|
Providing
leadership and advocacy for the enhancement of fish and wildlife resources
for the benefit of all hunters, anglers and conservationists. Protecting our
2nd Amendment Rights SAVE Oppose HB
1657 Statement of Edward Perry House State Government Committee Legislative Committee Hearing on HB
1657 My name is Edward Perry. I am an aquatic biologist who was primarily responsible for forming the Spring Creek Canyon Alliance. The Alliance was formed in response to House Bill 1657 that proposes to transfer Rockview Penitentiary lands to Penn State University and Benner Township. The Alliance is composed of 21 local and statewide organizations and businesses composed of over 150,000 members. I have included the membership list as an attachment to this statement. We would like to thank the Committee for being so responsive to our concerns with the proposed transfer of this land and arranging for this meeting. We are especially grateful that we have the opportunity to present our case to representatives from other districts who we hope will objectively review this land transfer and question, as we have, why so large and valuable a property should be transferred to a single entity without any public involvement whatsoever. This is no ordinary land transfer. This land is incredibly valuable, lying adjacent to two Interstate 99 interchanges, halfway between Bellefonte and State College. Despite assurances from local politicians that the legislation and/or conservation easement will ensure this land is never developed, we are looking 50 years into the future when most of us will be gone, and development will extend from Bellefonte to State College. A conservation easement is no guarantee of permanent protection if you don’t have a land owner that can be trusted or if government covets that land. For example, in September 2007, Lower Macungie Township in Lehigh County notified a family farm that was supposedly protected by a conservation easement, that the township would exercise it powers of eminent domain to take that farm for public use. At some point in the distant future, when the surrounding area has been developed, the Rockview land will be just too valuable to remain undeveloped, so the choice of a trusted land owner is crucial to long term protection. What is especially unsettling to the hunter/angler and conservation community, and most people in our local community is the way this highly valuable parcel was summarily transferred to a single entity, simply because they asked for it. The public was never asked for their opinion about the transfer nor were we involved in the process. Representative Hanna has decided the land should go to Penn State, and that was that. I would like to give you some idea why we are so concerned about how this land will be treated. In 2006, the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources paid the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy to conduct a study of the property and prepare a report with recommendations for uses of the land. The Conservancy’s report, submitted in December 2006, recommended the entire property be revegetated and protected. The Alliance fully supports that recommendation. Penn State and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources rejected the Conservancy’s recommendations and now propose to spend more money on another master plan, but with Penn State owning the land. This is the exact opposite of how the process should be conducted, and is the opposite of how local zoning is implemented. Ordinarily, the community first decides what is the highest and best use for a parcel of land, then zones for that use. In this case, politicians decided who should own the land and are now asking the owner to help plan its use, when the proposed owner has already announced how they are going to use it. One major reason for our concern over the transfer of this land is the quality of the resources that are at risk. For example, the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy’s 2006 report list 11 species of special concern in the valley. Several of these species are found nowhere else in Pennsylvania. Each spring, local conservation organizations and plant specialists hold wildflower walks through the canyon. Hundreds of citizens from around Pennsylvania participate in these events because of the unique plant community supported by the limestone bluffs and limestone geology. The Conservancy’s reports states that “The Spring Creek Valley is an extremely unique area in the county and the state” because the limestone surface geology facilitates the development of plant communities with diverse species composition. However, the Conservancy also states that the long-term viability of this resource is at risk. The principal reason is that the size of the forest bordering Spring Creek is too small to support the full range of fish and wildlife that should inhabit this area over the long term. This is why the Conservancy recommended revegetating and protecting the uplands. Many aquatic and terrestrial wildlife inhabiting the forest along Spring Creek have very specific habitat requirements. Many of these are called “area sensitive species.” These species require large blocks of habitat in order to meet all their life cycle requirements. Clearing the forest adjacent to the Canyon has reduced the size of the remaining forest block, thereby adversely affecting habitat for those species. What has been done to the habitat adjacent to the Canyon is what has been done to habitats throughout Pennsylvania. It is no wonder that 156 species of vertebrates have disappeared from Pennsylvania. Another 351 species of plants and animals are listed as Threatened or Endangered, and a third of all Pennsylvania’s fish are listed as threatened or endangered. Habitat fragmentation and habitat loss have taken an enormous toll on Pennsylvania’s fish and wildlife resources. But in this instance, we have an opportunity to rectify that, and ensure an outstanding resource will be available for future generations. Increasing the size of the forest block as the Conservancy recommends will provide habitat for the full range of fish and wildlife that should be here. The land proposed to be transferred straddles Spring Creek, a world-class trout fishery. How many rapidly urbanizing communities can boast of a world class trout fishery in the midst of their community? Due to the