[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WHY DOES THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WANT TO EXPAND THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE CHICKASAW AND LOWER HATCHIE NATIONAL WILDLIFE
REFUGES IN TENNESSEE AND AT WHAT COST?
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE,
OCEANS AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, June 20, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-25
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-617 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Tom McClintock, CA Jim Costa, CA
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Niki Tsongas, MA
Jeff Duncan, SC Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Scott R. Tipton, CO Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Tony Cardenas, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Steven A. Horsford, NV
Steve Southerland, II, FL Jared Huffman, CA
Bill Flores, TX Raul Ruiz, CA
Jon Runyan, NJ Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Mark E. Amodei, NV Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Markwayne Mullin, OK Joe Garcia, FL
Chris Stewart, UT Matt Cartwright, PA
Steve Daines, MT
Kevin Cramer, ND
Doug LaMalfa, CA
Jason T. Smith, MO
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democratic Staff Director
David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, OCEANS
AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
JOHN FLEMING, LA, Chairman
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS
Robert J. Wittman, VA Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Glenn Thompson, PA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Jeff Duncan, SC Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Steve Southerland, II, FL Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Bill Flores, TX Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Jon Runyan, NJ Joe Garcia, FL
Vacancy Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, June 20, 2013.......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Fleming, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Louisiana......................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Sablan, Hon. Gregorio Kilili Camacho, a Delegate in Congress
from the Territory of the Northern Mariana Islands......... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Statement of Witnesses:
Aiken, Jeff, Vice President, Tennessee Farm Bureau Federation 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Ashe, Hon. Daniel M., Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Department of the Interior........................ 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Questions submitted for the record....................... 42
Kelley, Charlotte, Owner, Burlison Gin Company, Burlison,
Tennessee.................................................. 19
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Patrick, Steve, Assistant Executive Director, Field
Operations, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency............ 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Questions submitted for the record....................... 46
Schuh, Hon. Rod, County Mayor, Lauderdale County, Tennessee.. 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 22
Additional materials submitted for the record:
Coats, Virgil and Joyce, Burlison, Tennessee, Letter
submitted for the record................................... 48
Conyers, Gilbert M., Ripley, Tennessee, Prepared statement of 48
Cook, Randy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of
the Interior, Dyersburg, TN, Letter submitted for the
record..................................................... 49
Davis, Larry, Covington, Tennessee, Prepared statement of.... 49
Featherstone, Bonnie, Prepared statement of.................. 49
Knox, James F, Letter submitted for the record............... 49
Lauderdale County Enterprise, Ripley, Tennessee, March 21,
2013, Did You Know?........................................ 50
Lauderdale County Environmental & Economic Plan.............. 4
Lauderdale County Government, Resolution in Opposition to the
Proposed 120,000 Acre Expansion of Chickasaw and Lower
Hatchie National Wildlife Refuges in Lauderdale County and
Surrounding Counties....................................... 51
List of material retained in Committee's official files...... 56
Phillips, Jeff, Covington, TN, Prepared statement of......... 52
Refuge data charts, submitted for the record by the Honorable
John Flemming.............................................. 54
Templeton, David, Templeton Farms, Brighten Tennessee, Letter
submitted for the Record................................... 52
Tennessee Soybean Association, Letter submitted for the
record..................................................... 53
Threadgill, Diana, President and Executive Director,
Mississippi River Corridor, Letter submitted for the record 3
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON WHY DOES THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WANT
TO EXPAND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CHICKASAW AND LOWER HATCHIE NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGES IN TENNESSEE AND AT WHAT COST?
----------
Thursday, June 20, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife Oceans, and Insular Affairs
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Fleming
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Fleming, Duncan, and Sablan.
Also present: Representative Fincher.
Dr. Fleming. The Subcommittee will come to order. The
Chairman notes the presence of a quorum. Good morning.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN FLEMING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Dr. Fleming. Today at the Subcommittee, we'll examine the
Fish and Wildlife Service's proposal to dramatically increase
the size of the Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie National Wildlife
Refuges in the State of Tennessee. This hearing is in response
to a request from the distinguished gentleman from Frog Jump,
Tennessee whose congressional district contains the two
wildlife refuges and the four counties that will be directly
impacted by the Federal Government's proposed acquisition of
120,000 acres of private property.
There are currently seven national wildlife refuges in the
State of Tennessee. Together they comprise 120,959 acres of
land. Unlike many States, each of these refuges is open to the
public, and thousands of Tennesseans enjoy the opportunity to
hunt, fish, and observe wildlife.
However, just like the rest of the refuge system, these
refuges have not been properly maintained. In fact, based on
the Service's own records, there are 437 deferred operations
and maintenance projects that will cost $98 million to fix.
Forty-nine of these projects are listed in the highest priority
category of ``mission critical'' projects.
Despite this existing backlog, the southeast region of the
Fish and Wildlife Service has decided that it wants to buy
70,116 acres of agricultural lands; 27,060 acres of bottomland
hardwood forest; 9,307 acres of wooded swamp in Dyer, Haywood,
Lauderdale, and Tipton Counties.
While this acquisition process may take years to complete,
we do know that the service wants to buy this land using its
fee title authority. These acquisitions will cost taxpayers
tens of millions of dollars. Locally affected counties will not
be justly compensated for the loss of their tax base. The
number of backlog projects will increase, and when the process
is completed, there will be a huge publicly owned land unit
made up of three wildlife refuges, two State wildlife
management areas, a State park, and a State forest.
What we also know is that regardless of our national debt,
the Obama Administration will not stop its insatiable obsession
to acquire more and more private property coupled with a lack
of a comprehensive strategy to maintain those lands into the
future. I reject the argument that only the Federal Government
can ensure that these lands in Tennessee or anywhere else in
the United States will be protected in the future.
During the course of this hearing, I want to find out
whether the local communities have embraced this refuge
expansion, what it will cost the taxpayers to buy 120,078 acres
of private property, how long the acquisition process will
take, why fee title and not conservation easements are being
used, and how this will affect the economies of the four
effected counties in Tennessee.
I am now pleased to recognize the Ranking Minority Member,
Congressman Sablan, for any statement he would like to make.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Fleming follows:]
Prepared Statement of The Honorable John Fleming, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs
Good morning, Today the Subcommittee will examine the Fish and
Wildlife Service's proposal to dramatically increase the size of the
Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuges in the State of
Tennessee.
This hearing is in response to a request from the distinguished
gentleman from Frog Jump, Tennessee, whose Congressional District
contains the two wildlife refuges and the four counties that will be
directly impacted by the Federal Government's proposed acquisition of
120,000 acres of private property.
There are currently seven national wildlife refuges in the State of
Tennessee. Together, they comprise 120,959 acres of land. Unlike many
States, each of these refuges is open to the public and thousands of
Tennesseans enjoy the opportunity to hunt, fish and observe wildlife.
However, just like the rest of the refuge system, these refuges
have not been properly maintained. In fact, based on the Service's own
records, there are 437 deferred operations and maintenance projects
that will cost $98 million to fix. Forty-nine of these projects are
listed in the highest priority category of ``mission critical''
projects.
Despite this existing backlog, the Southeast Region of the Fish and
Wildlife Service has decided that it wants to buy 70,116 acres of
agricultural lands, 27,060 acres of bottomland hardwood forest and
9,307 acres of wooded swamp in Dyer, Haywood, Lauderdale and Tipton
Counties.
While this acquisition process may take years to complete, we do
know that the Service wants to buy this land using its fee title
authority. These acquisitions will cost taxpayers tens of millions of
dollars. Locally affected counties will not be justly compensated for
the loss of their tax base, the number of backlog projects will
increase, and when the process is completed, there will be a huge
publicly owned land unit made up of three wildlife refuges, two State
wildlife management areas, a State park and a State forest.
What we also know is that regardless of our national debt, the
Obama Administration will not stop its insatiable obsession to acquire
more and more private property, coupled with a lack of a comprehensive
strategy to maintain those lands in the future. I reject the argument
that only the Federal Government can ensure that these lands in
Tennessee or anywhere else in the United States will be protected in
the future.
