic in his position, the fence lines were contrary to and
interfered with the Forest Service's ``management'' of the public lands
because the fence lines were not straight and the property consisted of
irregular shaped parcels of less than 40 acres.
In response, I stated that my great great grandparents and Benjamin
Platt had constructed the fences in a way that made sense enclosing the
creek and other water sources, and following the natural topography of
the land. I said that I should not be penalized for these pioneers not
building straight fence lines that created blocked up ownership with
right angles. At that point the Claims Officer stated, ``Your family
may be a long term squatter, but as far as we are concerned that is all
you are a squatter.''
This meeting ended with me stating that I wanted to pursue a land
exchange, as soon as possible, and perhaps simultaneously with other
avenues, to expedite the transfer of title to the property.
Subsequent to this meeting I had several telephone calls with the
District Ranger and the Claims Officer reaffirming my desire to pursue
the option of acquiring legal title to my family's property through a
land exchange.
During a telephone call on May 26, 1999, the District Ranger stated
that the Realty Specialist recently requested that I put in writing my
prior oral request for me to obtain title to my family's lands. The
District Ranger, consistent with what the lecture I had received from
the Claims Officer during the Salt Lake City meeting, asked me if I was
willing to pay more money to acquire more acreage than what was within
the existing fence lines so that the boundaries would have square
corners and straight lines. I responded that I would. The District
Ranger asked me to confirm that willingness in my letter request.
On May 27, 1999 I faxed my letter request to the District Ranger.
In compliance with the District Ranger's request, I wrote the following
in that letter:
In the event that it is more amenable to the Forest Service
that I acquire more acreage so that the boundaries have square
corners and straight lines (rather than follow fence lines that
have been in existence since the 1860s) I am willing to do so
with the full understanding that I would pay additional money
necessary to acquire more property for exchange. (Emphasis
added).
In that letter I went on to describe my frustration in dealing with
the Forest Service since 1994, detailing the basis for that
frustration. A copy of this letter is attached here to as Exhibit
``14.''
The Forest Service sent me a letter, dated July 13, 1999,
consistent with what the Claims Officer had emphatically told me during
the Salt Lake City meeting and the telephone call I had with the
District Ranger on May 26, 1999. Although the letter was signed by the
District Ranger, it was prepared by the Realty Specialist. The letter
provided in this regard, ``Please keep in mind that the objective is to
create manageable boundaries and blockup ownership for the National
Forest.'' (Emphasis added). The attachment to the letter is a map of
the area that highlights in red the area the Forest Service was willing
to exchange. It is Sectional Lots 6, 11, and 14, which total 120 acres.
Upon reviewing this map, which is in color, you can see how the
transfer of what has been highlighted in red would create straight
fence lines, square corners, and blockup ownership that would create
more manageable boundaries for the Forest Service.
As noted previously, the total acreage in dispute in Sectional Lot
11 (part of the Platt Field) was 11.8 acres. The area in dispute of the
Corn Field, which is in Sectional Lot 6, is less than 10 acres. Neither
my family nor I have claimed any interest in Sectional Lot 14. The only
reason for the proposed conveyance of Lot 14 is the creation of a big
rectangle of private land so the Forest Service would have straight
fence lines, square corners, and more manageable boundaries. A copy of
this July 13, 1999 letter including the attachment (in color) is
attached hereto as Exhibit ``15.''
This letter also provides, ``I do not wish to exchange out of
Federal ownership in Section 3, 38 S., R. 15 W.'' This position is
arbitrary, as the Forest Service has subsequently confirmed that there
are no significant public values on the lands to be acquired in Section
3 and that there are no identifiable resources to be protected in this
area. Two fields with rip gut fences, one of which is two feet from my
great great grandparent's log cabin, are in Section 3. In light of the
equities involved, there is simply no justification for this arbitrary
position.
In light of the objectives emphatically explained to me by the
Claims Officer, my telephone conversation with the District Ranger
wherein I was asked to request, in writing, the transfer of additional
acreage so that the boundaries have square corners and straight lines,
and the letter of July 13, 1999, I recently requested the Forest
Service to set forth the basis for those objectives. The Forest Service
has subsequently confirmed in writing the basis for its objectives: (1)
to blockup ownership; (2) to have straight boundaries between Forest
Service property and privately owned property; (3) to create more
manageable boundaries for the Forest Service, based on the belief that
straight boundaries are more manageable than boundaries that are not
straight; (4) to exchange lands to private ownership by sectional lot
or lots in order to create blockup ownership, straight boundaries
between Forest Service property and privately owned property, and to
create more manageable boundaries with the Forest Service. Attached
hereto as Exhibit ``16'' is a letter from the Forest Service, dated
July 1, 2002, referencing the regulations, the Act, the Manual, and the
Resource Management Plan upon which they rely.
F. Proposed Acquisition of 560 Acres At Fair Market Value Does Not
Require The Transfer of One Square Inch of Land More Than
Necessary To Satisfy The Emphatically Stated Forest Service
Requirements For the Last Four Years
Pursuant to the proposed acquisition at fair market value of 560
acres I will acquire legal title to the disputed areas in the Spring
Field, the Southwest Field, the Platt Field, the Corn Field, and the
Reservoir Field. Importantly, it will also satisfy each and every one
of the Forest Service objectives: 1) to blockup ownership; (2) to have
straight boundaries between Forest Service property and privately owned
property; (3) to create more manageable boundaries for the Forest
Service, based on the belief that straight boundaries are more
manageable than boundaries that are not straight; (4) to convey lands
to private ownership by sectional lot or lots in order to create
blockup ownership, straight boundaries between Forest Service property
and privately owned property, and to create more manageable boundaries
with the Forest Service. In fact, the conveyance of the 560 acres does
not include any land whatsoever other than the absolute minimum
necessary to satisfy the Forest Service stated requirements. A copy of
the legal description for the 560 acres is attached hereto as Exhibit
``17.'' It should be noted that it does not include Sectional Lot 14,
which was proposed to be conveyed by the Forest Service.
The Forest Service has confirmed that none of the land to be
conveyed has any significant public values and that there are no
identifiable resources to be protected.
On the other hand, the loss of the disputed areas would be
devastating to my family's property. Among other things, all access to
the Pinto Creek would be lost in two major fields where I graze cattle.
The permittee, his cattle, and other parties would have unfettered
access to the headwaters of my best water spring which would compromise
and place that spring in jeopardy. The permittee, his cattle, and other
parties would have unfettered access to an area but a few feet from the
source of another of my best springs. I would have the permittee's
cattle and others within two feet of my great great grand parent's
cabin.
Finally, the District Ranger has confirmed that the circumstances
of the history and use of these lands are unique and there are no
similarly situated lands in the Dixie National Forest.
G. In Response To The Possible Legislation In Recent Weeks The Forest
Service Cedar City Office Has Changed Its Position Yet Again
Metes and Bounds Are Acceptable Straight And Manageable Lines
Not Important
On Friday, July 12, 2002, I telephoned the District Ranger and
learned that the Cedar City Office of the Forest Service is now
changing its position regarding its objectives for the conveyance of
properties. I then telephoned the new acting Forest Supervisor in the
Cedar City Office. He told me that metes and bounds conveyances of
property are totally acceptable. I related to him the position
articulated to me by the Claims Officer four years before a position
the Forest Service has continued to maintain with me during the last
four years. He responded that he had recently spoken with the Claims
Officer and he had no problem with conveying land on a metes and bounds
description (with fence lines that go this way and that) either.
This very recent change in position is totally inconsistent with
the position of the Claims Officer and this Local Office for the past
four years. Suffice it to say that it is extremely frustrating to be
trying to solve a problem in an environment where the rules keep
changing after you have expended tremendous amounts of time, money and
effort.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the evidence and the equities are
overwhelming. I am not asking the Congress to give me anything. I am
asking the Congress to authorize the sale of my family property back to
me for fair market value and to establish straight and manageable
boundaries for the Forest Service. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request
the favorable consideration of this legislation and I am prepared to
answer any questions you might have or provide any further information
that the Subcommittee desires. Thank you Mr. Chairman for your time.
______
[NOTE: Attachments to Mr. Harrison's statement have been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. McInnis. We will open it up for questions by the
Committee.
And, Abigail, maybe you can--Ms. Kimbell. I'm sorry. Maybe
you can help me. You said in your earlier comments that the
Forest Service didn't have objections I think to the 20-acre
tract. How come they didn't already complete those
transactions? I mean, are they holding that as part of the
negotiations, or--
Ms. Kimbell. When Mr. Harrison applied for three different
parcels under the Small Tracts Act, we have been working back
and forth, but there have been pieces that have not been
completed by the other party.
Mr. McInnis. Now, someone--I think it was in your
testimony, that this has been going on since the 1990's. Or,
how long have the two parties been engaged in trying to resolve
this?
Ms. Kimbell. Well, in fact, some of these lands were
pursued for patent prior to the establishment of the National
Forest and were turned down then in, I believe, the 1880's.
Mr. McInnis. When did the Small Tracts Act requests come
in? Do you know those?
Ms. Kimbell. The original Small Tracts Act application was
made in 1996.
Mr. McInnis. All right.
Mr. Harrison. May I answer that?
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Harrison.
Mr. Harrison. The initial Small Tracts application was made
in 1991.
Mr. McInnis. And which part was that on up there on that
map?
Mr. Harrison. That was on what I reference the Platt Field,
and that would be on the eastern side of the Pinto Creek.
Mr. McInnis. And the north--as that map sits, the north is
up on the top? So I know where east is.
Mr. Harrison. The north is up on the top. Correct.
Mr. McInnis. All right.
Now, Ms. Kimbell, you mentioned that the Forest Service
thought there were ways to resolve this. Are the parties
currently engaged in some kind of negotiation to resolve this,
short of legislation? Or are they--tell me what the trend of
this is, where our trend is going here.
Ms. Kimbell. We currently have no authority to sell
National Forest System lands. We have offered to work with Mr.
Harrison on those Small Tracts Act applications, two of the
three of them.
Mr. McInnis. OK. Now, help me now. The one that you object
to--tell me the two that you agree to and the one--maybe if
you--and I am not sure you are familiar with this area, but
maybe you could help me on the map, too. That is my only--that
is the best reference I have got, is looking at the graph. Are
you familiar enough to tell me which of the two you agree with
and the one that you don't?
Ms. Kimbell. I am not familiar with which one is the third
piece that we do not agree with.
Mr. McInnis. Are you aware of which one that is, Mr.
Harrison, the third piece that they said they don't agree with?
Mr. Harrison. It is on the southernmost tip. It is the
Reservoir Field. That is about four acres and includes my best
spring. That is--and I own the spring.
Now I don't--you know, there is no water that is the
subject of these conveyance that would go from them to me. I
already own the water.
Mr. McInnis. The water is a separate property right. Isn't
that correct?
Mr. Harrison. Yes.
Mr. McInnis. All right. I am sorry, Abigail--Ms. Kimbell--
go ahead.
Ms. Kimbell. Mr. Chairman, it is those pieces in orange--
and I agree. I am struggling to see the orange from the pink.
But--that are on the west side and the east side, and the piece
on the south side is the side that is adjacent to lands that
were acquired in 1965 and don't qualify under the Small Tracts
Act.
Mr. McInnis. So--but what we need is legislation. I mean,
legislation is going to be required, correct?
Ms. Kimbell. If lands are to be conveyed to Mr. Harrison,
that--we currently have no authority to convey lands, those
lands that are marked in orange on the south side of the
parcel.
Mr. McInnis. Now, is the Forest Service protesting or
laying claim to any of the water rights that Mr. Harrison has,
or they are not making any claims on the water rights?