quality of this fishery, Spring Creek has become a major tourist attraction, with anglers coming from around the country to fish, which brings in significant tourist dollars to the community. This is one reason why the local fly shop, Fly Fishers Paradise, joined with the Alliance. This year, the World Youth Fly Fishing Championship was held on Spring Creek, with anglers from around the world coming to fish here. Penn State has already stated they intend to conduct production agriculture and research on this land. This will entail construction of roads and buildings. Production agriculture will introduce chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides that will eventually find their way into Spring Creek, along with the inevitable soil erosion that accompanies production agriculture. You will hear assurances that best management practices will be followed to the utmost degree, but the fact remains that what Penn State proposes for this land and what the hunter/angler and conservation community, as well as the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy proposes, are two entirely different propositions. There is no comparison between the quality of water that comes from a site that is completely forested, or in natural vegetation, compared to the quality of water flowing from areas that are being farmed or have been developed. Therefore, production agriculture, and attendant facilities Penn State plans to construct, will facilitate the continued decline of Pennsylvania’s fish and wildlife heritage. You have two competing visions before you. The first vision is the proposal, via House Bill 1657, to transfer 1,200 acres of uplands surrounding Spring Creek Canyon to Penn State University for their personal use, and 400 acres Benner Township. The second vision is that of the 21 members of the Alliance who support the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy’s recommendation to revegetate the land, thereby restoring it to its previous condition. This will: 1) help protect the world-class trout fishery on Spring Creek; 2) restore the forest to provide habitat for the full range of fish and wildlife that should be here; and, 3) create a major asset for the surrounding communities for passive recreation such as hunting, fishing, hiking, bird watching, nature study, and cross country skiing. In short, this could become what Central Park is to New York City, an oasis in the midst of a rapidly urbanizing environment. In summary, our vision is to have land that is now owned by all Pennsylvanians to be kept for the use of all our citizens. The Alliance opposes HB 1657. Instead, we support the transfer of this land to an entity that has the funds, expertise and mandate to hold and manage land in its natural state; can never sell it or develop it; and is willing to fully implement the recommendations of the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. Before this land is transferred, a plan should be developed that outlines how the recommendations of the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy will be implemented. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Statement
of Robert Leonard House
State Government Committee Legislative
Committee Hearing on HB 1657 Madam
Chairman. Members of the
Committee. My name is Robert
Leonard. I live in State College,
Pennsylvania, and I come before you today representing the Moshannon Group of the Sierra Club,
Pennsylvania Chapter. I begin by expressing our gratitude to the Committee for coming to our beautiful Nittany Valley today to hear testimony about an issue that our 1000 local Sierra Club members, and our 27,000 statewide members, are passionate about—namely, who should claim ownership of the 1800 acres of public surplus Rockview land? Were it not for the steadfast guidance of Representative Kerry Benninghoff and the responsive leadership of you, Madam Chairman, this might have been a done deal five months ago. Because last June, Representative Hanna intended to introduce House Bill 1657 into the waning hours of the legislative session as an amendment. Fortunately we were alerted the day before and, after flooding your office with hundreds of emails and phone calls in protest, Madam Chairman, you listened, you took action, and thanks to you we are here today to begin the democratic process that should have happened years ago when Governor Rendell first declared this piece of public land “surplus.” I trust that after hearing all of the testimony today, and after reading the written testimony from the scores of individual citizens who wrote to you, you will see fit to table House Bill 1657 indefinitely, in order to give the public time to organize, share ideas, weigh alternatives, develop a plan, and present a counter proposal. I wish to touch briefly on three basic questions: First, WHAT are we arguing about? Second, WHY are we arguing about it? Third, HOW can we resolve the argument? First, the WHAT—a unique piece of public property about which you have heard much discussion today. This book, “America’s Wild Legacy” was recently published by the national Sierra Club. It offers snapshots of what it deems the 52 most important places in the American landscape that need to be protected. Spring Creek Canyon is one of those places. Because of its world class fishery, its plants and animals of special concern, its unique geological and historical treasures, and the fact that it has remained a natural area, protected behind prison boundaries for over 100 years—the Sierra Club is giving its 729,000 nationwide members a chance to see what is at risk here in Centre County Pennsylvania. The uplands are the key to protecting and preserving the Canyon. At first, Penn State’s intent to use the upland portions of the property for agricultural education and research seemed reasonable. But the state-funded study, conducted by the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, advised that to protect the Canyon, all of the uplands slated to go to Penn State should be reforested. The Sierra Club enthusiastically supports this study. But since the Conservancy’s recommendation would severely limit its use of the land, Penn State has challenged its validity. This response does not suggest that preservation of Spring Creek Canyon will be Penn State’s highest priority. Penn State
claims it plans to use the land strictly for agricultural education and research.