During the course of this hearing, I want to find out whether the
local communities have embraced this refuge expansion, what it will
cost the taxpayers to buy 120,078 acres of private property, how long
the acquisition process will take, why fee title and not conservation
easements are being used, and how this will affect the economies of the
four affected counties in Tennessee.
I am now pleased to recognize the Ranking Minority Member,
Congressman Sablan, for any statement he would like to make.
______
Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And good
morning, everyone.
Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I'd like to ask for unanimous
consent to enter into the record testimony from the Mississippi
River Corridor Tennessee 501(c)3 nonprofit organization and a
summary of the Lauderdale County environmental and economic
plan, please.
Dr. Fleming. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Mr. Sablan. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
Letter Submitted for the Record From Diana Threadgill, President and
Executive Director
Mississippi River Corridor,
Memphis, TN 38112,
June 17, 2013.
The Honorable John Fleming, Chairman,
The Honorable Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Ranking Member,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs,
Washington, DC, 20515.
Dear sirs: I am writing today to comment on the proposed Land
Protection Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Expansion of the
Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuges by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. We understand that a hearing about the plan will
be convened this week in Washington, DC and wanted to send a few
positive comments prior to your discussions.
The Mississippi River Corridor--Tennessee (MRCT) is a 501(C)(3)
nonprofit organization that works primarily on behalf of the six
counties located on the Mississippi River along our western coast.
Our mission is to identify, conserve and enhance the region's
natural, cultural and scenic resources to improve the quality of life
and prosperity in west Tennessee.
For the past 2 years, the MRCT has been involved in developing a
Lauderdale County Environmental and Economic Plan. Funding for this
important plan has been provided by a grant from The McKnight
Foundation based in Minneapolis, MN. Through the production of this
plan and eventual implementation, the MRCT hopes to create a unique
eco-tourism destination for visitors from around the United States . .
. and the world.
The concept and development of the Lauderdale County plan has been
based on the fact that almost one-third of the county is owned and
managed by our partner agencies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) and the
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA). As Lauderdale County
contains the most extensive bottomland in the Corridor, has no levy and
floods on an annual basis, it is a perfect location for outdoor
enthusiasts, birders, hikers, nature lovers and travelers seeking rare
locations from around the world.
The only amenities currently missing in the County are eco-tourism
lodging facilities, outfitters, and hospitality professionals. However,
when the plan is completed this fall, we will have identified those
missing links and the funding needed to create a significant economic
development venture. (Please see article attached)
The MRCT considers the recent (draft) plan that has been developed
by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be a positive step forward as the
expansion of their land acquisition boundary would be extended to
include parts of the Hatchie River--the only unchannelized river in
west Tennessee and a designated Scenic River. The Nature Conservancy
has rated the Hatchie River as one of the top 10 natural wonders in the
country. Our organization plans to create a unique water trail on the
river and apply for a new National Water Trail designation from the
National Park Service next year. However, we need additional land to
the river for access and more ramps. The area is an undiscovered
wonderland and has the potential to bring thousands (possibly millions)
of dollars into the economies of Lauderdale and Tipton Counties.
We certainly understand the expressed concerns by large land owners
and farmers about the proposed plan by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. However, the MRCT believes that the conservation of this
targeted area is critical for future development as an eco-tourism
visitor destination and will also provide additional wildlife habitat
for one of the largest migrating bird fly-a ways in the world.
It is also our understanding that the proposed land would only be
purchased from willing landowners for the fair market land value. And
we have also heard of complaints that current properties owned by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are not being managed properly, but we
haven't found that to be the case at all. In regard to the land being
taken off the tax rolls, we have learned that Lauderdale County is paid
a significant amount of money for this shortfall in revenue.
When the MRCT plan moves forward toward implementation, we assure
you that the County will make up any lost revenue by collecting large
amounts of money from visitors to the area. The table has been set in
Lauderdale County with a beautiful new Town Square in Ripley and the
only amenities needed are some additional restaurants and shops. Those
business ventures will come in if we can create a unique outdoor
destination. It's all there in Lauderdale County--just waiting for a
visionary plan and the right partners to pull all the assets together
into a realistic financial opportunity for investors.
We believe in the Mississippi River Corridor in Tennessee and have
dedicated many years and significant financial resources toward its
economic success. Please rest assured that positive work is being
accomplished for economic growth in Lauderdale County and the Corridor.
Our hope is that you will be open-minded and receptive to other
(positive) opinions regarding the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plan.
The huge economic opportunities and potential land conservation that
could be accomplished by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for ``human
and wildlife habitat'' are unprecedented in scope and opportunity.
Agriculture may currently be Tennessee's number one economic
driver. However, tourism to our unique visitor destinations is number
two and is predicted to surpassagriculture in the next 10 years.
We need to provide for this coming industry growth by growing a
sustainable foundation and outdoor playground for the next generation
of Tennesseans, and most importantly, for our citizens nationwide.
Sincerely yours,
Diana Threadgill.
President and Executive Director.
______
Lauderdale County Environmental & Economic Plan
This Multi-Phase Phase Plan Will Create Greater Awareness of the
County's Unique Features
On the Tennessee side the Chickasaw Bluffs run the length of the
Mississippi River. At Memphis the Bluff butts up to the River (thus the
city's nickname of Bluff City). However, as it progresses northward,
the Bluff snakes back and forth from the river. Just north of the mouth
of the Hatchic River the Bluff touches the Mississippi for the last
time in Tennessee. It is here, in Lauderdale County, that a narrow
strip of bottomland emerges that is bordered by the Mississippi River
on the west and the Bluff on the east. From the Kentucky State line to
the Mississippi line are some of the highest points around and afford
commanding views of the Mississippi River alluvial forests, and large
tracts of farmland that dot the landscape.
Lauderdale County is the center of the bordering counties, and the
keystone. According to John Threadgill, a member of the Board of
Directors for the Mississippi River Corridor-Tennessee (MRCT),
Lauderdale County is ``the diamond in the rough.'' This county
possesses some of the most unique features of the six counties,
including a very well-defined bluff and fertile bottom land. With
Chickasaw Bluff No. 1 diverging from the river in Lauderdale County,
close to 100,000 acres of alluvial bottom land is revealed (sparsely
populated, heavily forested, and jointly private and publicly-owned).
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
own vast tracts as well as large-scale farming operations owned by
private citizens.
Each of the six counties under the purview of MRCT is unique with
its own characteristics, whether topographic, geographic, cultural, or
historical. Lauderdale County is no exception as there is no levee
system so the soil is constantly renewed and recharged through flooding
and silt washed downriver. It is fertile, yet unpredictable, as we
learned with the late historic spring flooding of the Mississippi in
2011. Numerous lakes make up the area as well and provide water,
sustenance, and recreation for local wildlife, hunters, and anglers.
The area seems idyllic, and it is. Part of the problem, though,
says Threadgill, is that ``You have this bluff system, some great
vistas, but there is not one designated overlook anywhere; there is no
trail system that allows someone to experience that opportunity. There
is no signage, nothing there that would tell someone what's right up
the road that you can go look for.''
As part of the Lauderdale County Plan, and with a grant from
longtime partner The McKnight Foundation, the MRCT is conducting a
three-phase plan. At its simplest, it's making people aware of what the
county possesses. This will include, over time, new signage, road
improvements, well-defined trails and overlooks, additional boat
access, interpretive centers, and the enhancement and uniformity of
current assets.
As part of the study, MRCT is working closely with TWRA, US-FWS,
Tennessee State Parks, Tennessee State Forests, the National Park
Service, the Nature Conservancy and private landowners. The area, as it
stands, is a blank slate and the challenge, says Threadgill, is to
``come up with a master plan that tries to utilize what's down there
and try to figure out a way to put it all together so that we actually
have a product.''