Ms. Kimbell. No, water rights aren't an issue here, other
than the access for other owners of water rights to access
their water rights for maintenance.
Mr. McInnis. All right.
Mr. Harrison, I will let you wrap it up there real quick on
the water rights.
Mr. Harrison. Let me address that.
The Pinto Irrigation Company, of which I am a member--and
we have shares in the creek, through the Pinto Valley controls
and manages that creek. I can represent that I have spoken to
the president of the Pinto Irrigation Company, and they are
unanimously in support of my retaining possession and obtaining
legal title to that area of land where the Pinto Creek goes
through.
Mr. McInnis. I think it would probably assist your case to
go ahead and get a statement or something from the irrigation
company to supplement the documents that you submitted, and we
will accept that into the record.
I will now go to Ms. Christensen. Do you have any
questions?
Mrs. Christensen. Yes, I do. Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. You may proceed.
Mrs. Christensen. I would like to take this opportunity to
welcome everyone at the panel this morning. I am going to ask
my questions. I am going to focus mainly on H.R. 2386.
I agree that there is benefit in having outfitters and
guides for both the visitor and the property, but I do have
some concerns about the bill. Because--and primarily I am
having difficulty seeing how continuing marginally performing
outfitters or guides would do that, enhance the visitors'
experience or the property.
My first questions would go to Ms. Barnett, the Deputy
Assistant Director. Could you clarify for me, does the
Administration support the provisions in the bill providing for
non-competitive bids and automatic renewal of outfitter and
guide permits?
Ms. Barnett. Those are areas that we would like to work on
with the Committee. We share some of your concerns.
Mr. McInnis. I think you need to turn on the mike there.
Ms. Barnett. We share the Committee's concerns in that
regard. We appreciate your bringing those up, and we would like
to continue to work with you in those areas that are
specifically the issues that you brought up that we are
concerned about.
Mrs. Christensen. Along the same lines, you also share the
concern that the same fee is being charged to all outfitters
and guides in a given area, regardless of the size of the
outfitter?
Ms. Barnett. My official testimony submitted reflects the
position of the Department. We will work with you on that issue
as well.
Mrs. Christensen. So--well, so the Administration doesn't
have--as I understand it in the bill, it is the same fee to be
charged to all of the outfitters and guides, regardless of
size. And it wasn't clear to me that you had stated a position
on that.
Ms. Barnett. I think the position we are looking for is
consistency in the application of any fee structure.
Mrs. Christensen. Under the legislation, an outfitter and
guide could have one unsatisfactory and multiple marginal
rating and still be entitled to an automatic renewal of the
permit. Does the Administration support that?
I know that one of the persons who testified said that that
was not the case, but the bill on page 29 said: The Secretary
shall renew all outfitter authorization under paragraph 1 if
the Secretary determines that the authorized outfitter has not
received more than one unsatisfactory annual performance. And
that is all it says. So, they could be marginally performing as
long as they only have one unsatisfactory. Do you support--
Ms. Barnett. We do not support the provision for automatic
approval of transfers, but we do support the principle of
making sure that they are processed in a timely fashion, and we
want that opportunity, to work with them to correct any
deficiencies before any kind of transfers are made.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
Ms. Kimbell, you stated in your testimony on the same bill
that Forest Service wants to work with the Committee to resolve
several important issues that you see would make a better bill.
But I didn't see in your testimony any specific issues that you
might have been referring to. Can you tell us where the issues
are in the bill so that we can work with both you and the
Forest Service and our colleagues to see that they are
corrected?
Ms. Kimbell. Certainly. The Department has two critical
issues that we would like to work with the Committee on
different language. One has to do with liability. We have been
working with the industry over a number of years, and we think
we are pretty close to being able to identify common language
that would work for both of us. But specifically-- one
specifically on liability.
The other is on this very same question with the automatic
renewal of permits. We have some suggestions for some language
changes, and we would like to work with our good friends at the
Department of the Interior and with the Subcommittee.
Mrs. Christensen. So you share the concerns about the
ability for the marginally performing outfitter to
automatically be renewed and the fees? The same questions that
I asked of Ms. Barnett.
Ms. Kimbell. Yes, and other things from Ms. Barnett's
testimony regarding changes in land condition, changes in
demands. There are some other things that we would like to
address as well.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Udall.
Mr. Mark Udall. A little dispute between the Udalls here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an ongoing problem around here.
There are too many Udalls; and if you have seen one, you have
seen them all, somebody once said.
But, panel, it is great to have you here today, and I
wanted to thank you for taking your time to join us. I wanted
to focus my remarks on the PILT legislation, but before I do
that, I wanted to acknowledge the great work of Outward Bound
and also America Outdoors. It is terrific to see you here.
I want to thank the Chairman for his strong comments in
support of the good work that the outfitter guide community
does to not only expose people of all ages and backgrounds to
our wonderful public lands but, in the process, to build
character and teach people how to work in teams and how to draw
on the best in themselves; and I think we need that more than
ever in this world that we now face post 9/11.
So--and my son is on his way to Outward Bound as soon as I
can get him in a car and send him your way. He needs that kind
of experience, maybe as pay-back for what I did to my parents.
But it is great to see you all here, and I look forward to
working with you on the outfitter guide legislation. I, of
course, have first-hand experience in working with the agencies
and finding that proper balance between the needs and
responsibilities and rights of the outfitters versus the
managers of our public lands.
Let me just move to PILT. I am particularly glad that we
are taking up these important pieces of legislation. In
Colorado and other Western States, it is really a crucial
program, particularly where there are large tracts of Federal
lands; and that makes me a strong supporter of PILT for many
reasons.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Udall, I am sorry to interrupt you, but we
haven't yet gotten to the PILT bill. I would ask you to reserve
your comments on PILT until we have the testimony that will be
subsequent to this and that we focus on these two particular
bills. I understand the two witnesses that you have from the
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management will be present
during the PILT presentation. So I ask you to reserve that.
Mr. Mark Udall. Mr. Chairman, I understand. I have no
further questions of the other bills. If I could include my
statement in the record, I would appreciate it. I am going to
be called to another meeting I think before the next testimony
will occur, but I understand. Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Udall, if you would like to, since you
have got to go to the other meeting, since we do have a
witness--I wasn't aware of that--you can go ahead and express
your concerns. Then, maybe during their testimony, you can
cover that and then you can look for the record for an
appropriate response.
Mr. Mark Udall. That would be something I would like to do.
Let me just finish my remarks, just take another minute or
so, Mr. Chairman.
The feeling I have is that the funding out of PILT should
be stable and reliable. It shouldn't be rising and falling
based on such things as timber receipts or fees, and it ought
to be a program that the local governments can count on without
becoming a hostage to debates over the management of Federal
lands. Local counties have a stake in those management debates,
and the land managing agencies should listen carefully to what
they have to say. But a stable, dependable PILT program will
free the local governments from a dependence that can make it
harder for them to weigh the issues involved. That is one of
the reasons I am a co-sponsor of Mr. McInnis' bill, H.R. 1811.
I look forward to hearing the testimony if I can stay; and,
if not, I will read the testimony and extend any questions to
witnesses.
But I really want to impress, as I think my Chairman will,
Mr. McInnis, that we want to strengthen the PILT program. I
think his legislation is very well put together, and I am a
little disappointed the Administration seems to have problems
with it, but we are going to work together to make this right
in the long run.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Udall.
Mr. Otter.
Mr. Otter. I have nothing.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Horn, before we wrap up this panel, just
let me ask you. The outfitters--just to clarify from some
earlier testimony, because maybe I am confused. But my
understanding is that outfitters don't automatically get their
permit renewed. They have to have lived up to the conditions of
the contract to the agreement that they have made prior to the
renewal. Is that correct or not?
Mr. Horn. Yes, Mr. Chairman. They have to earn satisfactory
performance for 9 years out of the 10. Any reading of the bill
that you can continue with a marginal rating is a misreading.
The marginal rating is essentially a temporary evaluation which
points out deficiencies in your performance; and if you do not
cure those deficiencies, your marginal rating drops
automatically to unsatisfactory. If you cure the deficiencies,
it enables you to earn a satisfactory rating.
So the only way that you can earn the renewal that is
specified in the bill is, as I said, by batting 900. You have
to get a formal satisfactory evaluation for 9 years out of the
10.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Horn.
Mr. Inslee, do you have any questions of the panel?
Mr. Inslee. I have a couple, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McInnis. Sure.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
My apologies for not being able to join you; and if my
questions are duplicative, I regret that.
Mr. Harrison, I wanted to ask you about this proposed
acquisition in this beautiful country. We are all envious of
the beautiful country you live in. Could you explain to me--I
have been told that your original application was something
around 25 acres, and now the proposal is about 500-plus. Could
you explain how that occurred, that change, if you will?
Mr. McInnis. Let me interrupt, Mr. Harrison. We had
already--I asked him an almost identical question early on. So
why don't you refer to the record, Mr. Inslee, and move on to
your next question. That has been asked. He went through a
whole process up here, and I think you could track it in the
record, if you don't mind. I know you weren't here.
Mr. Harrison. Could I expand on it just briefly?
Mr. McInnis. Sure.
Mr. Harrison. Four years ago the Forest Service took the
position on the east side where I had applied for 11.8 acres
that I had to acquire 120 acres rather than the 11.8. The
genesis of the 560 is parameters that have been dictated to me
by the Forest Service for the last 4 years that are in the
materials that I provided.
Mr. Inslee. Again, my apologies. But is that having to do
with just having straight boundaries, or is there some other
thing going on here?
Mr. Harrison. The Forest Service described it to me as in
furtherance of their management objective of straight
boundaries, sectional lot divisions, right angles, blocked-up
ownership.
Mr. Inslee. And how would you describe the inability to get
this done administratively? How would you describe the--where
does the Service's or the agency's perception differ from you
on the history of this tract? What is the kernel of contention,
really?
Mr. Harrison. Well, the two reasons stated to me were, one,
these were small meandering fence lines that they thought would
be contrary to their management objectives; and, second of all,
they pointed to an Interior Board of Land Appeals where someone
had a piece of ground that was not improved and they brought in
outside materials, barbed wire and fence, and just simply built
a fence around it and said, well, that is not improvement.
I submit that my position is radically different than that,
in that the rip-gut fences that surround my boundaries are
evidence of an improvement by clearing the land, cultivating
the land, growing crops. I have submitted records from the
1860's and the 1870's of the crops and the livestock that my
family was raising on this ground, and I think those are
significant improvements.
My position is radically different than the Interior Board
of Land Appeals' decision where somebody just simply brought in
some barbed wire and built a fence.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
Mr. Mackey, I am going to ask kind of a softball question.
It is late, but it is still a softball question. What do you
think the most important thing for us to know is as far as
increasing your ability to fulfill your mission, which my kids
have enjoyed being part of? I mean, if you can tell us one
thing, what do you think is the most important thing for us to
be thinking about in regard to your mission?
Mr. Mackey. The thing that I focused on this morning,
Congressman, was performance-based renewal. We get in--we are a
non-profit educator. We are 501(c)(3). We are a large user of
the public lands. There is no question about that.
Outward Bound evolved early in the system, if you will. It
started in this country in 1961. And the way the system has
evolved, there is a national office and underneath that there
are seven separately chartered 501(c)(3)s, each of which was
started up in a local community when people saw how wonderful
Outward Bound was.
You know, if you will, we have sort of become a General
Motors of the outdoor industry. We are a big player on public
lands. There is absolutely no question about that.