What does that mean? Modern agriculture uses many
technologies, so agricultural research could include a wide range of
activities. An ethanol research facility could be considered agricultural
research. So could a food processing plant.
So could Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. The website of Penn State’s
College of Agricultural Sciences shows that the College already owns 14,000
acres of farmland and forests for its educational and research
activities. While another twelve
hundred acres at bargain basement prices may be a bonanza, could they not
accomplish their educational mission without jeopardizing one of the 52 most
important places in the American landscape that needs to be protected? WHY we are arguing about the
ownership of this property is quite simple.
This is public land, owned
by the tax-paying citizens of the Commonwealth. But the divestment plan was created in
secrecy, without public input. At the
township meeting announcing divestiture, many citizens objected to the plan
but were told by our elected representatives that the future ownership of the
land was not in question, that the issue had been decided. Many of us found this shocking
and, as citizens, felt we must rebuff such attempts at peremptory, autocratic
governance, and require instead an open, democratic process when making such
important decisions. But we are up against a powerful force. To promote their ownership of this land, Penn State has used its Harrisburg lobbyists and the influence of the Secretaries of Agriculture and DCNR, both of whom are members of the Penn State Board of Trustees. In effect, this large, partly private, politically connected, tax-exempt, special interest organization has arranged for itself a substantial gift of public lands. We can only hope that this Committee will agree that the true owners of these lands are the citizens of the Commonwealth, and the property is not for sale. Part of the political fallout of transferring these lands to Penn State is that Benner Township is now to receive the Canyon itself. The Sierra Club and the citizenry applaud the Benner Township Supervisors for stepping in when they did. But this places the management of the most ecologically sensitive part of the area in the hands of a small township, the leadership of which may change after every election. It is unlikely that this single municipality has either the expertise or the financial resources to provide the Canyon with the protection it requires. Representative
Hanna insists that the transfer of
the land must occur first, then a conservation easement would be negotiated
with the new owners by the ClearWater Conservancy who will then
monitor and enforce the easements.
This makes no sense. Such an
arrangement would be unacceptable in any private real estate transaction, and
raises further questions of governance and transparency. Why would the state, which now owns these lands--and apparently wishes to protect them from development--expect a small and modestly funded conservancy to defend these easements against a powerful and growth-minded University and against the inexperienced and under-funded management of a small township? Wouldn’t it make more sense to transfer the land to one owner—a state conservation agency such as DCNR or the Pennsylvania Game Commission? The overwhelming majority of
the citizens in this area support a management plan that promotes both the
protection of the natural resources and public access for passive recreation.
These are not just members of conservation and sportsman’s groups, but people
from all walks of life and political persuasions. Even our Centre County
Commissioners have voted unanimously to oppose this legislation. We urge our representatives to respect the
public’s wishes. So now we ask, HOW can we
resolve this argument? Only you, members of the House
State Government Committee, can do so.
You can reject House Bill 1657 and recommend that we start afresh,
without any pre-conditioned assumptions of who the owner should be. Begin again, as if the Governor has just
declared, “We have this 1800 acres of surplus public land in Centre County.”
And as if he has asked, “How can it be
best used to serve the greatest good, to the greatest number of people, for
the longest time?” The Governor, in fact, has
already proclaimed his strong support for preserving our outdoor
heritage. In March of this year, in a
letter to participants of the Governor’s Outdoor Conference right here in
State College, the Governor wrote in part: Our future quality of life
depends on our ability to understand, appreciate and enjoy Pennsylvania's
natural bounties. It is up to you to make sure we work together
[for] environmental conservation and stewardship. Sincerely, Edward G.