The project began 10 months ago, and the first phase has included
meetings with focus groups made up of local citizens to help define
exactly what it is that Lauderdale County has, and to map out where the
assets are. ``What's interesting is that no one person really seems to
have the complete knowledge of what's there,'' says Threadgill, and the
meetings and expertise of those involved have led to a much larger
picture of the area's characteristics.
Threadgill says Phase Two will include a more detailed conceptual
outline of what can be done to make the area more attractive for
visitors and result in a cohesive plan that can be used as a blueprint.
Phase Three is implementation, though Threadgill is quick to point out
that this is a far-reaching, almost timeless plan. ``The plan will be a
living plan, it will be ongoing. What we want to do is get the ball in
motion, to create the blueprint that can be used for every year going
forward. It can be altered, it can be amended based on the changes of
the political and economic landscapes; a plan that can work in
perpetuity.''
Part of that plan will include purchasing land to connect the upper
reaches of the county with the lower. ``We're trying to connect them in
corridors, so that it's not just one little piece here and one little
piece there,'' says Ed Carter, director of the TWRA and an MRCT Board
Director. ``When we buy tracts of land, we try to buy those that are
contiguous to another piece that we have, so that, for the most part,
we have a wildlife corridor.'' The loss of forestation within the lower
Mississippi River, the main flyway for North America, and the resulting
impact on habitat for migratory water fowl has been the impetus to the
Lauderdale County plan. While adjoining States have as much at stake in
the loss of such an ecosystem, Tennessee--and Lauderdale County in
Particular--is looked upon as a focal point.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, A
DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA
ISLANDS
Mr. Sablan. The National Wildlife Refuge System protects
representative pieces of many life sustaining ecosystems
throughout the States and territories. This network of refuges
provides essential habitats for protecting the biological
diversity that is the property and common heritage of all
Americans, and it is the only Federal land designated
exclusively for the conservation of wildlife. Refuges also
support hunting, fishing, and other recreational activities
helping to preserve our cultural heritage and support local
economies. Every single dollar invested in the refuge system
returns an average of $4 to surrounding communities.
In the Northern Mariana Islands, we value the Marianas
Trench and the Mariana Arc of Fire National Wildlife Refuge.
They are home to species ranging from reef-building corals to
threatened sea turtles to unique deep sea animals. Protecting
these and other special places from destruction is critical to
scientific discovery and natural resource management.
Today we will hear from witnesses about the proposed
expansion of the Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie National Wildlife
Refuge in Tennessee. This refuge protects some of the most
pristine, seasonally flooded bottomland hardwood forest in the
world along some of the few stretches of the Mississippi River
and over the Mississippi River and its tributaries that have
not been channelized or dammed.
We have previously discussed a National Wildlife Refuge
System in this Committee, most recently just 2 months ago, and
the same three misconceptions seem to come up again and again.
The first misconception is that there is too much land in
the National Wildlife Refuge System. In truth, less than 1
percent of the land area of the contiguous United States is in
a refuge. Twice as much of our Federal land is leased for
exploitation of oil and gas reserves, and nearly nine times as
much is leased for livestock grazing. Despite this relatively
small investment, these refuges provide world class recreation
opportunities to fish, hunt, and observe wildlife to 44 million
visitors a year and generate $1.7 billion in sales annually for
local businesses.
The second misconception is that expanding existing refuges
or creating new ones is bad public policy. Yes, due to years of
underfunding the refuge system, there is a maintenance backlog.
But we must continue to invest in the future health of our
country's iconic landscapes. The habitat conserved in the
refuge system is one of the best tools we have to recover
endangered species, and more importantly, to prevent more
species from becoming endangered in the first place.
Just 2 weeks ago in this Committee's hearing on the
Endangered Species Act, my friends across the aisle were
wondering why more species had not recovered and been delisted.
The answer is: Species must have a place to live in order to
recover. The 3 federally listed species in at least 29 State-
listed species would benefit from expanding the Chickasaw and
Lower Hatchie refuge preventing further declines and hopefully
leading to eventual delisting.
And the final, the third misconception is that the refuges
are a waste of taxpayers' dollars. This is the issue that
puzzles me most in this hearing since the refuges provide
enormous benefits to taxpayers. In 2012, the entire refuge
system cost $3.24 per acre while yielding $26.8 billion in
ecosystem services.
I hope just as the Chairman does that in today's hearing we
can finally put these misconceptions about the refuge system to
rest and move toward a more efficient and just distribution of
Federal money, one that recognizes the true value, monetary and
otherwise, of our natural resources and wildlife. I would like
to listen to what the witnesses have to share with us this
morning, and I would also like to welcome our colleague, Mr.
Fincher, for joining us this morning.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sablan follows:]
Prepared Statement of The Honorable Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular
Affairs
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The National Wildlife Refuge System protects representative pieces
of many life-sustaining ecosystems throughout States and the
territories. This network of Refuges provides essential habitat for
protecting the biological diversity that is the property and common
heritage of all Americans, and it is the only Federal land designated
exclusively for the conservation of wildlife. Refuges also support
hunting, fishing, and other recreational activities, helping to
preserve our cultural heritage and support local economies. Every
dollar invested in the Refuge System returns an average of $4 to
surrounding communities.
In the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, we value the
Mariana Trench and the Mariana Arc of Fire National Wildlife Refuges.
They are home to species ranging from reef building corals, to
threatened sea turtles, to unique deep sea animals. Protecting these
and other special places from destruction is critical to scientific
discovery and natural resource management.
Today, we will hear from witnesses about the proposed expansion of
the Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuges in Tennessee.
These Refuges protect some of the most pristine seasonally-flooded
bottomland hardwood forest in the world, along some of the few
stretches of the Mississippi River and its tributaries that have not
been channelized or dammed. We have previously discussed the National
Wildlife Refuge system in this Committee--most recently, just 2 months
ago--and the same three misconceptions seem to come up again and again.
The first misconception is that there is too much land in the
National Wildlife Refuge System. In truth, less than 1 percent of the
land area of the contiguous United States is in a Refuge. Twice as much
of our Federal land is leased for exploitation of oil and gas reserves,
and nearly nine times as much is leased for livestock grazing. Despite
this relatively small investment, these Refuges provide world-class
recreational opportunities to fish, hunt, and observe wildlife to 44
million visitors a year and generate $1.7 billion in sales annually for
local businesses.
The second misconception is that expanding existing Refuges or
creating new ones is bad public policy. Yes, due to years of
underfunding the Refuge system, there is a maintenance backlog--but we
must continue to invest in the future health of our country's iconic
landscapes. The habitat conserved in the Refuge system is one of the
best tools we have to recover endangered species and, more importantly,
to prevent more species from becoming endangered in the first place.
Just 2 weeks ago in this Committee's hearing on the Endangered Species
Act, my friends across the aisle were wondering why more species had
not recovered and been delisted. The answer is, species must have a
place to live in order to recover. Three federally listed species and
at least 29 State listed species would benefit from expanding the
Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie Refuges, preventing further declines and
hopefully leading to eventual delisting.
The third misconception is that the Refuges are a waste of taxpayer
dollars. This is the issue that puzzles me most in this hearing, since
the Refuges provide enormous benefits to taxpayers. In 2012, the entire
Refuge system cost $3.24 per acre, while yielding $26.8 billion in
ecosystem services.
I hope that in today's hearing, we can finally put these
misconceptions about the Refuge system to rest, and move toward a truly
efficient and just distribution of Federal money--one that recognizes
the true value, monetary and otherwise, of our natural resources and
wildlife.
______
Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentleman. I would now like to ask
unanimous consent that the gentleman from beautiful downtown
Frog Jump Tennessee, Mr. Fincher, be allowed to sit with the
Committee and fully participate in the hearing.
[No response.]
Dr. Fleming. Hearing no objections, so ordered. All right.
Thank you.