But even though we are a significant player out there, we
are still very threatened by the concept of fee bidding, of
competitive bidding for permits. We would like to see a system
whereby your performance on the ground, your performance in
terms of providing quality services that the public is seeking
out there on the public lands, resource protection, education--
Paying a fair return to the Federal Government is certainly
part of the process. There are many places where Outward Bound
has actually voluntarily taken outfitter status so that we can
have that allocation of use for which, in return, we fill out
paperwork, we pay fees, you name it.
But the best example, Congressman, is--at this point in
time is really western rivers. Set aside the Grand Canyon,
because that is really a separate example. But if you take
rivers throughout the West, you know, the Green River in
Colorado, and Utah and Desolation Canyon, the Rogue, the
Current in California, any number of rivers--the situation
there is very competitive in this day and age, and the agencies
are beginning to look at competitive bidding for those permits.
We can certainly compete very well based on what we do out
of the ground, but Outward Bound cannot compete with a Delaware
North or a Marriott Corporation for those premier experiences,
and we would like to be able to offer those premier experiences
to the people we serve, primarily young people. Those $2
million in scholarships we raise every year and pass out on a
sliding scale, much like college financial aid--you know, we
think we provide a very important service in terms of
introducing a broad array of people in this country to their
public lands and teaching them how to take care of their public
lands and take care of themselves while we are at it.
So what I focused on this morning is really performance-
based permit renewal, and the biggest single issue that is
wrapped into that is subordination of fees in either the award
of a permit or the renewal of a permit.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
Mr. Mackey. Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. No further questions.
I want to thank all the panel on the different areas.
Mr. Tom Udall. Mr. McInnis--Mr. Chairman, could I ask some
questions? I was just passing to my cousin Mark since he was
here earlier. But I didn't want to--
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Udall, I took it as a yield of time. But
out of my generosity of the day, I will let you have your time.
Mr. Tom Udall. Well, you are very generous, Mr. Chairman;
and I certainly appreciate it.
I have been reading this press article up here. This is--
First of all, welcome to the panel, and sorry I am a little
late here. I almost missed out here, I guess, but the Chairman
has been very generous.
Let me--and in this press article it talks about, there is
a July 18th memo from the Forest Service that cited several
concerns about the proposed sale of the 560 acres, and these
were the concerns: That there were two grazing permittees that
would be adversely affected. A second concern: Another
landowner's property would be completely surrounded by
Harrison's property. The third concern: A spring and more than
a half mile of Pinto Creek would be removed from public
ownership. No. 4: The sale would nearly double the amount of
private property in Pinto, leading to a change in the rural
character of the area. And, No. 5: The sale may be viewed as
inequitable to other families who have acquired only small
parcels of land from the Forest Service.
I am just wondering, are those five concerns still concerns
of the Forest Service today? What is the Forest Service's
position on those concerns from your July 18th memo and where
are you today?
Ms. Kimbell. I am not aware of the July 18th memo, but
those still remain concerns of the U.S. Forest Service, yes.
Mr. Tom Udall. And none of those have been worked out, as
far as you are concerned?
Ms. Kimbell. Not to date. No.
Mr. Tom Udall. Mr. Harrison, how do you react to those
concerns in the July 18th memo?
Mr. Harrison. I have also not seen the memo, but I will
address the concerns as I understand them.
As I stated earlier, the person that has access to the
county road will still have access to the county road. That
won't be changed. The permittee's rights will not be affected.
This would be subject to existing rights of the permittee. It
will not change the rural character. I have no intention of
developing this land or anything. This is my family land. This
is my heritage. This is what my family is about.
Mr. Harrison. The site--that article is so unfair, because
for the Forest Service, the Forest Service has dictated the 560
acres by the parameters they have given me in the last 4 years,
and to now turn around and say that somehow Congressman Hansen
is out of line or to say that anything--I mean, it is
absolutely incredible their position has changed just as of
this morning again. The 560 is dictated by the parameters set
to me by the Forest Service, and it is in the materials that I
provided.
Mr. McInnis. If you will let me interrupt you for a minute,
I will just point out that the previous testimony that--as I
understand it, that the family has resided on the property
since the 1860's, generation after generation after generation.
A lot of history to the property.
Mr. Tom Udall. Mr. Harrison, you understand it is pretty
extraordinary for the Forest Service to be selling this kind of
acreage to a private citizen, don't you?
Mr. Harrison. As I just said earlier, the area where I
applied for 11.8 acres, and the letter is in here. They
insisted that I take 120.
Mr. Tom Udall. Is it your position these issues that are
raised by the Forest Service are all resolved? It seems like
you went through them rather quickly here. I mean, the two
grazing permittees, they are not adversely affected?
Mr. Harrison. This bill--the conveyance I would take would
be subject to their existing rights. It wouldn't terminate
their rights.
Mr. Tom Udall. So they are not impacted in any way?
Mr. Harrison. If they have got a 10-year lease and they
have got 9 years left, I take subject to that 9-year lease.
Mr. Tom Udall. The Forest Service woman there is shaking
her head. Can you respond there to that, Abigail? Sorry to--
Ms. Kimbell. On National Forest System lands, we have
grazing permits, not grazing leases, and they don't--they
aren't on a 10-year time period. As we read the bill, those
leases would--or those permits would terminate, and the
remaining available forage would allow for about a 98 percent
reduction in the size of those two permits.
Mr. Tom Udall. So they are adversely affected? There is no
doubt about that?
Ms. Kimbell. Yes, they would be.
Mr. Tom Udall. Mr. Harrison.
Mr. Harrison. My understanding, whether it is a permit or a
lease, they are in 10-year increments, and whatever time is
left, I would take subject to that. I would like to address the
water issue as--
Mr. Tom Udall. Well, the problem with that is that most
people that graze on Federal land anticipate doing it for
longer than 10 years. I mean, many of these are families that
have been in the business for hundreds of years, and they don't
view it as a little 10-year period. They view it that if they
are good stewards and they treat the land properly, that they
can get a renewal of the permit. You are trying to extinguish
their rights and just say, oh, you know, it is no big deal to
them it sounds like.
Mr. Harrison. I am not trying to extinguish their rights. I
am merely trying to get legal title to my family's lands.
Mr. Tom Udall. But you want full control and authority over
the land at the end of 10 years it sounds like, which would be
adverse to their rights.
Mr. Harrison. I have no problem working something out with
the permittee. I mean, one of them is a good friend of mine. I
mean, I--
Mr. Tom Udall. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McInnis. I am going to go ahead and let Mr. Inslee ask
a couple questions. Then we need to expedite it because we are
expecting votes around 11:30.
Mr. Inslee.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. I am
sure you understand our curiosity about this is when the
applicant comes in for about 25 acres and ends up with a bill
of about 500, and the answer is that the Forest--or the agency
wanted to have sort of straight lines or sectional definitions
as best I could figure it out. Is there any way to do a
straight line meets and bounds definition, if they want
straight lines, where you end up getting somewhere 25 acres or
50 acres that may not be exactly historical usage but gives you
a straight line boundary if that is what the agency wants and
we can tell the public that this is a little more consistent
with kind of fairness as far as historical usage? Is there a
way to do that? Have you talked to the agency about potentially
doing that at all?
Mr. Harrison. I would be more than happy to sit down with
them and work something out to make sense for both of us.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. You know, I do want to point out that the bill
does have the language. It subjects any transfer to Mr.
Harrison to existing rights, and so on.
Well, I want to thank the panel. I also thank the
Committee. I think we have had a good examination of this
particular issue. I thank all of you.
We will keep the record open on this for a period of 10
days.
Mr. McInnis. I will now introduce our witnesses for our
third bill, H.R. 1811, on Panel II: Chris Kearney, with the
Department of Interior; the Honorable Don Davis, Commissioner
of Rio Blanco County, Colorado; and Linda Cable, City
Administrator, Swain County, North Carolina.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. SCOTT McINNIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. McInnis. Again, we are subject to the 5 minutes. I am
going to go ahead while our witnesses are being seated and
start my opening statement due to the fact we have votes
momentarily.
I want to thank my colleague Mr. Radanovich whose
Subcommittee retains primary jurisdiction over the PILT issue
for joining me--excuse me, for joining with Mr. Gilchrest and
me in convening today's session hearing on this legislation
that is so important to communities across our country.
When Congress enacted payment in lieu of taxes, commonly
called PILT, and the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, it made both
an admission and a promise. The admission that Congress made
was that it would be fundamentally unfair for the Federal
Government to own vast tracts of land within a country or
municipality, land that would otherwise provide local revenue
in the form of property tax to fund roads, schools and other
important social issues and not reimburse the county for those
revenue losses.
Remember, the Federal Government holdings are generally
immune from State and local tax and so Congress affirmatively
recognized that these localities would quite literally wither
on the vine without some form of compensation from the Federal
Government.
With that admission in mind, Congress made a promise to
provide just and reasonable compensation of local governments
whose tax base is eroded by large Federal land ownership
presence. This promise was embodied and codified in PILT and
the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, which set out a reimbursement
formula under which the localities would be compensated. I
would note for the benefit of the Committee and the guests we
have today, that in my particular district, I have
approximately 120 communities, 119 of which are completely
surrounded by public lands.
Now, since it is the--and I think Mr. Davis, your county
has, what, 98 percent? What is your percentage of government
owned? 75 percent.
Now, since this is the Subcommittee on Forest and Forest
Health and not the Committee on Rocket Science, I am not going
to even begin to try and explain the mind-numbing nuances of
PILT and the refuge revenue funding formulas. I will leave that
for another day, but I will say these formulas set out a
reasonable framework for compensating our friends in local
government.
Unfortunately, Congress has rarely been willing to fully
fund PILT and the Refuge Revenue Fund at the levels authorized
under those formulas. You couldn't say that Congress totally
broke its promise, but there is no question we have been
fudging big time.
In Fiscal Year 2002, Congress shortchanged PILT by almost
$40 million and the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund by over $16
million. In the scheme of the United States Treasury, this may
not seem like a big deal. Representatives of counties and other
local governments, including my good friend Mr. Davis, who is
here to testify today, will tell you otherwise.
Now, there are some who say we can't afford permanent full
funding of PILT. I say we can't afford not to. We have
committed ourselves. We are obligated to legally, and in
addition to that, as good neighbors we are obligated to. PILT
and the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act fund the nuts and bolts
programs that keep the community strong. Those dollars go
directly to classrooms, to expanding, in some cases paving the
local county road, to keeping cops on the street, to funding
critical social service programs. I might also add that our
emergency services perform a number of duties on Federal lands,
ambulance, rescue, firefighting, et cetera. So they are due
appropriate compensation that every other citizen in the county
has to pay for.
This is mom and apple pie stuff. Colleagues, it is being
shortchanged because Congress has a historic propensity to
fudge on its word.
H.R. 1811, the PILT and Refuge Revenue Sharing Permanent
Funding Act of 2002 would rectify this inequity by doing just
what the title suggests, fully funding both programs with
further appropriation.
The bill solidifies Congress' promise to our friends in
local government in ironclad terms by guaranteeing that the
appropriated funds will always equal the levels authorized by
these complicated formulas. No more partial funding, no more
fudging on our word. H.R. 1811 settles the score once and for
all for all communities and local governments.
We have another PILT bill, H.R. 5081, and I understand we
have a witness, Mr. Wallace. Is Mr. Wallace here? Mr. Wallace,
why don't you come on up to the table? Because we have a vote
coming up very quickly, I would like to have you there. We will
move to you as soon as we finish with these other three. Now,
you all are entitled to 5 minutes, but if you can keep it less
than 5 minutes, I would appreciate it because of the fact we
are expecting a vote, and my guess would be that once we get
the vote, we will not be able to reconvene the Committee until
sometime after lunch, if that.