Rendell The state has protected this Rockview land since 1925 and can easily do so for a few more years. We should take the time now to develop plans for the entire property that are in the best interests of everyone, not one special interest group. Better to plan slowly and get it right than to act quickly and get it wrong. In conclusion, the Sierra Club asks that we be allowed to seek more public input and recommend ways to guarantee that this precious natural resource will remain in the public domain, under the auspices of an entity that has the mandate, expertise, and funding to hold and manage this land in its natural state, in perpetuity. Thank you very much for your attention and consideration. Robert E. Leonard ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Spring
Creek Chapter of Trout Unlimited Bill Brusse, President House
StateGovernmentCommittee Public Hearing Statement House Bill 1657 Position Statement The Mission of the Spring
Creek Chapter of Trout Unlimited is to Preserve, Protect, Enhance, and Maintain
Spring Creek and it's surrounding Watershed. The Spring Creek Chapter of
Trout Unlimited (SCTU) is opposed to House Bill 1657 which is intended to
transfer the Rockview Lands before the planning phase. Our chapter has
studied and carefully considered the facts and concerns expressed by various
interested groups regarding the divestiture
of the Rockview Lands. We have determined that the protection of the Spring
Creek Canyon and the lands adjacent to it must be given highest priority
consideration. Specifically, the protection of Rockview Lands must focus on
1) the environmental sensitivity of the natural resources, 2) setting rules
and regulations regarding the public's use, and 3) the establishment of
protective conservation requirements on this land. In support of our Mission,
we strongly believe that a Rockview Lands master planning process, without
predetermined presumption of ownership, should be developed prior to any land
divestment. This plan should include local input and incorporate the recommendations
of the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy ecological assessment. By planning
first we will provide conservation and environmental protection, in
perpetuity. Additionally, the Chapter hereby pledges to assist all involved
parties with the preparation and implementation of a Rockview Land planning
process. Written Testimony The membership of SCTU
sincerely thanks the Committee members for making the trip to State College.
We understand that a number of you were surprised by the controversy raised by
what seemed to be a simple divestment of State land. However, many of us are
certain that the land-transfer proposed in House Bi11l657 does not provide
for the long term protection of Spring Creek, the Spring Creek Canyon
(Canyon), and the sensitive species that are part of the Biological Diversity
Area (BDA). This land-transfer is not a simple transfer of five or six acres
of land adjacent to a community ball field, but may include as much as 1,800
acres of land that has provided a buffer from development between two rapidly
growing communities, provided protection to Spring
Creek, and, if managed properly, could provide even greater protection to the
Creek and the BDA. In addition, this land could provide a wonderful
recreational resource to this community and to the people of the
Commonwealth. It is also our
understanding that several of you have heard or read that the community has
reached a compromise regarding the land-transfer and that a series of
meetings and input by local residents led to the conclusion that the best
opportunity to protect the Canyon and adjacent land was through ownership by
Benner Township and The Pennsylvania State University ( Local residents have not
had the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the decision making
process with respect to the land-transfer. Only two meetings have been held
where local residents had the opportunity to ask questions and provide
comment concerning the land-transfer and proposed ownership. The first
meeting was hosted by Senator Jake Corman in the early fall of 2006. My
recollection of the consensus from that meeting was that the land-transfer
should not be finalized until the publication of a report by the Western
Pennsylvania Conservancy ( SCTU commends the Benner
Township Supervisors' vision for the protection of the Canyon. The
Supervisors convened a Citizens Advisory Committee ( We have done just that. It has been stated that
"numerous memorandums of understanding are in place that clearly govern
development and specifically prohibit any development inconsistent with the
master plan for the property". This statement implies that a master plan
is in place. No master plan exists for the property. Benner Township, be transferred to Representative Hanna has
proposed conservation easements to be held by Clearwater C<:mservancy
and/or DCNR so that the property will be managed properly. As is the case
with the master plan, the conservation easements have not been written, and
the community has no idea of the extent or the conditions of the easements.