We will now hear from our panel of witnesses, which
includes The Honorable Daniel Ashe, Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; Mr. Steve Patrick, Assistant Executive
Director, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency; Mr. Jeff Aiken,
vice president, Tennessee Farm Bureau Federation; Ms. Charlotte
Kelley, Burlison Gin Company; and The Honorable Rod Schuh,
Mayor of Lauderdale County.
The written testimony will appear in full in the hearing
record. So I ask that you keep your oral statements to 5
minutes as outlined in our invitation letter to you and under
Committee rule 4(a). Our microphones are not automatic, so
please press the button when you are ready.
Also, just be aware that if the tip of the microphone is
not close to you, we just can't year you. And you'll have to
move it, unfortunately. We have a limited number of
microphones. The light is very simple. You have 5 minutes to
give your statement. You'll be under green light for 4 minutes.
When it turns yellow, you have 1 minute, and if it turns red
and you've not completed your statement, please wrap it up
immediately because we do have limited time today. Remember
that your statement will be in full in the record, so that
should I think work for us today.
Director Ashe, you are now recognized for 5 minutes, sir,
to present the testimony of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DANIEL M. ASHE, DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Ashe. Good morning, Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member
Sablan, Subcommittee members, Representative Fincher. I am Dan
Ashe, the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, and I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here
today.
Chickasaw Hatchie and Lower Hatchie are part of the West
Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge Complex, and it's an
important part of the local economy. They welcomed over a half
million visitors last year, and these visitors came to the
refuge to hunt and fish and observe and photograph wildlife and
simply to spend time in the great outdoors. The refuges help
conserve wildlife for future generations of Americans. They
protect important bottomland hardwood forests and other
habitats for migratory waterfowl, as many as 300,000 ducks per
year.
The forest serves as important habitat for breeding land
birds and migratory birds in the spring and the fall. And the
service is proud to manage these areas on behalf of the
American public and Tennesseans and to provide opportunities
for people to continue to enjoy robust wildlife populations in
the future. We've built this outstanding refuge complex over
more than 50 years in partnership with the State of Tennessee
and the local communities in the area. We built an excellent
relationship with the State and local communities and the
citizens of Tennessee, I believe.
When it passed in 1997 and Harry Burroughs and I worked
together on that legislation, Congress directed the service to
grow the refuge system. The words of the act bear repeating.
``The Secretary shall plan and direct the continued growth of
the system in a manner that is best designed to accomplish the
mission of the system to contribute to the conservation of the
ecosystems of the United States, to complement the efforts of
States and other Federal agencies to conserve fish and wildlife
and their habitats and to increase support for the system and
participation from conservation partners and the public.''
In the case of the Tennessee refuges, we are doing exactly
what Congress asked us to do. Congress specifically provided
this service with the tools to do this, the authority to create
and expand refuges, and I believe we've used this authority
judiciously and appropriately. Congress also has the authority
to create refuges and has also done so from time to time.
When a refuge's acquisition boundary is expanded, it is
after a thorough period of study and public engagement. We
reach out to State agencies, local communities, congressional
offices, conservation, recreation, and environmental groups to
help shape the plan. The draft plan is provided to the public
for review and comment. The final plan undergoes thorough
review in our regional office and is approved ultimately by the
Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
It's important to be clear about the effect of an
authorized acquisition boundary. It simply authorizes the Fish
and Wildlife Service to purchase fee title or conservation
easements from willing sellers. These purchases are subject to
available funds, and a boundary does not result in new
restrictions or regulations on landowners within or adjacent to
the boundary.
An expanded boundary does not lead to condemnation of
private property or any form of coercive purchases. We only
purchase from willing sellers, and usually the result is happy
sellers and happy adjacent landowners whose property values
tend to rise when they are next to national wildlife refuges.
Land purchases occur very gradually, taking decades to even
start to acquire significant portions of land within a
boundary.
In Chickasaw and Hatchie example, I'm sure we'll talk about
this more. I think the important point that I would like to
make is we have worked hand in glove with our State partner,
the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, who you will hear from
today. Over 1,000 landowners were directly contacted by the
service via mail to make sure that they knew of this proposal.
Meetings were noticed in local papers, and we had good
attendance at local public hearings and meetings and good
opportunity for the public to participate. And that is an
ongoing process.
I believe we have used our congressional-granted authority
properly and appropriately over the years and decades to create
a vibrant National Wildlife Refuge System, one that is of great
benefit to the American public, to State and local economies,
and I look forward to hearing the other testimony here today
and answering any questions that the Subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ashe follows:]
Prepared Statement of The Honorable Daniel M. Ashe, Director, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior
Good morning Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan, and members
of the Subcommittee, I am Dan Ashe, Director of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) within the Department of the Interior. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today regarding the
proposed expansion of Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie National Wildlife
Refuges in the State of Tennessee.
national wildlife refuge system
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System)
is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the
conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the
fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United
States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.
Encompassing more than 150 million acres of land and water, the Refuge
System is the world's premier network of public lands devoted solely to
the conservation of wildlife and habitat. The Refuge System preserves a
diverse array of land, wetland, and ocean ecosystems--from Guam,
American Samoa, and other remote Pacific islands, north to the high
arctic of northern Alaska, east to the rugged coastline of Maine and
south to the tropical U.S. Virgin Islands. National wildlife refuges
are found in every U.S. State. In total, the Refuge System now contains
561 refuges.
The Refuge System offers about 47 million visitors per year the
opportunity to fish, hunt, observe and photograph wildlife, as well as
learn about nature through environmental education and interpretation.
With its widespread presence and history of working with partners, the
Refuge System also plays a key role in supporting innovative,
community-level efforts to conserve outdoor spaces and connect people
with nature.
In addition to conserving America's great wildlife heritage, the
Refuge System is an important part of local economies. The presence of
a national wildlife refuge in a community often offers significant
economic benefits in the form of jobs and visitor spending in local
stores, hotels, and service stations. As noted in a resolution
supporting National Wildlife Refuge Week passed by the Senate in
September 2012, for each dollar appropriated to the Refuge System,
national wildlife refuges generate about $4 in economic activity,
totaling nearly $1.7 billion and helping sustain 27,000 jobs in local
communities.
land protection process
The Service uses land protection planning to study opportunities to
conserve land, including by adding it to the Refuge System. This
process is mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966 (sect 4(4)(C)), which directs the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Service, to ``plan and direct the
continued growth of the System in a manner that is best designed to
accomplish the mission of the System, to contribute to the conservation
of the ecosystems of the United States, to complement efforts of States
and other Federal agencies to conserve fish and wildlife and their
habitats, and to increase support for the System and participation from
conservation partners and the public.''
If a Land Protection Plan is approved, there is an authorized
acquisition boundary for the refuge. This public process applies to
newly authorized refuges as well as to expanded acquisition boundaries
for existing refuges. It is important to be clear about the effect of
an authorized acquisition boundary: it authorizes the Service to
purchase fee title or conservation easements within that boundary. It
is our policy and our practice to acquire land from willing sellers.
Further, such purchases can be made only if funding is available
through Congressional appropriations or through the Migratory Bird
Conservation Commission, providing direct mechanisms for accountability
and control. Inclusion within an approved refuge boundary confers no
Federal authority or regulatory requirements on the landowner. It does
provide landowners within the boundary another option for how they use
their land (i.e., they can sell to the Government to have it become
part of the Refuge System).
Conserving wildlife through land protection is a transparent,
public, and participatory process, founded on scientific data, driven
by our mission to conserve habitat and ecosystems. We use the best
scientific processes and data to identify gaps in the conservation
estate--which we define as lands that are protected at local or
landscape scales by private, State, or Federal partners. Once a
conservation need is identified, a preliminary proposal is submitted to
the Service's Director for approval to develop a detailed Land
Protection Plan. Development of a Land Protection Plan is a public
planning process, during which we reach out to State agencies, local
communities, Congressional offices, recreation, conservation and
environmental groups to inform and help shape the plan. The Service
uses the best available scientific information to analyze the effects
of the Land Protection Plan and alternatives on the physical,
biological, social and economic environment. After a rigorous review
process, the completed Land Protection Plan is submitted to the
Director, who approves, requests modification, or rejects the proposal.
public involvement in the planning process
A fundamental value of the Service's planning process in the
management of the Refuge System is public involvement. As such, we base
our decision-making on understanding and in consideration of public
interests. As part of our public planning process, the Service
typically collects hundreds of comments from individuals and
organizations. This feedback--ranging from comments addressing broad
and long-term issues to specific and detailed strategies that could be
used to achieve biological or public use objectives--is critical to the
Service's development, evaluation and comparison of management
alternatives.