So we will go ahead and proceed. Mr. Kearney, with
Department of Interior, thank you for coming. Why don't you
begin with your statement?
[The prepared statement of Mr. McInnis follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Scott McInnis, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Radanovich, whose Subcommittee
retains primary jurisdiction over the PILT issue, for joining with Mr.
Gilchrest and me in convening today's hearing on this legislation
that's so important to communities all across this country.
When Congress enacted Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) and the
Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, it made both an admission and a promise.
The admission that Congress made was that it would be fundamentally
unfair for the Federal Government to own vast tracks of land within a
county or municipality--land that would otherwise provide local revenue
in the form of property tax to fund roads, schools and other important
social services--and not reimburse the county for those revenue losses.
Remember, the Federal Government's holdings are generally immune from
state and local taxation. And so Congress affirmatively recognized that
many localities would quite literally whither on the vine without some
form of compensation from the Federal Government.
With that admission in mind, Congress made a promise to provide
just and reasonable compensation to the local governments whose tax
base is eroded by a large Federal land ownership presence. That promise
was embodied and codified in PILT and the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act,
which set out a reimbursement formula under which localities would be
compensated.
Now since this is the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health,
and not the Committee on Rocket Science, I'm not even going to begin to
try to explain the mind-numbing nuances of the PILT and Refuge Revenue
funding formulas. I'll leave that for someone else. But what I will say
is that these formulas set out a reasoned and responsible framework for
compensating our friends in local government.
Unfortunately, Congress has rarely been willing to fund PILT and
the Refuge Revenue Fund at the levels authorized under these formulas.
You couldn't say that Congress totally broke its promise, but there's
no question we've been fudging big time. In Fiscal Year 2002, for
example, Congress shortchanged PILT by about $140 million, and the
Refuge Revenue Sharing fund by over $16 million. In the scheme of the
United States Treasury, this may not seem like a big deal.
Representatives of counties and other local governments including my
good friend Don Davis who's here to testify today will tell you
otherwise.
Now there are some who say we can't afford permanent full funding
of PILT. I say we can't afford not to. PILT and the Refuge Revenue
Sharing Act fund the nuts-and-bolts programs that keep communities
strong. These dollars go directly to classrooms, to expanding--and in
some cases paving--the local county road, to keeping cops on the
street, and to funding critical social service programs. This is mom-
and-apple pie stuff, Colleagues, that's being shortchanged because of
Congress' historic propensity to fudge on its word.
H.R. 1811, the PILT and Refuge Revenue Sharing Permanent Funding
Act of 2002 would rectify this inequity by doing just what the title
suggests--fully funding both programs without further appropriation.
The bill solidifies Congress' promise to our friends in local
government in ironclad terms by guaranteeing that appropriated moneys
will always equal the levels authorized by those complicated formulas.
No more partial funding, no more fudging on our word. H.R. 1811
settles the score once and for all for communities and local
governments.
______
STATEMENT OF CHRIS KEARNEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY AND
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Kearney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief and
also touch briefly on H.R. 5081 in my statement. Mr. Chairman
and members of the Committee, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to testify today on H.R. 1811 and H.R. 5081, bills
that would make the Bureau of Land Management's Payment in Lieu
of Taxes program and the Fish and Wildlife Service's Refuge
Revenue Sharing program mandatory.
A hearing on S. 454, comparable to H.R. 1811, took place on
May 9th, 2002, before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee's Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forest, and our
position remains unchanged on both that bill and on 1811. The
Administration strongly supports PILT and the RRS programs and
views them as high priorities, but the Administration is
strongly opposed to both because it would--S. 454 and H.R.
1811--because it would force the Federal Government to either
raise taxes or cut into other programs that are integral to the
President's budget.
The President's 2003 budget request demonstrates our
commitment to PILT, we believe. The Administration requested
$150 million for the Fiscal Year 2002 for PILT, and this year
the Administration is requesting $165 million, an increase of
$15 million. Despite the budget pressures resulting from the
events of September 11th and in light of the fact that the
Department's overall budget for Fiscal Year 2003 was nearly
unchanged from the prior year, the Department sought a 10
percent increase over last year's budget for this important
program because of our commitment to making progress, and we
fully realize this obligation.
In addition, while we recognize the importance of the PILT
program, it should not be viewed in isolation from other
departmental and Federal programs that will bring benefits to
counties in the future. Examples include funding provided for
rural fire assistance and our efforts to work with gateway
communities on tourism opportunities.
I would like to note that many of the concerns we have
expressed regarding the PILT funding has also--was true for the
RRS funding as well.
Mr. Kearney. Turning briefly to H.R. 5081, the
Administration supports the purposes of H.R. 5081 but we must
oppose this legislation for the same reasons we oppose H.R.
1811. The legislation seeks to protect local governments
against the loss of property tax revenue when private lands are
required by a Federal agency by making the PILT program
mandatory spending for the next 5 years. The Administration is
strongly opposed to creating a new mandatory spending category
to fund the PILT program because again it would force the
Federal Government to either raise taxes or to cut into other
programs that are integral to the President's budget.
With regard to a number of sections of H.R. 5081, the
Administration supports the concept that the Federal Government
should pay for the actual cost of land acquisitions including
some provision for reimbursing counties for lost revenue. While
the Administration wants to work with the sponsors and the
Committee on ways to incorporate this theory into the land
acquisition process in the budget, the Administration has a
number of concerns with these sections, which in the interest
of time I will not address in detail.
We would like to work with the sponsors in the Committee to
clarify, however, one specific thing, the relationship of PILT
and the entitlement lands to the one-time payments in order to
ensure that the units of local government would receive only
one form of payment or the other for Federally acquired lands.
This concludes my condensed statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kearney follows:]
Statement of Chris Kearney, Assistant Secretary for Policy and
International Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to testify today on H.R. 1811 and H.R. 5081, bills that
would make the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Payments-in-Lieu of
Taxes (PILT) Program and the Fish and Wildlife Service's Refuge Revenue
Sharing (RRS) Program mandatory. A hearing on S. 454, took place on May
9, 2002, before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. Our position on these bills
remains unchanged. The Administration strongly supports the PILT and
RRS programs and views them as high priorities, but the Administration
is strongly opposed to both S. 454 and H.R. 1811 because it would force
the Federal Government to either raise taxes or cut into other programs
that are integral to the President's budget.
Background
The PILT Act (P.L. 94-565) was passed by Congress in 1976 to
provide payments to local governments in counties where certain Federal
lands are located within their boundaries. PILT is based on the concept
that these local governments incur costs associated with maintaining
infrastructure on Federal lands within their boundaries but are unable
to collect taxes on these lands; thus, they need to be compensated for
these losses in tax revenues. The payments are made to local
governments in lieu of tax revenues and to supplement other Federal
land receipts shared with local governments. The amounts available for
payments to local governments require annual appropriation by Congress.
The BLM allocates payments according to the formula in the PILT Act.
The formula takes into account the population within an affected unit
of local government, the number of acres of eligible Federal land, and
the amount of certain Federal land payments received by the county in
the preceding year. These payments are other Federal revenues (such as
receipts from mineral leasing, livestock grazing, and timber
harvesting) that the Federal Government transfers to the counties.
The President's Fiscal Year 2003 budget request demonstrates our
commitment to PILT. The Administration requested $150 million for
Fiscal Year 2002 for PILT, and this year the Administration is
requesting $165 million, an increase of $15 million. Despite the budget
pressures resulting from the events of September 11th, and in light of
the fact that the Department's overall budget for Fiscal Year 2003 was
nearly unchanged from the prior year, the Department sought a ten
percent increase over last year's budget for this important program
because of our commitment to making progress and we fully realize this
obligation. In addition, while we recognize the importance of the PILT
program, it should not be viewed in isolation from other departmental
and Federal programs that bring or will bring benefits to counties in
the future. Examples include funding provided for rural fire assistance
and our efforts to work with Gateway Communities to increase tourism
opportunities.
The Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (16 U.S.C. 715s) as amended, was
enacted in 1935. It authorizes payments to be made to offset tax losses
to counties in which U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) fee and
withdrawn public domain lands are located. The original Act provided
for 25 percent of the net receipts from revenues from the sale or other
disposition of products on refuge lands to be paid to counties. The Act
was amended in 1964 to make it more like the payment-in-lieu of tax
program. The new provisions distinguished between acquired lands that
are purchased by the Service and lands that are withdrawn from the
public domain for administration by the Service. For fee lands, the
counties received 3/4 of 1 percent of the adjusted value of the land or
25 percent of the net receipts, whichever was greater, with the value
of the land to be reappraised every 5 years. They continued to receive
25 percent of the net receipts collected on the withdrawn public domain
lands in their county.
The Act was amended again in 1978 in order to provide more
equitable payments to counties with lands administered by the Service
within their boundaries. The method used to determine the adjusted cost
of the land acquired during the depression years of the 1930's (using
agricultural land indices) resulted in continuing low land values
compared to the land prices that existed in 1978. Also, other lands
that were purchased during periods of inflated land values were found
to be overvalued. The Congress decided that the payments did not
adequately reflect current tax values of the property. It also
recognized that national wildlife refuges are established first and
foremost for the protection and enhancement of wildlife and that many
produce little or no income that could be shared with the local county.
In the 1978 amendments, Congress chose to distinguish between lands
acquired in fee and lands withdrawn from the public domain, by
recognizing that the financial impact on counties tends to be greater
when lands are directly withdrawn from the tax rolls, rather than when
the refuge unit is created out of the public domain and has never been
subject to a property tax. The formula adopted then, and still in
effect, allows the Service to pay counties containing lands acquired in
fee the greater of: 75 cents per acre, 3/4 of 1 percent of the fair
market value of that land, or 25 percent of the net receipts collected
from the area. If receipts are insufficient to satisfy these payments,
appropriations are authorized to make up the difference.
Counties can use funds for any government purpose, and pass through
the funds to lesser units of local government within the county that
experience a reduction of real property taxes as a result of the
existence of Service fee lands within their boundaries. Counties with
Service lands that are withdrawn from the public domain continue to
receive 25 percent of the receipts collected from the area and are paid
under the provisions of the PILT Act.
I would like to note that many of the same concerns we have
expressed regarding PILT funding hold true for RRS funding as well.
Moreover, we believe that it would be prudent to take another look at
the PILT and RRS formulas, authorization levels and other issues,
including those raised in the Department's report to Congress dated
January 11, 1999, before considering such a significant action as
converting these payments to permanent mandatory payments.
H.R. 5081
The Administration supports the purposes of H.R. 5081, but we must
oppose this legislation for the same reasons that we oppose H.R. 1811.
This legislation seeks to protect local governments against the loss of
property tax revenue when private lands are acquired by a Federal
agency by making the PILT program mandatory spending for the next five
fiscal years. The Administration is strongly opposed to creating a new
mandatory spending category to fund the PILT program because it would
force the Federal Government to either raise taxes or cut into other
programs that are integral to the President's budget.
With regard to the other sections of H.R. 5081, the Administration
supports the concept that the Federal Government should pay for the
actual cost of land acquisitions, including some provision for
reimbursing counties for lost tax revenue. While the Administration
wants to work with the sponsors and with the Committee on ways to
incorporate this theory into the land acquisition process and budget,
the Administration also has some concerns with these sections.
We believe the provision that allows retroactive selections could
expose the United States Treasury to a potentially enormous liability.
If every unit of local government where Federal land acquisitions have
occurred since September 30, 1998, were to select a one-time lump sum
payment in lieu of PILT payments, the immediate liability for Federal
taxpayers could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
The Administration also wants to work with the sponsors and the
Committee to clarify the relationship of PILT and entitlement lands to
the one-time payments, in order to ensure that units of local
government would receive only one form of payment or the other for
Federally acquired lands.