Also, there is no assurance that DGS would agree to the conservation
easements as a condition of the land-transfer. This community and the
Commonwealth are being asked to essentially sign a blank contract, with the
conditions of the contract to be filled in at a later date, and with no
assurance that local residents we be involved in the process. The executed
documents that we are to rely on to protect the Rockview Land are limited to
memoranda of understanding that are broad and poorly defined. It is likely
that most of those currently involved in this issue will not be involved in.
the process in ten years, and any verbal understanding or agreement will be
gone with those individuals. The use and any proposed change in use of the
Rockview property in ten years will be based on the agreements and contracts
that will be developed today. With all due respect to However, it is our
opinion that the best way to ensure the long term protection of the Rockview
Land is the development of a master plan, without a presumption of ownership,
prior to any land divestment. It is our opinion that, as a community, we must
plan first and divest later. Uses other than those proposed by We thank the House State
Government Committee for your time and consideration of this important issue. Respectfully Submitted William C. Brusse,
Chapter President Spring Creek Chapter of
Trout Unlimited ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Representative Babette Josephs Chair, House State Government Cornmittee Good afternoon Chair Josephs and fellow committee members. Before I begin my "testimony, I would like to briefly thank two parties. First, I would like to thank Mr. Rodney Oliver, Majority Executive Director of the Pennsylvania House's State Government Committee for granting me the opportunity to speak this afternoon. Secondly, I would like to extend my sincere appreciation for all of the members of the general public who are in attendance this afternoon, demonstrating their commitment to the public lands in question and their grave concerns for the process by which this proposed land divestiture has been handled to date. I will be brief and to the point with my testimony. As a Pennsylvania tax payer, Centre County resident, conservationist and father of a 21 month old daughter, the overarching reason why I felt compelled to lobby Mr. Oliver for a slot to testify in front of the Committee today was to express my profound alarm over the manner in which the citizens of Pennsylvania have been expressly excluded from the land divestiture process relating to the State Correctional Institute at Rockview lands. Additionally, I will speak briefly about the future ownership of the public lands in question, as there are many compelling reasons why transferring the ownership out of state hands to the currently proposed non-state entities would not be in the best interests of the citizens of Pennsylvania. Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution (http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Constitution.html)
titled Natural Resources and the Public Estate states that "The
people have a right to clean air, purewater, and to the preservation of the
natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania's public natural resources are
the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As
trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve andmaintain
themfor the benefit of all thepeople." Based on the language of our own constitution, the fundamental issue at hand is that up to and including today, members of the general public have not been afforded any opportunity to provide input on how the proposed legislation, House Bill 1657, will affect these pristine public natural resources that are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. Many members in the audience are opposed to this transfer. Some may support the transfer. Some may not support the transfer of ownership, but support the goals surrounding the proposed uses of these public assets. Regardless of the position one holds on this issue, the public has the absolute right to be involved in any and all decisions regarding Pennsylvania's public natural resources, which are the common property of the citizens of this state. It would be derelict of me, speaking as a member of the
public, if I failed to remind members of this Committee that one of the many
reasons for today's strong turnout is that our voices have already been shut
out of the process of a past divestiture of state lands, namely the sale of
approximately 134 acres of State owned Fast forward two years from the sale of that land to the
CDICC for $1, and today, similar land transfer legislation has been proposed
via House Bill 1657, which would award ownership of parcels of the I attended a public forum hosted by the Centre County League of Women Voters on this proposed legislation on September 20, 2007. Although many issues and points of view were discussed that evening, none was more striking to me that Representative Michael Hanna's repeated, and in my opinion, deceptive, viewpoint that "The public expressed the willingness for local ownership and control of these lands, and that is why Penn State and Benner Township have been selected as future owners." With all due respect to the Pennsylvania State University, conveyance of the ownership of this land to Penn State does not, in any way, achieve local control or local ownership. Local control involves members of the public being allowed to attend any and all meetings regarding the issues that confront the management of the land as a public asset, and if the citizens of Pennsylvania are dissatisfied with the outcome of decisions made regarding this asset, then they can run for election to address their grievances. There are no citizens of the entire State of Pennsylvania that would have the ability to run for elected office under this "local control" scenario, were any portion of the land to be owned by the Pennsylvania State University, because quite simply, as an entity, it is not a municipality. It does not have a governance structure that allows public citizens to be involved in its decision making process nor is it subject to the myriad of state and local regulations that govern the behavior of any of the state's 2,566 municipal entities. Personally, I would not object to the use of the upland areas by the University's College of Agriculture. However, I would like to hear a compelling argument from another citizen, and not a representative of an interest group, as to why such agricultural activities and research cannot be carried out under a lease or "management services agreement", while ownership is retained by a state agency. If ownership by the State Correctional Institute at Rockview is no longer warranted, than I would respectfully suggest that ownership by another state entity, be it the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, the Pennsylvania Game Commission or the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, be considered. There should be an avenue to solicit and incorporate public thought and comment on how ownership by one or a combination of these state agencies, whose primary missions align with the Pennsylvania Constitutions' requirement for the conservation and preservation of this land's natural resources for the benefit of current and future generations, can be implemented to manage this land as a public asset for all Pennsylvanians. In closing, I would request that the Committee consider two items. First, I would ask that all of the citizens behind me, as well as members of the general public, be afforded the same opportunity that I have been granted this afternoon, namely, the ability to personally share their perspective and feelings on House Bill 1657 and the proposed transfer of
ownership to non-state entities in a public forum or hearing of this type.