For example, public input shaped the establishment of the
Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area.
When the Service engaged the public during the planning process, the
River Ranch Property Owners Association, a group of local landowners,
opposed the establishment of the refuge and conservation area,
envisioning that the Service would close access to any purchased lands
as other Federal agencies had done elsewhere in Florida. We actively
engaged with the River Ranch community and established a level of trust
and understanding after multiple meetings over the course of a year.
The Service listened to their concerns and, as a result, reevaluated
our initial proposal. Ultimately, we removed the River Ranch
landholdings from the proposal while maintaining the conservation
integrity of the project. The overall outcome of the discussions
between the Service and the River Ranch community has led to
understanding and support for the Everglades Headwaters project.
chickasaw, lower hatchie and hatchie national wildlife refuges and
their benefits
The Chickasaw, Lower Hatchie, and Hatchie National Wildlife Refuges
are located in west Tennessee's portion of the Mississippi Alluvial
Valley and are part of the West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge
Complex. They welcomed over 500,000 visitors in 2012 alone. Chickasaw
National Wildlife Refuge is located in Lauderdale County, Tennessee,
adjacent to the Mississippi River. Of the 73,480 acres within the
approved acquisition boundary for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge,
the Service has purchased fee title in approximately 20,914 acres and
manages an additional 5,388 acres of contiguous lands under a no-fee
lease from the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA), which brings
the current total to 26,008 acres. Lower Hatchie National Wildlife
Refuge is located approximately 18 miles west of Henning, Tennessee, at
the confluence of the Hatchie and Mississippi Rivers in Lauderdale and
Tipton Counties. Of the 12,270 acre acquisition boundary, the Service
has purchased fee title in approximately 11,883 acres while an
additional 1,873 acres of lands (Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area) is
managed under a no-fee lease from the Tennessee Department of
Environmental Conservation. Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge is located
in Haywood County, Tennessee, adjacent to the Hatchie River. The refuge
owns all 11,556 acres within its current acquisition boundary.
All three refuges were established under the authority of the
Migratory Bird Conservation Commission to protect bottomland hardwood
forests and adjacent habitats for migratory and wintering waterfowl.
The bottomland hardwood forests of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley
serve as important habitat for breeding landbirds and migratory birds
in the spring and fall, and the Lower Mississippi Valley serves as the
primary wintering ground for mid-continental waterfowl populations.
Together, Chickasaw, Lower Hatchie, and Hatchie National Wildlife
Refuges support wintering waterfowl population numbers exceeding
300,000 dabbling ducks each year.
proposed boundary expansion at chickasaw and lower hatchie national
wildlife refuges
The Service is considering a proposal to expand the acquisition
boundaries for Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuges to
protect and restore high-quality bottomland hardwood forest habitat for
waterfowl, deer, turkey, and many nongame species as well as places
where the public can hunt, fish, and observe wildlife. The preliminary
proposal encompasses approximately 120,078 acres of mostly un-leveed
bottomlands of the Mississippi and Hatchie Rivers in Lauderdale,
Tipton, Haywood, and Dyer Counties, Tennessee.
Land acquisition remains a critical tool in safeguarding wildlife
and habitat while providing opportunities for wildlife-dependent
recreation. It is long-standing Service policy and practice to acquire
lands from willing sellers. As a result, the Service enjoys generally
exceptional community relations, and landowner support for refuge
acquisitions.
Consistent with the Service's commitment to decision-making rooted
in consideration of public interests, the public process for this
proposal began in December 2012 when the Service initiated a 2-month
public scoping effort to seek broader input in shaping the proposal.
The Service held public scoping meetings in Ripley, Tennessee on
December 11, 2012 and in Brownsville on December 12, 2012. After fully
considering public input the Service developed a draft land protection
plan and provided it to the public for review and comment on February
7, 2013. As part of this comment period, the Service held a public
meeting on February 19, 2013 in Ripley, Tennessee.
operations and maintenance costs
The Service, as part of its official charge from Congress to manage
the Refuge System, has a mandate to ``. . . conserve fish, wildlife,
and plants and their habitats . . ..'' One of the most effective ways
to do this is to protect areas that hold the greatest value for
wildlife. Investment in newly conserved properties provides more access
for hunters, anglers, and wildlife watchers; creates jobs and economic
benefits for local communities; increases survival of wildlife; and
helps private landowners preserve their family lands and lifestyle,
such as ranching, in perpetuity. Furthermore, consolidating fragmented
lands often reduces operations and maintenance needs, thereby saving
taxpayer dollars.
Many new fee title or conservation easements acquired by the Refuge
System are private inholdings within or immediately adjacent to an
existing refuge parcel. These scattered and sometimes small inholdings
can have a disproportionate and often adverse effect on the ability of
a refuge to achieve its purpose. Strategic acquisitions of fee title or
easements can significantly simplify management and reduce expenses
related to signage, fencing, law enforcement patrols, legal permits,
rights-of-way conflicts, fire-fighting, road maintenance, habitat
management and restoration, and invasive species management. Such
strategic acquisitions help the Service meet important conservation
objectives.
The Service is diligently working to put available funding for
operation and maintenance of the Refuge System to its best use. We will
apply available funds by setting priorities, and continuing to
collaborate with State, Federal, and private partners and volunteers to
maximize shared conservation benefits. The Refuge System continues to
effectively manage its deferred maintenance backlog by continuing to
refine its condition assessment process, using maintenance action
teams, actively pursuing local partnerships, carefully prioritizing
budgets, and disposing of unneeded assets. As a result, the backlog
declined by $300 million from fiscal year (FY) 2010 to 2012, totaling
$2.4 billion at the end of FY 2012 for a $26.5 billion portfolio of
constructed assets on Refuge System lands totaling 150 million acres.
The condition of the overall portfolio has improved while mission
critical needs are being met.
The six refuges in Tennessee compete for the annual funding that
Congress provides to rehabilitate or replace the highest priority
maintenance or operational needs on each refuge. Many of those projects
that are funded are completed by refuge staff to minimize costs and
others are contracted out to the lowest bidder. As these projects are
completed, they are reducing the operations and maintenance backlogs on
these six refuges.
Land acquisition associated with the proposed expansion of the
Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge would be expected
to occur slowly due to limited funding and competing needs for other
priority land acquisition throughout the Nation. Over the next 10
years, the projected increase from lands acquired in this proposed
120,000 acre expansion area would likely be less than 10,000 acres and
have minimal impacts to current operational or maintenance backlogs.
There are three staffed refuges within this proposed area and they
would assume the management oversight of these additional lands with
minimal costs.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee
today, and for your continued support of the National Wildlife Refuge
System. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Ashe. A hearing advisory--we're
shortly to be called for votes. We're going to try to get
through some more testimony. It will probably take us about an
hour to get through votes, and then we'll reconvene. So we just
want you to stand ready and make sure you don't drift too far
away so we can get back to work.
Mr. Patrick, I now recognize you for 5 minutes, sir.
STATEMENT OF STEVE PATRICK, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FIELD
OPERATIONS, TENNESSEE WILDLIFE RESOURCES AGENCY
Mr. Patrick. Thank you, Chairman Fleming, for the
opportunity to address the Subcommittee.