We believe it is important to note for Members of Congress that
this legislation could dramatically increase the initial costs of
acquiring land for the Federal Government. This will negatively impact
the ability of Congress and the Administration to acquire high-priority
lands. While the Administration has not estimated the amount of
additional money that would be needed to fund the principal for new
trust funds associated with land acquisitions, it is safe to say that a
dramatic increase in funding would be required in order to accomplish
the same level of acquisition activity provided by the Interior
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002. If acquisition funding were to
remain level, this legislation would curtail the ability of the Federal
Government to acquire fee land.
The Administration appreciates having the opportunity to review and
comment on this legislation. Unfortunately, the bill raises significant
budget and policy issues that remain unaddressed and the Administration
must oppose the bill as drafted. We would like to work with the
sponsors and the Committee to find an approach that accomplishes the
goals of the bill without increasing the demands on the budget.
Conclusion
The Administration recognizes that these payments are important to
local governments, often comprising a significant portion of their
operating budgets. Recently, the Secretary signed an MOU with the
President of the National Association of Counties under which they plan
to work closely together on a number of issues including matters
related to PILT. The PILT and RRS monies have been used for critical
functions such as local search and rescue operations, road maintenance,
law enforcement, schools and emergency services. These activities are
often undertaken in support of people from around the country who visit
or recreate on Federal lands. The BLM and the FWS look forward to
continuing to work cooperatively with the communities on these
important issues.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
pleased to answer any questions that you or the other members may have.
______
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Kearney. Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis,
I know that this has been a--because I have known you for 30
years, I know it is an issue you feel very deeply about. I
appreciate you making the trip out here and appreciate your
testimony today. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DON DAVIS, COMMISSIONER, RIO BLANCO
COUNTY, COLORADO, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES AND
COLORADO COUNTIES, INC.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is indeed an honor
for me to appear before your Committee. I am a County
Commissioner in Colorado. I serve as Chairman of the Public
Land Steering Committee for Colorado Counties, Incorporated,
and as First Vice President of the Western Interstate Region of
the National Association of Counties.
H.R. 1811, the PILT and Refuge Sharing Permanent Funding
Act, represents a bipartisan effort to provide an ongoing
secure source of funding. This legislation introduced in the
House by yourself, Chairman McInnis, and cosponsored by
Chairman Radanovich and 24 other Members from both parties
would permanently fund these two programs so critical to public
lands counties. It is landmark legislation and should be
enacted without delay.
Counties are a general purpose local government that must
provide public services, both for the Federal employees and
their families and for the users of Federal lands. These local
services include law enforcement, search and rescue,
firefighting, health care, solid waste disposal, road and
bridge maintenance, et cetera.
In 1994 Congress amended the PILT formula at the request of
the National Association of Counties to recognize inflationary
costs. Unfortunately, in the intervening 8 years no
Presidential budget has requested nor has any Congress yet
appropriated the amount authorized under the revised formula.
NACo and CCI wish to go on record to applaud the Members of
the House of Representatives for requesting a historic $230
million for PILT in Fiscal Year 2003. The Interior
appropriation bill passed just a few days ago. We thank you for
your strong support.
However much we are grateful for any increased
appropriation, we view incremental increases as a stopgap
measure. PILT should not be seen as just another spending
program in the Bureau of Land Management, and it should not
have to compete with worthwhile conservation programs within
the Interior and Related Agencies appropriation bills.
In Colorado 56 of the 63 counties contain Federal lands.
There are a total of 23.6 million entitlement acres of Federal
lands in Colorado. With annual PILT payments in 2002 of
approximately $14.5 million, this works out to about 61 cents
per acre. However, in Rio Blanco County, we have 1.5 million
acres of Federal land and the PILT payment is $241,554, or
about 16 cents per acre.
In Hinsdale County, in the southwestern part of the State,
the situation is even worse. With 676,515 acres of Federal
land, their PILT payment was only $62,630, less than 9 cents
per acre. The 676,000 acres of public land in Hinsdale County
represents 95 percent of that county. There are only about
37,000 acres of private land. 305 of 326 miles of county roads
are located on Federal lands.
In summer months, the population of Hinsdale County swells
as much as twentyfold. The influx of recreation-seeking
visitors creates extreme law enforcement challenges which carry
commensurate costs. Local property taxes for the 37,000 acres
of private land average $8.30 per acre compared to the 9 cents
per acre average for the PILT payment.
The National Association of Counties also supports the
permanent funding of the Refuge Revenue Sharing program through
H.R. 1811. Federal Wildlife Refuge acreage is not automatically
PILT entitled acreage. In fact, if it was acquired by the Fish
and Wildlife Service from private property owners, it is not
covered by PILT. The Refuge Revenue Sharing program is how
local governments are compensated for this special category of
Federally owned land, which is tax exempt. This program is
particularly important in eastern States.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Don Davis, Commissioner, Rio Blanco County,
Colorado, on behalf of The National Association of Counties and
Colorado Counties, Inc.
Mr. Chairman, and distinguished Subcommittee members, it is an
honor to appear before you to present this testimony in support of H.R.
1811. My name is Don Davis, and I am a County Commissioner from Rio
Blanco County, Colorado. I serve as Chairman of the Public Lands
Steering Committee of Colorado Counties, Inc., and as first Vice
President of the Western Interstate Region of the National Association
of Counties (NACo).
H.R. 1811, the PILT and Refuge Revenue Sharing Permanent Funding
Act, represents a bipartisan effort to provide an ongoing secure source
of funding for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program. This legislation,
introduced by my Congressman, Chairman McInnis and co-sponsored by
Chairman Radanovich and 24 other members of Congress from both parties,
would permanently fund this program so critical to the communities
which are surrounded by Federally managed land.
The Payments in Lieu of Taxes program has a two-fold purpose: (1)
to help compensate counties ``in lieu'' of property taxes for the tax
exempt nature of Federally-owned lands; and (2) to help reimburse
counties for a portion of the costs of local services impacted by the
activities on and visitors to the public lands.
Counties are the general purpose local government that must provide
the local public services both for the Federal employees and their
families and for the users of Federal lands. These local services
include law enforcement, search and rescue, fire fighting, health care,
solid waste disposal, local recreation programs, road and bridge
maintenance, etc. There are more than 1900 counties nationwide that are
eligible to receive PILT.
In 1976, Congress enacted, and President Ford signed, the Payments
in Lieu of Taxes Act. It was sponsored by Rep. Frank Evans of Colorado.
This legislation was based upon a key finding of the Congressional
Public Land Law Review Commission co-chaired by Rep. Wayne Aspinal of
Colorado and Rep. Mo Udall of Arizona. Under the 1976 PILT formula,
total payments nationwide averaged about $100 million annually,
depending upon the level established each year in the appropriation
process. There was no allowance for inflation.
In 1994 Congress amended the PILT formula, at the request of the
National Association of Counties, to recognize inflationary costs.
Unfortunately, in the intervening eight years, no President has asked
for, nor has any Congress appropriated, the full amount authorized
under the revised formula. This lack of secure funding has been
particularly distressing for rural public land counties like Rio Blanco
County and Hinsdale County in Colorado. In the PILT formula there is a
pro rata payment provision to disperse payment when less than full
payment is provided. This provision adversely affects counties with
large holdings of public lands that also have low populations. For
example, one year the payment for Rio Blanco County actually dropped by
$12,000 (about 8%) even though overall payment nationwide increased.
NACo supports an amendment to the statutory formula which would, in
conjunction with permanent full funding, allow the low-population high-
entitlement-acreage counties to realize more of the benefit from PILT.
However, even absent such an adjustment to the formula, this is an
inequity that can largely be corrected by the enactment of H.R. 1811.
In Colorado, 56 out of 63 counties contain Federal lands. There are
a total of 23.6 million ``entitlement'' acres of Federal lands in
Colorado, with annual PILT payment in 2002 of approximately $14.5
million. This works out to about sixty-one cents per acre.
However, in Rio Blanco County with 1.5 million acres of Federal
land, the PILT payment was $241,554, or about sixteen cents per acre.
In Hinsdale County the situation is even worse. With 676,515 acres of
Federal land their PILT payment was only $62,630, less than nine cents
per acre.
The 676,515 acres of public lands in Hinsdale County represents 95%
of the county. There are only about 37,000 acres of private land. This
means that 305 miles of the 326 miles of county roads are located on
Federal lands. In summer months, the population of Hinsdale County
swells as much as a twenty-fold. The influx of recreation seeking
visitors creates extreme law enforcement challenges which carry
commensurate costs. In fact, a former Hinsdale County Sheriff was
killed on public lands by a poacher. Local property taxes for the
37,000 acres of private lands averaged $8.30 per acre, compared to the
nine cents per acre averaged for the PILT payment.
In Rio Blanco County we have a similar situation. Approximately 500
miles of the 900 miles of county roads are located on Federal lands.
The county is impacted by extensive natural resource activities on
these Federal lands. We have oil and natural gas production, coal
production, nacholite (or sodium bicarbonate) production, plus
considerable hunting, fishing and recreation activities. Quite frankly,
Rio Blanco County cannot adequately keep up with the demand for local
services. We need your help. Rio Blanco County is also facing the
future development of the world's richest deposit of oil shale. Shell
Oil Company is currently operating a research facility in our county
that looks promising. Development of these critical national resources
requires extensive infrastructure investment at the local level;
particularly if the development is going to be done in a manner which
is sustains important ecological values.
This year, the state and local governments in Colorado, across the
west and in fact across the country, face increased fire fighting costs
due to the high risk of catastrophic forest fires this summer. I am
concerned that Colorado faces a real threat of more future fires from
eco-terrorists. We have suffered previous eco-terrorist attacks in
Eagle County, where a ski lodge was burned, and in Boulder County,
where a new home was burned. When well-meaning mainstream environmental
organizations express concern over efforts to reduce fire risk through
fuel treatment programs outside the wildland urban interface, I fear
that the more radical fringe groups may initiate eco-terrorist
activities to stop programs they oppose. In any event, whenever any of
these fires spread to private lands, suppression becomes a state or
local responsibility, and a costly one, at that.
The National Association of Counties also supports fully funding
the Refuge Revenue Sharing program through H.R. 1811. The acreage in
wildlife refuges managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not
automatically PILT entitlement acreage. In fact, if it was acquired by
the Fish and Wildlife Service from private owners, it is not covered by
PILT. The Refuge Revenue Sharing program is how local governments are
compensated for this special category of Federally owned tax-exempt
land. This program is particularly important in states outside the west
where most of the wildlife refuges were not carved out of the public
domain but have been acquired by the Federal Government from private
landowners. For example, in Fiscal Year 2002, counties in the State of
Maryland received over $312,000 in Refuge Revenue Sharing, but only
about $81,000 in PILT. Similarly, Delaware counties received over
$126,000 in Refuge Revenue Sharing, but only about $2,000 in PILT.
Some have suggested that PILT does not need to be funded at its
full authorization because many counties receive payments under
programs like the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination
Act (P.L. 106-393), thus implying that counties are overpaid under
Federal programs. Please remember the facts:
1. LThe National Forests have produced billions of dollars of
revenues to the Federal treasury in recent years. Furthermore, Title II
projects under P.L. 106-393 will add millions more in badly needed
revenues for Federal forest restoration projects selected
collaboratively by Resource Advisory Committees.