While their opinions mayor may not be reflective of my own, every citizen's
voice should be heard when it involves the common property of all
people. Submitting written testimony
is not equivalent to presenting oral testimony when discussing the potential
divestiture ofthe people's land. Second, I would ask that you consider House
Bill 1657 in relation to section 27 of Pennsylvania's Constitution, which
states: "Pennsylvania's public natural resources are the common
property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of
these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit
of all th epeople." I, along with many fellow members of the general public, strongly believe that the proposed legislation, which would transfer the perpetual ownership of this land to non-state entities, does not, in any way, conform to the above stated requirement of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the House's State Government Committee. Brooks W. Parker ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ClearWater
Conservancy Testimony provided to the Pennsylvania House State Government Committee regarding the Rockview State Correctional Institution Property Divestment ClearWater Conservancy's
mission is to promote conservation and restoration of natural resources in
central Pennsylvania. Over our past 26 years, one of ClearWater Conservancy's
highest priorities has been the conservation and enhancement of the Spring
Creek Valley Biological Diversity Area. The Spring Creek Valley Biological Diversity Area supports 10 state imperiled or critically imperiled species and a state imperiled habitat type (calcareous opening/cliff community). The Centre County Natural Heritage Inventory describes the Spring Creek Valley as having "some of the most intact examples of limestone-dependent natural community types to be found anywhere in Centre County, and these communities host a number of plant and animal species which are extremely uncommon in Pennsylvania. The adjacent forests are also ecologically important as the limestone-enriched soil facilitates the development of distinctive plant and animal communities. Because limestone-enriched soils are often highly productive for agriculture, few examples of these forest communities remain today in this rapidly urbanizing region of Centre County" (Western Pennsylvania Conservancy 2002). Many publicly funded plans and studies, including the Spring Creek Rivers Conservation Plan (ClearWater Conservancy 1994), the Centre County Natural Heritage Inventory (Western Pennsylvania Conservancy 2002), the Conservation Blueprint for Pennsylvania (Western Pennsylvania Conservancy 2006), and the Spring Creek Valley Ecological Assessment (Western Pennsylvania Conservancy 2006), call for the conservation of this ecologically diverse property and outline specific recommendations for current and future landowners. The Centre County Comprehensive Plan specifically recommends protecting unique and special habitats in Centre County from development pressure and degradation by guiding land development activities. Following the guidance of the Centre County Planning Office, the five municipalities comprising the Nittany Valley Region provided an additional layer of protection through the Nittany Valley Comprehensive Plan by placing the 1,850 acres of Rockview land north of 1-99in a "Conservation Zone" to restrict development in order to protect this natural resource. Although this zoning designation is beneficial, as the current landowner, only the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has the ability to ensure that the biological diversity of this property is protected in perpetuity. The magnitude of documented ecological significance on the Rockview property north of 1-99warrants that the protection of biodiversity be the Commonwealth's highest priority for the proposed divestment of this land. In late June of this year, ClearWater Conservancy learned that an amendment to Senate Bill 740 was being proposed that would have divested 1,583 acres of Rockview land located north of 1-99that includes the Spring Creek Valley Biological Diversity Area. On June 27, 2007, ClearWater Conservancy wrote a letter to Governor Rendell, Senator Corman, and Representatives Hanna, Benninghoff, and Conklin strongly opposing the amendment to Senate Bill 740 for the following reasons: 1) the divestment was scheduled to proceed prior to the creation of a management and master plan, 2) it did not include assurances that future landowners would be required to protect the exceptional natural resources located on this property in perpetuity, and 3) it did not provide guidance regarding the future disposition, use, or protection of the remaining 235 acres (i.e., parcel #2) of Rockview property north of 1-99that is currently being pursued for a new regional sports complex. Our June 2th letter was immediately followed by a successful lobbying effort led by ClearWater Conservancy and local environmental organizations to stop the amendment to Senate Bill 740 from moving forward. At this time Representative Hanna offered to further discuss ClearWater Conservancy's concerns and to also convene meetings with ClearWater Conservancy, Senator Corman, Representatives Benninghoff and Conklin, Department of Conservation of Natural Resources, and the proposed future landowners to identify solutions to this issue. ClearWater Conservancy is very grateful to Senator Corman, and Representatives Hanna, Benninghoff, and Conklin and the Department of Conservation of Natural Resources for their willingness to listen to our concerns regarding the divestment and their willingness to incorporate meaningful protection measures into the proposed legislation and the master and management plan. Our discussions in August and September led to many positive outcomes including: 1) The inclusion of all 1,850 acres of Rockview land north of 1-99in the management and master planning process. Originally, only lands being proposed for Benner Township were included. All lands proposed for Benner Township, Penn State University, PA Fish and Boat Commission, and parcel #2 are now included. 