In 2003, the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency began
identifying important lands across Tennessee. Part of that
process included coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to plan strategically and at the landscape scale. That
collaboration resulted in the 2003 important wildlife lands in
Tennessee that identified 16 project areas across the State. We
continue to work closely with the Fish and Wildlife Service
from Real Foot Lake to Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge.
In an effort to conserve wildlife, their habitats for the
benefit of Tennesseans and visitors to Tennessee, the draft
land acquisition plan for the proposed expansion and
acquisition boundaries for Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie National
Wildlife Refuges was identified in that plan as important
wildlife lands.
The resulting boundaries provide direction for long-term
planning and will create the opportunity to manage the natural
resources of this area at a landscape scale and allow TWRA and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to operate in project areas
for conservation of natural resources without duplication of
effort.
The reason we identified these areas as important wildlife
lands is that the Hatchie River is the only river system in
west Tennessee that has not been impounded or channelized.
Protecting the river and the adjacent properties will benefit
numerous birds, mammals, fish, and mussel species. Chickasaw
and Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuges are north and south
of our J.M. Tully Wildlife Management Area and could provide a
significantly large ecosystem where fish and wildlife would
have corridors and connected habitats to facilitate migration
and genetic interchange within those species enabling them to
adapt to future and environmental changes.
We speak of conserving natural resources. The Fish and
Wildlife Service, like the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency
manages working landscapes. Farming and forest management are
tools that we both use to meet our management objectives. In
most cases, these practices are implemented through contracts
with people in the surrounding community. Although the
objectives on the land may be different, the actual practices
carried out on the land can be very similar to what happens on
private property. The scale of the practices will be the
difference.
Our concern for the conservation of natural resources in
this area stems from long-range modeling that indicates rural
counties in west Tennessee will continue to experience
urbanization. If some of the projections for urban growth by
2060 are realized, Tipton County could add 22,000 acres of
urban lands; Lauderdale County could add 16,000 acres of urban
lands; Dyer County could add 37,000 acres of urban lands. Most
of this change is expected to move northward from Shelby County
through Covington, Henning, Ripley, and Dyersburg. Urbanization
at this scale will lead to fragmentation or loss of critical
wildlife habitats and agricultural lands.
As urbanization of rural counties of Tipton, Lauderdale,
and Dyer changes the landscape of those counties, the continued
urbanization of Shelby County will cause even more
unanticipated pressures to come to bear on the landscapes of
the area. One thing we do know is that as urban populations
grow, the demand for outdoor recreation grows. Wildlife-
associated recreation in Tennessee generations over $2.9
billion annually; 2.6 million people, residents and
nonresidents, participated in hunting, fishing, and wildlife
viewing in 2011.
Having areas like the Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge,
Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge, and J.M. Tully Wildlife
Management Area will attract people interested in outdoor
recreation. The important thing to understand about this
proposal is that the expanding acquisition boundaries will not
obligate landowners to change their current or long-term goals
for their property. In fact, it will expand their options.
For those who are not interested in changing what they're
doing on the land, nothing changes. Both current and future
landowners interested in making changes will have the option of
selling their property to anyone they choose and entering into
conservation easements and continuing to work the land or sell
the land to the Fish and Wildlife Service. If the boundaries
are not expanded, these options will be unavailable to the land
owner.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to address the
Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Patrick follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steve Patrick, Assistant Executive Director,
Field Operations, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency
Thank you Chairman Fleming, for the opportunity to address the
Subcommittee.
The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency worked with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service on the Draft Land Protection Plan for the proposed
expansion of the acquisition boundaries for Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie
National Wildlife Refuges. This expansion will create the opportunity
to conserve valuable riverine and wetland habitats.
The establishment of these boundaries will address the conservation
of fish and wildlife in an area identified by the Tennessee Wildlife
Resources Agency as ``Important Wildlife Lands in Tennessee''. The
collaboration on the draft plan allows for the strategic focus of both
TWRA and USFWS on lands that are important for conservation without
duplication of effort.
The Hatchie River is the only river system in west Tennessee that
is not impacted by impoundment or channelization. The protection of
this river and the adjacent property will benefit numerous mammals,
fish, and mussel species.
Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuges are north and
south of our J.M. Tully Wildlife Management Area and could provide a
significant ecosystem where fish and wildlife would have corridors and
connected habitats to facilitate migration and genetic interchange of
those species, enabling them to adapt to future environmental changes.
If some of the projections for urban growth by 2060 come about, the
conservation of these habitats will be critical. Tipton County could
add 22,000 acres of urban lands and become 14 percent urban. Lauderdale
County could add 16,000 acres of urban land and become 10 percent urban
and Dyer County could add 37,000 acres of urban land becoming 15
percent urban. Urbanization at this scale will lead to fragmentation or
loss of critical wildlife habitats and agricultural lands.
As urbanization of the rural Counties of Tipton, Lauderdale, Dyer
changes the landscape of those counties, the continued urbanization of
Shelby County will cause even more unknown pressures to be exerted on
the landscape of this area. One thing we do know is that as the urban
populations grow, the demand for outdoor recreation grows. Wildlife
recreation in Tennessee generates over $2.9 billion, 2.6 million
people, residents and nonresidents participated in hunting, fishing and
wildlife viewing in 2011. Having areas like the Chickasaw NWR, Lower
Hatchie NWR and J.M. Tully WMA will attract people who are interested
in outdoor recreation. Outdoor recreation can have a meaningful
economic impact in these counties.
The expansion of the acquisition boundaries does not obligate any
landowner to change their current or long term goals for their
property. It in fact expands their options. For those who are not
interested in changing what they doing on the land, nothing changes.
For those current landowners or future land owners who are interested
in making changes they will have the option of selling their property
to anyone they choose, entering into a conservation easement and
continuing to work some of the land or selling the land to the Fish and
Wildlife Service. The important part of this is that without the
expansion of the boundaries, two of these options do not exist for the
landowner who would like to see their property fill a conservation
need. The Fish and Wildlife Service could not entertain an offer by a
willing seller if that property were outside the acquisition boundary.
Given the many positive aspects of the Fish and Wildlife land
acquisition process of offer fair market value, revenue sharing
payments and continued working landscapes the Tennessee Wildlife
Resources Agency the long term results of this expansion of the land
acquisition boundaries will be beneficial.
Thank you for the opportunity to address this proposal with the
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Patrick.
Mr. Aiken, I now recognize you for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JEFF AIKEN, VICE PRESIDENT, TENNESSEE FARM BUREAU
FEDERATION
Mr. Aiken. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, my
name is Jeff Aiken. I'm a Tennessee farmer and vice president
of the Tennessee Farm Bureau Federation. On behalf of the
farmers of our State, we appreciate the opportunity to comment
on the draft land protection plan and draft environmental
assessment for the proposed expansion of Chickasaw and Lower
Hatchie National Wildlife Refuges.
My comments are divided into two parts. I will address the
general policies within the plan that are in conflict with our
Farm Bureau policy, and I will point out specific items in the
proposal that are problematic to the agricultural community.
The Tennessee Farm Bureau policy represents the best
thought and judgment of the Farm Bureau membership of the 95
counties in Tennessee. Two specific topics within the draft
proposal conflict with our Farm Bureau policy. First, Tennessee
Farm Bureau supports a no net loss of private lands, and
Tennessee Farm Bureau strives to protect the rights of property
owners adjoining public lands.
Farm bureau members believe Government owns sufficient
property. We support a national policy of no net loss of
private lands. Our members believe the government should be
required to release an equal dollar value of productive farm
property for public sale whenever new lands are purchased by
Government. In addition, the financial impact on the taxpayers
should be considered when the Government buys land depriving
the county of taxes, jobs, and other revenue. All these factors
should be measured before other land is taken out of
production.
Furthermore, we support an option for current surface
landowners to buy back perpetual conservation easements at
market value. We commend the decision to purchase property only
from willing sellers and not to use any imminent domain.
However, caution should be exercised to ensure property
adjoining or neighboring Fish and Wildlife Service's property
is not negatively impacted. Farm bureau believes any action by
Government that diminishes an owner's right to use his property
is a taking of that owner's property.