2. LNational forest moneys to counties under P.L. 106-393 are
dedicated to roads and schools. PILT payments are flexible,
discretionary general funds, needed to pay for the services counties
must provide to visitors of these Federal lands and to the lands
themselves (e.g., public health and safety, search and rescue, solid
waste treatment and disposal). These two programs serve different, but
critical functions, yet both relate directly to tax-exempt Federal
lands.
3. LP.L. 106-393 Title I and III payments reduce the amount of PILT
payments received by a county. By operation of the PILT formula, when
the Federal Government increases its support for roads and schools, it
reduces its support of the other Federal land-related local services
counties must provide. For example, our Crook County, Oregon, will see
its PILT payment drop from $754,022 to $143,659! Baker County from
$642,721 to $324,249. Umatilla County, Oregon from $349,428 to
$105,854. In rural areas and where vast stretches of Federal lands are
located, this is real money that cannot be replaced.
The uniqueness of both the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program
and of natural resource revenue sharing programs must be explicitly
recognized and strictly maintained. PILT must not be confused with the
various revenue sharing programs which are linked to natural resource
development and usually have strings attached as to their use.
NACo believes that Congress was correct to enact PILT and Refuge
Revenue Sharing legislation to compensate counties for the tax-exempt
status of Federal lands and to help defray some of the local costs
associated with activities on these lands. As a county official
actively involved in NACo's efforts to secure equitable funding for
these programs, I urge you to approve H.R. 1811. This bipartisan
legislation would provide a much needed and secure level of funding of
annual PILT payment to public land counties throughout the country.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify,
______
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Davis. I appreciate it.
Ms. Cable, welcome to the Committee. You come from a
beautiful State. I appreciate the time you have taken to come
down, and you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF LINDA CABLE, CITY ADMINISTRATOR, SWAIN COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES AND THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ASSOCIATION OF NORTH
CAROLINA
Ms. Cable. Thank you. I appreciate that also. Mr. Chairman
and distinguished Subcommittee members, it is indeed a pleasure
and an honor to present this testimony in support of H.R. 1811,
the PILT and Refuge Revenue Sharing Permanent Funding Act.
My name is Linda Cable, and for the last 19 years I have
served as County Administrator for Swain County, North
Carolina. Swain County is a relatively small rural county in
the southern Appalachian Mountains of far western Carolina.
Most of you know this area as the Great Smokeys. At 81 percent
our county may well represent the highest Federal locale of any
jurisdiction in the eastern United States. Of the 339,000 acres
in Swain County, the U.S. Park Service and U.S. Forest Service
together own 239,747 of these acres; the Eastern Cherokee
Indian Reservation, another 29,466; and Tennessee Valley
Authority, 737,000 acres. Taking away another 4 percent of our
land is the State of North Carolina Department of
Transportation rights-of-way and exempt organizations such as
churches, schools and cemeteries. We are left with a mere
50,000 acres, or 14 percent of our acreage as our tax base.
Passage of H.R. 1811 would assure our small county of the
necessary resources to provide services, not only for the
citizens of Swain County but to the millions of visitors that
annually flock to our county to see the Great Smokeys, the most
visited national park in the United States. Swain County is
fortunate to have such a beautiful backdrop to our community,
but is concurrently plagued with the lack of tax base that
exists due to this huge Federal land control.
Swain is only one of two counties in North Carolina
designated as distressed by the Appalachian Regional
Commission. Further, we are designated a tier one county by the
State of North Carolina. These designations relate to the
severely depressed economic condition of our county. 33 percent
of our citizens live below the poverty rate, and characteristic
of our extremely steep mountainous terrain, there is very
little private land that is considered suitable for
development. Swain County is therefore considered unattractive
to most industrial job producing prospects.
Swain is not so different from other small rural counties
across the Nation, in that we struggle each year to meet the
needs of our citizens that we serve. The one main difference is
the exceedingly high percentage of Federal control and the
resulting sliver of taxable private property. For example, a 1-
cent tax increase brings in only one-third the cost of a new
ambulance that Swain County needs. In fact, if we could
rationally and politically tax at the full $1.50 allowed by
North Carolina law, we would raise less than $5 million, much
short of the total needed to operate Swain County.
Most expenditures in our county budget are mandated by
either the Federal Government or the State government, examples
being schools, Medicaid, jails and solid waste disposal. The
Federal and State checks attached to these mandates are
woefully insufficient. Local governments are left with the
responsibility of securing the resources to finance these
mandated services.
Raising the property tax is not a good solution in a county
with such a high poverty rate. At some point the local elected
officials have to be realistic as to what people can pay and
still feed and shelter their families.
PILT payments are critically important for the operation of
local government programs within eligible counties. Permanent
full funding of PILT payments to counties with Federal land
holdings is the fair and right thing to do. The Federal
Government should be as responsible as private property owners
are expected to be. Private property owners cannot look at
their annual budgets and decide how much they will appropriate
to property taxes each year. If that were the case, there would
be no local governments left standing to implement Federal and
State mandates.
There should be no question as to how much these counties
should be expected to receive each year in PILT payments. These
payments should be funded at the full formula amounts adopted
by Congress. It is unfortunate that our local governments
cannot impose penalty and interest on delinquent PILT payments
as the Federal Government would do if the situation were
reversed.
The fully funded formula allots $445,060 to Swain County.
Last year we received only $189,128 in PILT payments, just 42
percent of the amount we were due. The $247,932 we didn't
receive represents a 7.5 percent local property tax burden.
PILT payments assist in providing such services as emergency
response, solid waste disposal and law enforcement for visitors
to the Federal lands in our county.
While the Federal Government controls 81 percent of Swain
County, it contributes a mere 3 percent of our annual revenues.
Conversely, our tiny 14 percent private property base provides
35 percent of our annual revenue stream.
I should clarify and give credit to the Tennessee Valley
Authority as one of the mentioned Federal landowners. They do
contribute fully and fairly to the revenue stream. TVA holds
just 2 percent of the land but contributes 5 percent of Swain
County's annual revenue.
In closing, and on behalf of all counties that receive PILT
payments, I want to express appreciation to those Members of
Congress who stepped forward last year to restore funding after
the President's proposed cuts. Without your support, our
counties would have suffered a devastating loss. I sincerely
hope you will support H.R. 1811 to solidify this funding stream
for our counties.
Thank you for your attention and for the opportunity to be
here today, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cable follows:]
Statement of Linda Cable, County Administrator, Swain County, North
Carolina, on behalf of The National Association of Counties and The
County Commissioners Association of North Carolina
Mr. Chairman, and distinguished Subcommittee Members, it is indeed
a pleasure and honor to present this testimony in support of H.R. 1811,
``The PILT and Refuge Revenue Sharing Permanent Funding Act''. My Name
is Linda Cable. For the past 19 years I have served as County
Administrator for Swain County, North Carolina. Swain County is a
relatively small, rural county in the Southern Appalachian Mountains of
far Western North Carolina. Most of you know this area as the Great
Smokies. At 81%, our county may well represent the highest Federal
control of any jurisdiction in the eastern United States. Of the
339,000 acres in Swain County, the U.S. Park Service and U.S. Forest
Service together own 239,747 acres, the Eastern Cherokee Indian
Reservation another 29, 466, and Tennessee Valley Authority 7,337
acres. Taking away another 4% of our land base held by the State of
North Carolina Department of Transportation, and by exempt
organizations such as churches, we are left with a mere 50,000 acres,
or 14% of total acres, as our tax base.
Passage of H.R. 1811 would assure our small county of the necessary
resources to provide services not only for the citizens of Swain
County, but to the millions of visitors that annually flock to our
county to see the Great Smokies, the most visited National Park in the
United States. Swain County is fortunate to have such a beautiful
backdrop to our community, but is concurrently plagued with the lack of
tax base that exists due to this huge Federal land control.
Swain County is one of only 2 counties in North Carolina designated
as ``distressed'' by the Appalachian Regional Commission. Further we
are designated a ``tier one'' county by the State of North Carolina.
These designations relate to the severely depressed economic condition
of our county. Thirty-three percent of our citizens live below the
poverty rate. Characteristic of our extremely steep mountainous
terrain, there is very little private land that is considered suitable
for development. Swain County is, therefore, considered unattractive to
most industrial, job-producing prospects.
Swain County is not so different than other small, rural counties
across the nation, in that we struggle each year to meet the needs of
the citizens that we serve. The one main difference in Swain County is
the exceedingly high percentage of Federal control, and the resulting
sliver of taxable private property. For instance, a one cent tax
increase brings in only 1/3 the cost of the new ambulance that we need.
In fact, if we could rationally and politically tax at the full $1.50
allowed by NC law, we would raise less than $5 million, much short of
the total needed to operate Swain County. Most expenditures in our
county budget are mandated by either the Federal Government or the
state government, examples being schools, Medicaid, jail and solid
waste disposal. The Federal and state checks attached to these mandates
are woefully insufficient. Local governments are left with the
responsibility of securing the resources to finance these mandated
services.
Raising the property tax rate is not a good solution in a county
with such a high poverty rate. At some point the local elected
officials have to be realistic as to what people can pay, and still
feed and shelter their families.
PILT payments are critically important for the operation of local
government programs within eligible counties. Permanent, full funding
of PILT payments to counties with Federal land holdings is the ``fair''
and ``right'' thing to do. The Federal Government should be as
responsible as private property owners are expected to be. Private
property owners cannot look at their annual budgets and decide how much
they will ``appropriate'' to property taxes each year. If that were the
case, there would be no local governments left standing to implement
Federal and state mandates. There should be no question as to how much
these counties should expect to receive each year in PILT payments.
These payments should be funded at the full formula amounts adopted by
Congress. It is unfortunate that our local governments can't impose
penalties and interests on delinquent PILT payments, as the Federal
Government would do if the situation were reversed.
The fully funded formula allots $445,060 to Swain County. Last year
we received only $189,128 in PILT payments, just 42% of the amount we
were due. The $247,932 we didn't receive represents a 7.5% local
property tax burden. PILT payments assist in providing services such as
emergency response, solid waste disposal and law enforcement for
visitors to the Federal lands in our county.
While the Federal Government controls 81% of Swain County, it
contributes a mere 3% of our annual revenues. Conversely, our tiny 14%
private property base provides 35% of our annual revenue stream. I
should clarify and give due credit that the Tennessee Valley Authority,
as one of the mentioned Federal land owners, does contribute fully and
fairly to our revenue stream. TVA holds just 2% of the land but
contributes 5% of Swain County's annual revenue.
In closing, and on behalf of all counties that receive PILT
payments, I want to express appreciation to those Members of Congress
who stepped forward last year to restore funding after the President's
proposed cuts. Without your support our counties would have suffered a
devastating loss. I sincerely hope you will support H.R. 1811 to
solidify this funding stream for our counties.
Thank you for your attention
______
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Ms. Cable.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Radanovich, why don't you give your
opening remark very quickly before we go to Mr. Wallace, and
then we will go to Wallace and I will recognize Mr. Udall on
this, go back to this.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. McInnis. I appreciate your
setting up this joint hearing. I think it is valuable in the
discussions we are having on these bills. Thank you for
considering this legislation of the Property Tax Endowment Act,
which is H.R. 5081, today. I appreciate the opportunity to
speak on behalf of my bill and to hear witnesses' testimony on
this important piece of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, over 1400 local governments in our Nation
face losses in the revenue stream when Federal land management
agencies acquire private land. These local governments lose
their tax base while the demand for infrastructure such as
roads, emergency services and waste management often increases.
Unfortunately, the payment to counties under payment in lieu of
taxes, or PILT, does not increase.