2) Significant changes to the master plan scope of work were made based on our comments and concerns. 3) The legislation now requires that conservation easements be recorded on all property north ofl-99 within two years of the divestment or the completion of the planning process, whichever takes longer. ClearWater Conservancy still prefers that the planning process be completed before this property is divested. If this, however, does not occur, we propose that the following guiding principle be included in the legislation: Thepurpose of the conservation easements is to
preserve this property's unique natural resources. The biological resources
of this property include native species and their supporting habitats
and are the priority of th econservation easements and future management.
Additionally, preserving the integrity of Spring Creek, currently designated
as a high quality coldwater fishery, requires the protection of the
property's groundwater recharge value and its springs, wetlands, and
floodplains. We have attached the above suggestion as well as a few technical revisions to the legislation for the Commonwealth's consideration. The Spring Creek Rivers Conservation Plan calls for "the establishment of the Spring Creek Nature Reserve to protect the large contiguous areas of mature native forests, rare and endangered species and natural communities, dramatic 200-foot high limestone cliffs, historic resources, exceptional trout habitat, wonderful recreational opportunities, and the most beautiful scenic vistas of the twisting, forested canyon in all of Centre County". Spring Creek is listed on the Pennsylvania Rivers Registry because of the Spring Creek Rivers Conservation Plan, which is part of the Pennsylvania Rivers Conservation Program administered by the PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Building from this foundation, throughout the process ClearWater Conservancy's desired outcome has been to protect the exceptional natural resources of the Spring Creek Canyon and its associated uplands which make up the designated Spring Creek Valley Biological Diversity Area. We intend to make this a reality by developing positive partnerships with other key decision-makers in the process that the Commonwealth chooses to divest this land. The decisions reached through this process will have profound implications for our community. We are now appealing to your good judgment. The 1,850 acres of Rockview land located north of I-99 offers our community an unprecedented opportunity to conserve treasured water resources of the Spring Creek Watershed, rare plant communities and wildlife, and rapidly disappearing open space. We are concerned, however, about the future of all Rockiew lands. In total, the Commonwealth owns nearly 6,200 acres at the Rockview State Correctional Institution. Future land use decisions within the remaining acreage have an enormous potential to both positively or negatively impact the biological and water resources of our community. The Rockview property includes approximately 2,500 acres of the forested ridges and slopes of Mount Nittany, is important to groundwater recharge, includes approximately 13 miles of the locally treasured Spring Creek, a biologically and economically-important high quality cold-water fishery, and is critical in protecting two separate Biological Diversity Areas (see attached map). ClearWater Conservancy therefore requests a Memorandum of Understanding with the Commonwealth regarding the remaining Rockview property to ensure that proper ecological planning and natural resource protections are in place before any additional requests for divestment are considered. We would like to again express our sincere gratitude to our local state legislative delegation and the PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for their willingness to meet with ClearWater Conservancy, listen to our concerns, and incorporate many of our suggestions into the divestment process to date. Thank you to the Pennsylvania House State Government Committee for the opportunity to provide testimony today and for your willingness to come to our community to learn about and more fully understand the basis for our commitment to meaningful protection and stewardship of these exceptional natural resources. We believe that there are amazing possibilities for this site that are wholly compatible with protecting and stewarding its natural and heritage resources and are pleased to be a part of creating this conservation legacy. Respectfully submitted, Jeff Sturniolo, President ClearWater Conservancy of Central PA, Inc. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Spring Creek Public Hearing Statement Spring Creek Watershed Community Coordinating Committee The Spring Creek Watershed Community is a grass roots organization that promotes actions that protect and enhance the quality of life, the environment, and the economy throughout the watershed while maintaining and improving the high quality of Spring Creek and its tributaries. The stated purpose of this hearing is to receive
