|
|
Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs
2426 North Second St. ● Harrisburg,
PA 17110
Phone: 717-232-3480 ● Fax:
717-231-3524
info@pfsc.org ● www.pfsc.org
Providing leadership and advocacy for the enhancement of
fish and wildlife resources for the benefit of all hunters, anglers and
conservationists.
|
House State Government
Committee
Public Hearing – House Bill 1657
October 25,
2007
Centre County, PA
Madam Chair, members of the Committee, good
afternoon. My name is Melody Zullinger,
Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs (PFSC). We represent approximately 100,000 sportsmen,
women, and conservationists. Thank you
for not only the opportunity to present the PFSC’s views on this issue, but
also for holding this hearing in Centre County and providing the sizeable time
allotment for testimony. We know there are
numerous constituents who are not able to testify, but have submitted written
testimony, and we hope you will take the time to read their comments.
The PFSC opposes HB 1657 for several reasons. Although much publicity and media attention
has been given to the natural diversity of the Spring Creek Canyon and the surrounding Department of Corrections (DOC) Rockview property, very little media
attention has been given to Compartment 5 of state gamelands 176. As many of you may be aware, Compartment 5
contains a sewage effluent spray system, installed and operated by Penn State
University (PSU). Penn State
was successful in having the PA Game Commission transfer Compartment 5 to Penn
State ownership, but under several conditions mandated by the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service (USF&W).
Approximately 1,000 acres of gamelands was lost in this transfer, but
with the expectation that it would be replaced – replaced promptly and with
comparable habitat to minimize the impact on sportsmen and other recreational
users that commonly and frequently utilized Compartment 5. Prior to making any decision on the merits of
who should have ownership of the Department of Corrections Rockview
property in question, we would encourage and hope that each of you would visit
Compartment 5.
In exchange for Compartment 5, Penn State University was required to escrow approximately $8 million to
purchase replacement gamelands. It was
the understanding and the intent of this mutual agreement, among the PGC, PSU and the US Fish & Wildlife Service, that PSU would assist the PGC in securing this replacement property in a
reasonable time frame, approximately 3 years.
Since the execution of that agreement, very little replacement acreage
has been acquired. PSU has even sold some of its property, which adjoins other gamelands, to
private sector entities. The clock is
soon to expire on the mandates of this agreement, which may cause the US Fish &
Wildlife Service to direct the PGC to regain control of Compartment 5, which
would similarly mandate that the PSU effluent irrigation system be removed.
Transferring the Department Of Corrections property to the PGC would
satisfy the terms of this mutual agreement and alleviate any additional actions
and expenses by all parties of the agreement.
The PFSC believes that maintaining the Department Of Corrections Spring Creek Canyon land in state ownership
also alleviates the need for any additional legislation and/or agreements which
would establish a conservation easement on this property. You will hear testimony about how an easement
will be placed on the property, Memorandum’s of Understanding (M.O.U.) written,
and a 5 member board set up to over see the management of the property. Easements and M.O.U.’s
can and are routinely broken, and what about ten years down the road when
current board members and political leaders are no longer in control? Who will be here to prevent PSU from selling the property for development for their own profit?
Ownership by the PGC, with oversight by the US Fish &
Wildlife Service, is perhaps the best long term protection that could be
provided to this natural resource. With
regards to land stewardship, for over half a century the PGC has been the owner
of nearly 7,000 acres of state gamelands 176, just a few minutes drive west of
Spring Creek Canyon. This land has not
been developed; it has changed very little since its acquisition; it has been
the home of forestry and wildlife research projects conducted separately and
jointly by the PGC and PSU; and it has been a boon to aquifer protection for
thousands of residents dependent on quality groundwater. For many of those years, the PGC and PSU had a cooperative agreement that allowed for research activities as
well as agricultural activities on sgl 176; even the spray irrigation project
was established through a cooperative agreement between the two entities. That being said, there is no reason why such
a relationship couldn’t continue should the Department Of Corrections property
be transferred to the PGC. PGC ownership
of this property provides the best protection to the resources and can satisfy PSU’s needs for additional land for agricultural and research uses.
PSU has offered approximately $1 million for this property. At a public meeting on this same issue, in
this same building, the PGC went on record offering twice that amount. It would seem to be fiscally prudent to take
the higher offer for this property and we would have the added benefit of the
property remaining under state government control. With the added protections, plus the ability
to generate an additional $1 million in revenue via transferring this land to
the PGC, we fail to understand why this debate continues, and why some
legislators oppose any transfer to the PGC.
And please keep in mind, PSU’s annual allocation from the state’s general fund is nearly double the
entire PGC annual budget, which receives no dollars from the general fund.
There is one additional concern we have about this
issue and how it has developed. Several
legislators have commented that it is their desire to fulfill the wishes of the
local elected officials, namely the township supervisors. It is our understanding that state employees
are not allowed to hold local elected offices.
Centre County is home to thousands of state employees, many of whom work
for the PA Game Commission, the PA Fish & Boat Commission, the Department
of Conservation and Natural Resources and the Department of Corrections. Meanwhile, since PSU claims to be non-state government, their employees are free to hold
local elected offices. This seems to be
inherently unfair to those state employees that are local residents and are
impacted by the decisions of local elected officials. We would respectfully request that this
Committee examine the current restrictions on state employees and perhaps
initiating some changes to allow the many statewide employees across the Commonwealth
to have the ability to participate in the local government process and that
they be allowed to serve their local communities.
Many of our members, especially those in Centre County, have been involved in this issue for nearly three
years. Don Gordon, from State College, has been closely following this issue on our behalf,
but is unable to be here today. He did
however submit written testimony, and I’d like to point out a few of his
comments.