In my proposed legislation, the Property Tax Endowment Act
will assure that a constant revenue stream to local government
would occur. When the Federal land management agencies that
oversee PILT, the Forest Service, the National Park Service,
Fish and Wildlife, and Bureau of Land Management, acquire
private land and property, they would be required to deposit
funding with the local government to ensure that the annual
proceeds would offset permanent loss of the tax base.
My proposal does not adversely affect PILT, but the
legislation guarantees that current PILT payments are not
impacted negatively. PILT would be fully funded through the
year 2007 under my legislation.
Additionally, though, the bill would exempt acquired lands
from ever becoming entitlement acres under PILT to prevent
double payments. It would also provide payments to local
governments for the values of mines, ranches, farms and other
businesses that may be acquired. The value of these lands,
except for their acreage, is not reflected in the current PILT
formula.
Precedent for H.R. 5081 exists. Congress has provided
payment to local governments for high-profile acquisition cases
such as Redwoods National Park, Tahoe Basin and the New World
Mine. My legislation would assure that payments to offset a
lost tax base would occur in all Federal acquisitions, not just
those with high profile status. Thus, the bill brings equity to
local governments throughout the Nation.
Federal land acquisitions occur frequently. About $530
million is proposed for acquisitions in the Fiscal Year 2003
budget. We should move quickly to provide farmers with and--
excuse me. We should move quickly to provide fairness and
equity to local governments when the Federal Government
acquires property in their jurisdictions. Local governments
deserve revenue assurance, and it is sound public policy to
provide appropriate offsets at the time of this purchase.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for
holding this hearing today and look forward to testimony from
my constituent Brent Wallace.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]
Statement of The Honorable George Radanovich, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
Mr. Chairman, thank you for considering my legislation, the
Property Tax Endowment Act, H.R. 5081, today. I appreciate the
opportunity to speak on behalf of my bill and to hear witness testimony
on this important piece of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, over 1,400 local governments in our nation face
losses in their revenue stream when Federal land management agencies
acquire private land. These local governments lose their tax base,
while the demand for infrastructure such as roads, emergency services
and waste management often increases. Unfortunately, the payment to
counties under the Payment in Lieu of Taxes, or PILT, does NOT
increase.
My proposed legislation, the Property Tax Endowment Act, will
assure that a constant revenue stream to local government would occur.
When the Federal land management agencies that oversee PILT--the Forest
Service, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau
of Land Management--acquire private land and property, they would be
required to deposit funding with the local government to ensure the
annual proceeds would offset the permanent loss of tax base.
My proposal does not adversely affect PILT. The legislation
guarantees that current PILT payments are not impacted negatively. PILT
would be fully funded through the year 2007 under my legislation.
Additionally, the bill would exempt acquired lands from ever becoming
entitlement acres under PILT--to prevent double payments. It would also
provide payment to local governments for the value of mines, ranches,
farms, and other businesses that may be acquired. The value of these
lands, except for their acreage, is not reflected in the current PILT
formula.
Precedent for H.R. 5081 exists. Congress has provided payments to
local governments for high profile acquisition cases such as the
Redwoods National Park, Tahoe Basin and the New World Mine. My
legislation would assure that payments to offset lost tax base would
occur in all Federal acquisitions, not just those with high profile
status. Thus, the bill brings equity to local governments throughout
the nation.
Federal land acquisitions occur frequently, and about $530 million
is proposed for acquisitions in the Fiscal Year 2003 budget. We should
move quickly to provide fairness and equity to our local governments
when the Federal Government acquires property in their jurisdictions.
Local governments deserve revenue assurance, and it is sound public
policy to provide appropriate offsets at the time of purchase.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for holding this
hearing today, and I look forward to working with you on H.R. 5081.
______
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wallace.
STATEMENT OF BRENT WALLACE, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, TUOLUMNE
COUNTY, SONORA, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Wallace. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Honorable
Chairman and members of the Committee. Actually, I will defer
much of what I had to say with regard to H.R. 1811, because
many of the examples that have been given by--from Colorado and
North Carolina are exactly the same kinds of issues that apply
to Tuolumne County and much of the rural county portion of
California.
Tuolumne County offers some of the very best to the Nation.
It is 58 percent of the Yosemite National Park and 900 square
miles of the National Forest. We serve millions of visitors
from across the Nation and international visitors each year.
PILT funding in and of itself is a very important part of
our county budget. There are two aspects of PILT that I would
pause to say create a problem, and that is the continued
discussion--the deliberations each year and the unknowns that
are out there of how much money will come forward.
With regard to those specifically and in brief to H.R.
5081--and I would stop here first and say our county board of
supervisors has placed a priority on 1811, but we are in
support of both bills. With regard to H.R. 5081, that is--we do
not consider it a substitute for H.R. 1811. Section 2 provides
temporary relief to local government, while passage of H.R.
1811 will allow section 2 of H.R. 5081 to be removed from the
bill.
Mr. Wallace. Under H.R. 5081, local governments would have
the option of receiving compensation for all properties
acquired by the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management,
National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service
equivalent to the property taxes assessed at the time of the
acquisition. County governments currently lose valuable
revenues when the Federal Government acquires land. The option
to establish an endowment will reduce the opposition of local
governments toward land acquisitions.
H.R. 5081 will limit future PILT payments. If enacted, 5081
will allow the Federal Government to meet its local government
obligations from an endowment fund rather than PILT
appropriations, and H.R. 5081 provides counties with the
flexibility to receive funding through the traditional PILT or
through an endowment method, but not both, as I understand the
legislation.
And H.R. 5081 believes that those counties such as my own
that are capped under PILT formula, once full funding has been
achieved under PILT, future Federal land acquisitions would not
benefit Tuolumne County and more than 1,400 other counties
across the Nation. So there would be no incentive for a PILT-
capped county to support additional Federal land purchases.
Though PILT funding has increased in recent years, and we
thank the members of the Committee for their past support, the
current resources do not meet the need of providing services to
Federal lands. PILT and 1811 and 5081 would go a long way in
easing the financial responsibilities borne by counties for
providing public safety, housing, environmental and
transportation services to Federal employees and their families
as well as to users of the public lands. So on behalf of the
County Board of Supervisors for the County of Tuolumne, I would
encourage your support both of both H.R. 1811 and 5081. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wallace follows:]
Statement of C. Brent Wallace, County Administrator, Tuolumne County,
Sonora, California, on H.R. 1811 and H.R. 5081
Honorable Chairmen and Committee Members, thank you for the
invitation to appear before you and provide testimony regarding H.R.
1811 and H.R. 5081.
As a rural County Administrator for the past sixteen years, I have
been employed in three California Counties where the majority of the
land within each county is publicly owned. I have a thorough
understanding of the relationship between the Federal Government land
management and funding practices and how those practices affect local
government. In the past few years there has been an attempt by the
Department of the Interior to work in consultation and cooperation with
local government. This effort has been accepted and welcomed by all
counties. A further demonstration of the commitment to counties by the
Federal Government would be the adoption and signature of both H.R.
1811 and H.R. 5081 legislation.
Tuolumne County, with more than 76% of its twenty-two hundred
square miles of land under Federal ownership, offers some of the very
best to the nation. More than 50 percent of Yosemite National Park and
more than 900 square miles of the Stanislaus National Forest are
contained within its boundaries. The County serves millions of national
and international visitors each year. The full and continuous funding
of Payments In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) provide certain levels of local
funding assurance that enables the County to provide basic services to
our visitors. Our local government meets its basic mandated funding
obligations before it may engage in discretionary spending. We believe
the Federal Government should follow the same practice and fully fund
PILT as a mandatory program, before prioritizing funding for
discretionary programs.
There is no question that PILT funding is an essential portion of
the Tuolumne County budget. There are two aspects of PILT that create
difficult budget problems at the local level. First, is the uncertainty
of the amount of funds to be allocated for PILT each year. The intent
of PILT was, as I understand the historical legislation, to provide a
stable payment to local government for services provided by local
government to Federal lands that are not subject to local taxes. The
total amount of the Federally owned land has not decreased over time.
It has increased. The local government costs associated with that land
increase each year. Yet, the amount of the payment has varied year to
year based upon Federal budget deliberations. The lack of a consistent
appropriation creates guesswork in local budget preparation. Second,
PILT does not cover the actual cost of providing local services to
Federally owned land.
As forest fires throughout the west continue to burn, the costs to
all levels of government increase each day that a fire remains
uncontrolled and new fires begin. The Tuolumne County Fire Department
is often one of the first responders to a fire in the National Forest.
Last year two moderate sized fires, in the National Forest, of less
than 26,000 acres combined in our County cost more than $150,000 in
actual staff and equipment time. The total of the indirect costs (Fire
and Sheriff Dispatchers, Emergency Management staff, medical staff on
standby, cleanup efforts, etc.) will exceed $200,000. I cannot imagine
the costs associated with the fires for this summer to the counties in
Colorado, Arizona and Oregon. We have submitted reimbursements for some
of our costs for last summer and will consider ourselves fortunate if
we receive $40,000. Additionally, a fire engine was totally destroyed
in a burn over. A fire engine costs $250,000. That loss is not
reimbursable. It is now virtually impossible to afford insurance for
safety vehicles after the events of September 11.
Tuolumne County is also the first responder for Search and Rescue
Operations. Last year a hiker was rescued in the Emigrant Basin
National Wilderness area. These kinds of search and rescue operations
are routine and exceedingly expensive. The use of a helicopter can cost
$1,500 per hour. Our Search and Rescue Unit found the hiker and brought
him to the local county hospital for treatment. Hard dollar County cost
for this rescue from Federal land was $15,000. None of this is
reimbursable.
Hikers and campers on Federal land are frequently injured and
require special medical attention. A common injury is a rattlesnake
bite. If the Federally owned rattlesnake is wise enough to bite a fully
insured person there is no cost to the County. If however, that
Federally owned snake bites someone without insurance, the cost is
absorbed by the County General Hospital. Injections for rattlesnake
bites now cost $1,720 per box, with as many as eight boxes needed to
treat the average patient. While there may be a research grant out
there somewhere for the education of snakes for the selection of the
correct, or insured, rattlesnake bite victims--it is probably more
efficient and less costly for the Federal Government to continue to
treat people through the full funding of PILT.
The major uses of PILT in Tuolumne County are as follows:
LThe maintenance and repair of County streets, roads and
highways. The County maintains many miles of roadways that transport
millions of visitors to campgrounds, parks, ski areas and numerous
recreational facilities and areas offered on Federal lands.
LThe provision of emergency medical care through the
County Ambulance Response Program and for health care at the General
Hospital.
LThe County's response to the multitude of environmental
documents produced by Federal agencies with regard to projects and
programs on Federal land.
LThe mutual aid responses of the County law enforcement
departments and housing of those placed into custody in the County
jail.
The County of Tuolumne is in support of both H.R. 5081 and H.R.
1811. However, the priority of the two bills is H.R. 1811.
LH.R. 5081 should not be a substitute for H.R. 1811.
Section 2 provides temporary relief to local government, while passage
of H.R. 1811 will allow Section 2 of H.R. 5081 to be removed from the
bill.
LUnder H.R. 5081, local governments would have the option
of receiving compensation for all properties acquired by the Forest
Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service and the Fish
and Wildlife Service equivalent to the property taxes assessed at the
time of the acquisition. H.R. 1811 benefits only those lands entitled
to PILT. Some land acquisitions are not subject to PILT. County
governments currently lose valuable revenues when the Federal
Government acquires land. The option to establish an endowment will
reduce the opposition of local governments toward land acquisitions.
LH.R. 5081 will limit future PILT obligations. Many land
acquisitions currently increase the PILT obligations. If enacted, H.R.