Drainage issues are a common problem of landowners who
adjoin governmental property. The proposal advocates restoring
floodplain hydrology on newly acquired lands where agricultural
drainage is no longer needed. Landowners often experience
difficulty maintaining adequate drainage due to land management
decisions on the Government property. In addition, increased
occurrences of trespassing and increased crop depredation due
to wildlife are often experienced by landowners who adjoin
wildlife refuges.
We also have comments specific to problems for agriculture
within the proposal. Number one, a lack of diversity in
stakeholder involvement, limited alternatives, and finally,
incomplete data related to local economic impact. The 120,078
acre expansion plan lacks diversity in input. Agricultural
property represents over 70,000 acres or nearly 60 percent of
the proposed total expansion area, and yet only 1 of the 21
groups has any agricultural involvement. Of the 7 agencies and
14 private organizations from which input was sought in
developing the plan, USDA is the only agricultural group
represented.
Although the service considered and evaluated three
alternatives--alternative one being no action and alternative
three, the acquisition of 294,000 acres--those are polar
extremes. This seems to be designed to make alternative number
two, the 120,000-acre acquisition, not only the preferred
alternative, but appear more reasonable. We do not accept that
strategy. We support what the plan disparagingly refers to as
the status quo alternative, allowing the lands to remain in
private ownership and in current land uses.
Furthermore, we believe the desire of private landowners
and existing Federal, State, and local environmental
regulations have more than adequately protected habitats and
natural resources in the area. The Hatchie River is the last
major un-channeled tributary of the lower Mississippi River
Basin and contains the largest forested floodplain in
Tennessee. Because the entire Hatchie River has remained
undammed, un-channelized, and un-levied, the natural processes
that drive the ecosystem are functional in these areas. This
occurred with private land ownership and not with public
dollars.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here with you today, and
we encourage the agency to adopt alternative number one. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Aiken follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeff Aiken, Vice President, Tennessee Farm Bureau
Federation
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee my name is Jeff Aiken.
I'm a Tennessee farmer and the vice president of the Tennessee Farm
Bureau Federation (TFBF). Tennessee Farm Bureau Federation represents
more than 95 percent of the State's farmers. The most recent
agricultural statistics survey reports Tennessee farmers collectively
own 79,000 farms utilizing nearly 11.5 million acres of farm and
forestland in this State. My office of Vice President is elected by the
farmer members of our organization.
On behalf of the farmers of our State, we appreciate this
opportunity to comment on the Draft Land Protection Plan and Draft
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Expansion of Chickasaw and
Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuges.
My comments are divided into two parts. First, I will address the
general policies within the plan that are in conflict with our Farm
Bureau Policy. Secondly, I will point out specific items in the
proposal that are problematic to the agricultural community.
part 1
The grassroots Farm Bureau members develop the Farm Bureau policy
each year to guide the organization on issues of importance. The TFBF
policy represents the best thought and judgment of the Farm Bureau
membership in the 95 counties in Tennessee.
Three specific topics within the Draft Land Protection proposal
conflict with our Farm Bureau policy.
1. TFBF supports a ``No Net loss of Private Lands''.
2. TFBF protects the rights of property owners adjoining public
lands.
3. TFBF opposes the release of species of animals not currently
established.
``No Net loss of Private Lands''
Farm Bureau members believe Government owns sufficient property and
therefore opposes the Fish and Wildlife Service acquiring additional
land. We support a national policy of ``no net loss of private lands''.
Recognizing the priorities of land protection and ownership may change
over time, our members believe the Government should be required to
release an equal dollar value of productive farm property for public
sale whenever new lands are purchased by Government.
In addition, the financial impact on the county and county
taxpayers should be considered when the Government buys land depriving
the county of taxes, jobs and other revenue. All these factors should
be measured before other land is taken out of production.
We support an option for current surface landowners to buy back
Fish and Wildlife Service and Natural Resource Conservation Service
perpetual conservation easements at market value.
Adjoining Private Land Owners
We commend the Fish and Wildlife Service decision to purchase
property from willing sellers only and not to use any eminent domain.
However, caution should be exercised to insure property adjoining
or neighboring Fish and Wildlife Service property is not negatively
impacted. Farm Bureau believes any action by Government that diminishes
an owner's right to use his property is a taking of that owner's
property. Drainage issues are a common problem of landowners who join
governmental property. The proposal advocates ``restoring flood plain
hydrology on newly acquired lands where agricultural drainage is no
longer needed.'' Landowners often experience difficulty maintaining
adequate drainage due to land management decisions on the governmental
property.
In addition, increased occurrences of trespass and increased crop
depredation due to wildlife are often experienced by landowners who
adjoin wildlife refuges.
part 2
Specific Comments to the Plan
The following comments are specific to areas Farm Bureau opposes
within the proposed plan.
1. Lack of Diversity in Stakeholder Involvement
2. Limited Alternatives
3. Incomplete Data related to Local Economic Impact
Diversity in Stakeholder Involvement
The 120,078 acre expansion plan lacks diversity in input from those
most directly impacted. The largest extent of the proposed acquisition
area is in agricultural land, with corn, cotton, and soybeans
comprising the majority of the crops produced. Agricultural property
represents over 70,000 acres or nearly 60 percent of the proposed total
expansion area and yet only 1 of the 21 groups (USDA) have any
agriculture involvement.
A plan involving 70,000 agricultural acres deserves more input from
the agricultural community than just USDA. Of the 7 agencies and 14
private organizations from which input was sought in developing the
plan, USDA is the only agriculture group represented. Apparently, no
State agriculture input was sought.
AGENCIES: Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Tennessee Department
of Environment and Conservation, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S.
Geological Survey, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency--Region 4, Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs.
PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS: The Trust for Public Land, The Nature
Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, The Conservation Fund, Tennessee Wildlife
Federation, Mississippi River Corridor, Tennessee Sierra Club--
Tennessee Chapter, Friends of West Tennessee Refuges, Tennessee Parks
and Greenways Foundation, Chambers of Commerce for Dyersburg, Ripley,
Covington,and Brownsville.
Limited Alternatives
Although the Service considered and evaluated three alternatives,
Alternative 1 (no action) and Alternative 3 (acquiring 294,544
additional acres) are polar extremes. This seems to be designed to make
Alternative 2 (120,078 acre acquisition) not only the preferred
alternative but appear most reasonable. We do not accept this strategy.
We support what the plan disparagingly refers to as the ``status
quo'' alternative allowing the lands to remain in private ownership and
in current land uses. Furthermore, we believe the desire of private
landowners and existing Federal, State, and local environmental
regulations (Clean Water Act, State water quality and pollution laws,
etc.), have more than adequately protected the fish and wildlife
habitats and natural resources in the area.
This is supported by the fact that ``the Hatchie River is the last
major un-channelized tributary of the Lower Mississippi River Basin
that lies south of Cairo, Illinois, and contains the largest forested
floodplain in Tennessee. Because this portion of the Mississippi River
and the entire Hatchie River has remained undammed, un-channelized, and
un-leveed, the natural processes that drive the ecosystem are
functional in these areas.'' This occurred with private land ownership
and not with public dollars.
Local Economic Impact
Transparency of the cost of removing the acreage from tax roll is
incomplete. The proposal maintains the land purchases are to be funded
through the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. Both are funded by user fees, Federal duck stamps,
revenue from leasing offshore oil drilling rights, and other, non-tax
sources. With our current Federal debt situation there are higher
public need priorities for these earmarked dollars than for land
purchases. The actual land acquisition represents only a fraction of
the long term cost of land management and ownership. And, presumably
public tax dollars do pay the salaries and infrastructure costs of the
government entities managing the property.
The local governments will become vulnerable to Washington gridlock
as property is removed from local tax rolls and ``compensated'' by
other dollars. Granted, the Federal law provides for payments to be
made from the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (16 U.S.C. 715s) to local
governments for lands acquired by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The
act requires revenue sharing payments to counties for purchased lands
be based on the greatest of: (a) \3/4\ of 1 percent of the market
value; (b) 25 percent of the net receipts; or (c) 75 cents per acre.