(See below)
In closing, we ask that no legislation benefiting Penn State University be enacted until PSU fulfills its obligations under the agreement with respect to the
transfer of Compartment 5. We would also
like to thank Representative Kerry Benninghoff and Senator Jake Corman for the
meetings they’ve had with our members as well as other members of the
conservation community. We ask for their
continued support in having this land transferred to the PGC, and we hope that
the members of the Committee will also support such action. Again, thank you for the time to testify on
behalf of PFSC’s 100,000 members.
STATEMENT
to
Thank you for the
invitation to submit comments about House Bill 1657. I am a long time activist
and member of the Pennsylvania Federation
of Sportsmen’s Clubs and several Centre
County open space and conservation
groups. I am also a 25 year resident of Patton
Township, Centre
County. I have followed the proposed
transfer of Rockview Penitentiary land to
Pennsylvania State University for about ten years and once this sub rosa deal saw Sunshine, I participated in most community meetings
about this issue. Foremost, this land is public land and Article 1, Section 27,
the Pennsylvania Constitution, makes it clear that this land is the “common property of all the
people…. As trustees of these resources,
the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the
people.” Pennsylvania State University is a non-profit corporation; it
is not the public nor is it a public institution or agency.
Practically all Centre County conservation, preservation, and
sportsmen’s organizations representing thousands of members have also explained
for several years that the Rockview public land at
issue, including the Spring Creek Canyon, is a state treasure requiring
special protection and management by a state conservation agency with the
mission and resources to do so. The Western Pennsylvania Conservancy demonstrated
this requirement by professional study. The Pennsylvania
and Centre County Natural Heritage Inventories [government reports] confirm
that finding as well.
The attached letter (Tab
A) sent by the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs to Governor
Rendell, Senator Corman, and Representative Hanna and
similar letters sent by the Sierra Club and other conservation and sportsmen’s
groups explain specifically the reasons why this land should be conserved. A September 20th (2007) League of Women Voters [Centre County] forum clearly demonstrated the
overwhelming public support to transfer this land only to a state conservation
agency. Others testifying will lucidly
explain why protecting the Spring Creek Canyon and adjacent lands is important
to all Pennsylvania citizens.
The Clearwater Conservancy
agrees with this assessment (above), but because, in my opinion, its board of
directors is completely dominated by Penn State employees, it lacks the
fortitude to divorce itself from Penn State’s special interest on this
issue.
Conserving,
protecting, reforesting, and managing the 1,800 acres of Rockview
public land in the manner described by the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy
will be expensive. DCNR earlier stated
it will not assume that expense. It is simple and easy to relegate the solution
to Pennsylvania State
University and let them buy the
land for $900 an acre or about $1 million total, a pittance of the real value.
Or the Commonwealth could sell the land for farming; it’s worth at least $4,500
an acre or $5.5 million. Considering its
proximity to Interstate 99 interchanges, it is probably worth exponentially
more for development. Penn
State and DCNR have held the threat
of development over the community. But there is a better solution
for the Commonwealth and all its citizens.
Pennsylvania State University owes the Pennsylvania State
Game Commission about $7.3 million (from an $8.2 million year 2004 compensation
agreement) because they destroyed 950 acres of state game lands, superb small
game hunting lands, in adjacent Patton Township. Penn State did this by exceeding the amount
and area of effluent spraying agreed to in the land lease imposed by Pennsylvania
GSA Directive 800-103 (1971) and mandated by the then governor of Pennsylvania
and contrary to unanimous public dissent at the time. Penn State also sprayed without the
required permission of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and was
required to compensate the Pennsylvania State Game Commission (Pennsylvania hunters) $8.2 million and to
assist in finding replacement land within 60 miles no later than February 28, 2008. The USF&WS
refused to renew the lease in 2003. The
United States Department of the Interior explains that if Pennsylvania State University does not
comply with this agreement that the sewage treatment facility may be evicted. (Please see Tab B, Dept. of the Interior
letter, June 29, 2007, page
2, paragraph 2, and a copy of the agreement.)
Gary C. Schultz,
Senior VP for Finance and Business and Treasurer signed the 2004 agreement for Pennsylvania
State University.
John Hall, Deputy Attorney General approved the agreement for Pennsylvania.
Penn
State, the governor, Representative
Hanna, Senator Corman, and the executive branch
continue to ignore the settlement. The land has been found and it
is time to complete the compensation.
There is a simple solution to
the problem of how best to conserve the Rockview
lands.
First, objectively and
independently assess the value of the Rockview land.
Second, transfer the surplus Rockview public land to the Pennsylvania Game Commission
with stipulations and conditions.
1.
It is understood that this land will replace the loss of Compartment C/
SGL 176.
2.
A reasonable portion of the $7.3 million still owed by Pennsylvania
State University to the Game Commission to be invested exclusively to acquire,
reforest, and conserve the Rockview land by the Game Commission.
3.
The Game Commission and Western Pennsylvania Conservancy to establish and
comply with a mutually agreeable master plan for the protection and management
of this land including Spring Creek Canyon.
4.
Penn State will receive title to
Compartment C per the original 2004 agreement and continue spraying effluent on
what will now be their own land.
This solution solves the entire
problem at no cost to the taxpayer and reimburses Pennsylvania hunters for Compartment C. Over 3,000 non-hunters now use State Game
Lands 176 for conservation oriented recreation – game lands are public lands by
state law!
First priority to conserving this public
land, second priority to implementing the 2004 compensation agreement signed by
Pennsylvania State University and approved by the Commonwealth. I request
the Committee not approve House Bill 1657 and instead consider legislation that
transfers all 1,800 acres as public land to be protected and managed by the
Pennsylvania State Game Commission forever.
Thank you.
Don Gordon
September 28, 2007