5081 will allow the government to meet its local government obligations
from an endowment fund rather than PILT appropriations.
LH.R. 5081 provides counties with the flexibility to
receive funding through the traditional PILT or through an endowment,
but not both. Lands classified as entitlement acres will receive the
traditional PILT. Lands subject to an endowment will be paid through
the endowment.
LH.R. 5081 benefits those counties, such as my own, that
are capped under the PILT formula. Once full funding has been achieved
under PILT, future Federal land acquisitions will not benefit Tuolumne
County and more than 1,400 other counties. Under H.R. 5081 Tuolumne
County would have the ability to use the endowment method to maintain
the tax benefit of that property. Otherwise, the County would actually
lose assessed value with no gain in PILT. There is no incentive for a
PILT- capped county to support additional Federal land purchases.
The California State Association of Counties and the Regional
Council of Rural Counties, representing the interests of all California
counties, has long advocated full funding for PILT. Though PILT funding
has grown in recent years, and we thank the members of the Committee
for their past support, current resources do not meet the cost of
providing services to Federal lands. PILT funding at the full
authorized level would go a long way in easing the financial
responsibilities borne by counties for providing public safety,
housing, environmental and transportation services to Federal employees
and their families as well as to users of public lands.
On behalf of the Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors I would
encourage you to support both H.R. 1811 and H.R. 5081.
______
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Wallace.
Mr. Udall, before I yield to you, I note that you are an
original cosponsor. You signed our colleague letter, and I
appreciate very much your support.
Mr. Udall, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM UDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Mr. Tom Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to applaud
you and Chairman Radanovich for this piece of legislation. I
think this is a good solid piece of legislation. It is
something that is long overdue in the West. Let me say that for
the counties in my Congressional district and I think many
counties around the western United States, these PILT monies
are absolutely crucial to operate county government, to be able
to give county services and to really run a viable county
government, and we need to do everything we can as soon as
possible to get them up to full funding.
So I am just here to lend my support in a bipartisan way,
and once again congratulate Chairman Radanovich and Chairman
McInnis for their leadership on this, and thank you, members of
the panel, for being here today. Thank you.
I yield back any remaining time.
Mr. Radanovich. [presiding] Would each of you tell us the
impact this legislation would have on the counties?
Ms. Cable. Certainly. I will be glad to speak on that. The
impact to Swain County would be the increase in revenue that I
shared with you earlier, and it would mean like a 13.7 percent
tax increase that our citizens would not have to bear if we
were fully funded on an annual basis.
Mr. Davis. Well, in Rio Blanco County, it would mean an
extra approximately $150,000, which will probably be put into
our road and bridge area because of the extreme increase of the
energy industry in our county, and we are having a lot of road
and bridge problems and need to address those. It would have--
it would be a beautiful help.
Mr. Wallace. It would mean more than a $400,000 a year
increase for Tuolumne County, which would go directly to fire
protection for areas surrounding and inside of the actual
National Forest areas and adjacent to Yosemite National Park,
and it would also go for roadway improvements.
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Kearney, would you tell us why there is
opposition to this?
Mr. Kearney. I think, Mr. Chairman, there is support, there
is strong support by the Administration to work with the
counties to maximize the ways in which the PILT program can
benefit them. Before I answer that direct question, let me give
you a couple of examples of things that we are trying to do
within the current budgetary constraints we find ourselves.
We have entered into recently an MOU, the Secretary has,
with the National Association of Counties. We are committed to
work on a range of issues, among them PILT. I think we have a
very good beginning dialog there. We have recently taken
administrative steps to accelerate the payments so that this
year's payments went out in June in order to be in sync with
the county's budget year. We are going to try to next year do
that in a way that is even earlier in June so it is even more
in sync. We have electronic transfer of the payments so that we
get them to the counties as quickly as we can, and we have a
Web site that allows us to have an information communication
flow.
In addition to that, we have within a budget that was
completely flat in 2003 compared to 2002 within the confines of
the President's other priorities of the budget. We managed to
generate a 10 percent increase in our request for the PILT
payments this year as opposed to last year, which is one of the
more significant increases in any program within DOI. So we
think that our commitment to the PILT program, to NACo and to
continuing to further that is clear. It is in this particular
specific environment in which we have a set of budget
priorities in which we all make choices. The Congress makes
choices every year, the President has made an array of choices,
and therefore we have set our priorities as represented.
So it is in the confines of the priorities that we have
made. We simply have an array of budget priorities and choices
that we must make, and within those we have tried to make the
best that we can with respect to the PILT program.
Mr. Radanovich. Let me give you my perspective. I am also
an appropriator and I am on the Interior appropriations. I will
just tell you what happens every year. Every year we fight for
a PILT funding increase. Every year there is huge pressure to
buy more land, and buy more land wins every time. That is what
has been happening over the years.
The money that should be--here is how I look at it. I come
from Pennsylvania. I helped facilitate legislation my last
couple years there that doubled the in lieu of tax payment for
Pennsylvania for the Game Commission and for the Forest Service
and State. We pay $1.20 an acre flat fee. It is part of their
budget. The Game Commission has to cough it up and pay it to
the communities.
In my view, you know, this legislation is a step in the
right direction, but it ought to be a flat fee. If the Federal
Government is going to continue to purchase land in a huge
third of this country, then we have to do our share of making
sure there are roads and bridges and other amenities in those
areas where people live. And in my view, it is a road we need
to go down. And we need--you know, I guess I was appalled when
I got here in this complicated formula of PILT. I had CRS
people over. They don't understand it. It is such a complicated
formula that we ought to--in my view, we ought to scrap it, and
we ought to pay a buck an acre, start with a buck an acre and
just pay a buck an acre, and that in my view would be a fair--
everybody would know what they were getting. It should be a
part of the budgets.
I hate to say that with the two of my members having
legislation that is helpful, but it is a step in the right
direction, but what happens every year is in the battle for the
dollars, buying land beats you. That is where it goes, and as
we continue to buy, in my view, the Federal Government has been
irresponsible in not paying its taxes. If we want to own the
land, that is fine, but we have to pay our taxes, and I think
that is a national debate we need to have.
This legislation would be very helpful to give you more--
both of these bills would help with consistency and improved
payment, but that is historically what has happened. We lose in
the battle of purchasing land. The pressure to purchase land is
immense.
Mr. Kearney. I understand that.
Mr. Radanovich. OK. I guess that will complete this part of
the hearing, and we are going to take a break for voting, or do
we--
OK. We are going to--I thank the witnesses on the third
panel for their insights and members for their questions, and
members have some additional questions for the witnesses and we
ask that you respond to those in writing. The hearing record
will be held open for 10 days for those responses.
This panel will be dismissed.
Mr. Radanovich. The last on the agenda is H.R. 5032. Due to
a scheduling conflict, Mike Thompson, the sponsor of the bill
will not be able to attend today's hearing, but has asked that
we submit his opening statement in the record. Hearing no
objections, so ordered.
Mr. Radanovich. Ms. Kimbell, if you would join us, and
please proceed with your testimony quickly so I can go vote.
STATEMENT OF ABIGAIL KIMBELL, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL
FOREST SYSTEM
Ms. Kimbell. Thank you. I would like to provide some
comments on the land conveyance on the Mendocino National
Forest, H.R. 5032. H.R. 5032 authorizes the direct sale of two
parcels comprising 120.9 acres of National Forest System lands
on the Mendocino National Forest in California to the Faraway
Ranch. Various improvements in 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 time of conveyance, Faraway Ranch will make full payment
of the fair market value as determined by an appraisal that is
acceptable to the Secretary and will cover all direct costs
associated with completing this transaction. We support this
bill. However, we would like to work with the Subcommittee to
develop a more workable time line that takes into account the
time needed to properly complete the survey and appraisal.
That concludes my comments. I would be happy to answer
questions.
Mr. Radanovich. Being we have a lack of members here to ask
questions, we will dispense with questions. We want to thank
you. I want to thank all the witnesses from today's hearings
and members for their questions. The members of the
Subcommittees may have some additional questions for the
witnesses, and we ask you to respond to those in writing. The
hearing record will be open for 10 days for those responses.
If there is no further business before the Subcommittees, I
again thank the members of the Subcommittees and our witnesses.
The Subcommittees stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the joint Subcommittees were
adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the record follows:]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Good morning, I am pleased to join with my colleagues Scott McInnis
and George Radanovich in reviewing the merits of reforming the Payment
in Lieu of Taxes Act and the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act and separate
legislation known as the Outfitter Policy Act.
Since coming to Congress, the PILT Program and the Refuge Revenue
Sharing Fund have sparked considerable interest in certain communities
in my district. For instance, in Dorchester County, locally elected
officials have long believed that they were entitled to a higher level
of compensation then they have been receiving under the Refuge Revenue
Sharing Fund.
Under current law, Congress has appropriated $17.3 million to the
refuge fund which represents 52 percent of the Federal payments due to
eligible counties. A fundamental goal of H.R. 1811 is to fully and
permanently fund those counties that are affected by lands administered
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
By the same token, both H.R. 1811 and H.R. 5081 are designed to
provide increased annual payments to local governments for the loss of
property taxes as a result of non-taxable Federal lands. While there is
great interest in local municipalities in increasing PILT payments, it
is my hope that we can also learn about the economic benefits of a
national park, a national forest or a national wildlife refuge. It is
my understanding that over 500,000 people visit the Blackwater National
Wildlife Refuge each year and Dorchester County's Department of Tourism
estimates that refuge visitors spend more than $15 million in the
county.
Finally, we will hear testimony on Chairman Hansen's bill to
establish a guide and outfitter policy for those individuals offering
their services in national forests, BLM lands, and national wildlife
refuge units. What is currently occurring is a patchwork of policies
where outfitters may be faced with inconsistent or unfair rules that
prevent them from providing quality services to the visiting public.
There are thousands of acres of Federal lands that are virtually
inaccessible and if we are going to have Federal policy on outfitters
then it should be consistent, fair and equally applied across-the-board
to those individuals who earn a living from this profession. I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses on this legislation.
______
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen on H.R. 2386
follows:]
Statement of The Honorable James V. Hansen, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Utah
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. H.R. 2386, the ``Outfitter Policy Act of
2001'' is an important piece of legislation for many Americans who want
greater opportunities enjoy and explore our public lands. Outfitters
play an important role in facilitating the use and enjoyment of the
public lands to people who would not generally have the opportunities
to enjoy these beautiful areas. The purpose of this bill is to
facilitate recreational opportunities for the use of public lands by
Americans that want or need the services of outfitters.
Very few Americans own white water rafting boats, know the best
fishing spots, or know best how to pack to enjoy a week in Wilderness
areas. America's outfitters open up opportunities for more people to
enjoy public lands. However, the regulatory environment that the
outfitters must operate under is inconsistent over time and it is
inconsistent across different Federal land management agencies. As a
result of inconsistency of regulations and rules over time, there is a
lack of long-range stability which makes it more difficult for
outfitters to plan for the future and meet the needs of America's
public by providing quality services.
Congress has established standards for administering guides and
outfitters on National Park Service lands. This bill sets similar
standards for the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Reclamation. It is time we bring
consistency and predictability to non-profit and for-profit outfitters
on all public lands.
While the bill increases regulatory consistency for outfitters, it
still provides ample flexibility for agencies to adjust use,
conditions, and permit terms, so they are consistent with agency
management plans. The bill also provides for the termination of
outfitter permits if the permittee fails to perform satisfactory
service to the agency and the American people.
This bill will help America's outfitters to become more effective
and efficient as they meet Americans demands for quality experiences on
our Federal lands. I look forward to hearing the testimony on this
bill.
-