comments related to House Bill 1657 which proposes to transfer the majority
of the Rockview lands north ofl-99 to Benner Township and Pennsylvania State
University. Divesting this property without first ensuring that the unique
natural resources are protected in perpetuity creates a serious threat to
their continued existence. Therefore,
the Spring Creek Watershed Community is OPPOSED to House Bill 1657 which is
intended to transfer the Rockview lands before the planning phase is even
initiated. Our response to the entire proposal is that we prefer to The Spring Creek Watershed Community does not back any particular entity for ownership or management of this property. It does, however, recommend that the ultimate land owners/managers have the funding, the expertise, and the explicit charge to adequately manage this land as documented in the master plan/management plan and the terms and conditions of a conservation easement and that the future owners/ managers promote ecologically sound land use practices on any adjacent lands that could impact the Canyon. The Spring Creek Canyon, with its diverse plant and animal communities and its cold water fishery, is an ecological gem that is highly valued by our citizens as a buffer between the rapidly urbanizing areas of Bellefonte and State College. As such, the Spring Creek Watershed Community believes that we, as community partners, have before us an opportunity for a lasting legacy. We believe that the master/management planning efforts must begin with an understanding of what the community would like to create in this natural biologically diverse area. A structured visioning process, engaging a broad cross-section of community stakeholders, should be used to gather community and citizen input, and define areas of consensus. The recommendations and conclusions of this planning process will determine the appropriate use for this land, and therefore the appropriate future land owners. The master plan/management plan should build upon the
findings previously documented in the Spring Creek Valley Ecological
Assessment, the Centre County Natural Heritage Inventory, and the Spring
Creek Rivers Conservation Plan. The plan's analysis should address the
entire 1800 acres of surplus lands north of 1-99 and more specifically
address issues regarding, but not limited to: "., . a careful inventory of the biological, historical, cultural, and archeological resources of the area before any increased public access is granted, . what will be needed to maintain the security of publicly accessible lands, . what will be needed to protect rare and threatened species found within the area and at what cost, " . ideas for how public access could be managed (permits, guides, etc.), . is there a limit/threshold for public access in this area?, . potential educational or demonstration opportunities that may arise from opening the land to public use . potential research opportunities on the site, and . what are appropriate and inappropriate land uses and/or land management techniques for the upland areas adjacent to the Canyon (farming practices, ecological ramifications of building affordable housing at this site, how much forest is appropriate, forest regeneration vs. planting, management of invasive species, impervious surface limitations, etc.). In addressing these issues, it is our hope that the decisions made regarding the Spring Creek Canyon will become a demonstration of ecologically-responsible decision making while allowing appropriate public use. The Spring Creek Watershed Community believes that a structured community visioning process as part of a comprehensive master plan/management plan for the land area impacting the Spring Creek Canyon will give the public a genuine opportunity for input. The master plan/management plan will also allow the entities that are considering ownership of the land to fully understand the implications of their management responsibilities and requirements. The natural resources of the Spring Creek Canyon and the public benefit of their continued protection by the community are too important to waste. Respectfully submitted, Bob Donaldson, Chair Spring Creek Watershed Community Coordinating Committee ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ TESTIMONY TO THE PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE STATE GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE ON ISSUES RELATED TO HB 1657 by CHARLES BIER SENIOR DIRECTOR-CONSERVATION SCIENCE WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA CONSERVANCY 800 WATERFRONT DRIVE, PITTSBURGH PA 15222 Majority Chair Josephs, Minority Chair Baker and
distinguished members of this Committee, I am grateful for the opportunity to
register comments and testimony on behalf of the board of directors, staff,
and members of the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy ( Founded 75 years ago in 1932 as Pennsylvania's first
private nonprofit conservancy, the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy has
conserved more than 216,000 acres of natural lands in Pennsylvania, restored
waters and saved natural habitats for a diversity of life and uses. |