These revenue sharing dollars actually come from the National Wildlife
Refuge Fund which is funded from the dollars the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service receives from products or privileges like timber sales, grazing
fees, and right-of-way permit fees. These revenue sources are
constantly at risk by groups opposing such uses of Federal lands.
History shows on occasion refuge receipts have not been sufficient to
make the county payments. Congress MAY appropriate funds to make up any
shortfall in the revenue sharing fund. If the amount Congress
appropriates is not enough, the units of local government receive a
pro-rata share.
We oppose subjecting local governments to such instability
resulting from the loss of 120,078 acres from the local property tax
base not to mention the lost economic benefit of production
agriculture.
We encourage the agency to adopt Alternative 1.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Aiken.
Ms. Kelley, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHARLOTTE KELLEY, OWNER, BURLISON GIN COMPANY,
BURLISON, TENNESSEE
Ms. Kelley. Good morning, and thank you. My name is
Charlotte Kelley. My husband and I own a cotton gin in Tipton
County, Tennessee. I am a former Tipton County Commissioner,
and I come here today about the Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie
Refuge expansion plan.
My first concern is the economic effect to Tipton County
and to production agriculture. Production agriculture is the
engine of our county's economy. Each year agriculture pumps
close to $115 million into our economy. The loss of
approximately 38,000 acres to Fish and Wildlife in Tipton
County would be a loss of around $40 million annually. One-
fourth of our commercial agriculture could be taken out of
production. Farmland in our county generates on average $8.13
per acre in land taxes. In lieu of property taxes, Federal
revenue sharing by Fish and Wildlife has been purported to be
$3.73 per acre, but historical data from a neighboring county
show it to be in the $2.90 range.
My personal business concerns are paramount to my being
here today. If the Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie initiative is
successful, we can reasonably say that our business could lose
up to one-half of our revenue due to a large portion of revenue
coming from areas in the proposed plan. Granaries, seed
cleaning operations would also suffer. Among others to
exponentially lose revenue would be agricultural suppliers,
parts businesses, banks, car dealers, mom and pop merchants,
charities, schools, and a significant loss of agriculturally
related jobs.
My third concern is of utmost importance. You see, our
local landowners who have experience with Fish and Wildlife
have been impacted negatively. Owning land adjacent to Fish and
Wildlife is a daunting prospect to private landowners. These
encounters with them are quite similar to those we hear about
on the news today concerning GSA, IRS, and NSA. There are
existing documented court cases which show the aggressive
behavior of Fish and Wildlife. I fear greatly that land will be
acquired in a checkerboard fashion, and the holdout landowners
will be subjected to intimidation by Fish and Wildlife.
Three individuals in my community have spent in excess of
$150,000 litigating against U.S. Fish and Wildlife in order to
secure the original property boundary, to establish egress and
ingress to their property, and to use their privately owned
land for personal hunting purposes. The action of U.S. Fish and
Wildlife appear to be attempts to passively force out these
landowners. U.S. Fish and Wildlife also alter the land in a
manner that limits drainage to the point that adjacent
farmlands will be flooded and then most likely deemed wetlands.
When these wetlands are no longer tillable, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife have a greater likelihood of then acquiring the
flooded lands.
Another concern is that private landowners will be
subjected to increased wildlife protection enforcement as a
result of simply being adjacent or upstream from U.S. Fish and
Wildlife. How will these bottomlands be changed by U.S. Fish
and Wildlife, and what effects will these changes have on
private landowners? How will it affect the proper drainage
canals, roads, ditches, and pesticide use?
Historically in our area, we have seen U.S. Fish and
Wildlife more concerned about the private use of their land
than properly maintaining the refuge for recreational use and
to prevent harm to nearby landowners. Our Nation is $17
trillion in debt, and agencies such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife
are creating these massive land grabs that will cost our
country billions. Should we not divert the use of these funds
to repaying our national debt?
The Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie Refuge expansion is just
one of the many land acquisition initiatives that should be put
on hold until our financial house is in order. I am neither a
zealot nor an extremist. As a business woman, a county
resident, mother, and grandmother, I only wish to call
attention to an agency that can destroy an economy, the jobs,
and the livelihoods of several rural counties in west
Tennessee.
One question keeps coming to my mind: Are the wishes of a
group of environmentalists more important than the lives and
livelihood of several thousand people in rural west Tennessee?
Thank you for letting me be here.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kelley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charlotte Kelley, Owner, Burlison Gin Company,
Burlison, Tennessee
My name is Charlotte Kelley. My husband and I own a cotton gin in
Tipton County, Tennessee. I am a former Tipton County Commissioner and
I come here today about the Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie Refuge
Expansion Plan.
detriment to our county economy
My first concern is the economic effect to Tipton County and to
production agriculture. Production agriculture is the engine of our
county's economy. Each year agriculture pumps close to $115 million
into our economy. The loss of approximately 38,000 acres to U.S. Fish
and Wildlife in Tipton County would be a loss of around $40 million
annually. One-fourth of our commercial agriculture would be taken out
of production. Farmland in our county generates on average $8.13 per
acre in land taxes. In lieu of property taxes Federal Revenue Sharing
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife has been purported to be $3.73 per acre
but historical data from a neighboring county show it to be in the
$2.60 per acre range and decreasing yearly.
personal business concerns
My personal business concerns are paramount to my being present
today. If the Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie initiative is successful, we
can reasonably say that our business could lose up to one-half of our
revenue due to a large portion of revenue coming from areas in the
proposed plan. Graineries and seed cleaning operations would also
suffer great losses. Among others to exponentially lose revenue would
be agricultural suppliers, parts businesses, banks, car dealers, ``Mom
and Pop'' merchants, charities, schools and a significant loss of
agriculturally related jobs.
heavy hand of u.s. fish and wildlife
My third concern is of utmost importance. You see, our local
landowners who have experience with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife have
been impacted negatively. Owning land adjacent to U.S. Fish and
Wildlife is daunting to private land owners. These encounters are quite
similar to those we hear about on the news concerning the GSA, IRS, and
NSA. There are existing documented court cases which show the
aggressive behavior of U.S. Fish and Wildlife. I fear greatly that land
will be acquired in ``checker board'' fashion and the ``hold out''
landowners will be subjected to intimidation by U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
Three individuals in my community have spent in excess of $150,000.00
litigating against U.S. Fish and Wildlife in order to secure the
original property boundaries, to re-establish egress/ingress to their
property and to use their privately owned land for personal hunting
purposes. The actions of USFW appear to be attempts to passively force
these landowners out.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife also alter the land in a manner that limits
drainage to the point that adjacent private lands will be flooded and
most likely deemed ``wetlands''. When these ``wetlands'' are no longer
tillable, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife have a greater likelihood of then
acquiring the flooded lands.
Another concern is that private landowners will be subjected to
increased wildlife protection enforcement as a result of simply being
adjacent to or upstream from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife lands.
How will these bottomlands be changed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife and
what effects will these changes have on private land owners? How will
it affect proper drainage, canals, roads, ditches, and pesticide use?
Historically in our area, we have seen U.S. Fish and Wildlife more
concerned about the private use of their land than how to properly
maintain the refuge for public recreational use and to prevent harm to
other nearby landowners.
Our Nation is $17 trillion in debt and agencies such as U.S. Fish
and Wildlife are creating these massive land grabs that will cost our
country billions. Should we not divert the use of these funds to
repaying our debt? The Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie Refuge Expansion is
just one of many land acquisition initiatives that should be put on
hold until our financial house is in order.
I am neither a zealot nor an extremist. As a business woman, county
resident, wife, mother, and grandmother, I only wish to call attention
to an agency that can destroy an economy, and the jobs and livelihood
of several rural counties in west Tennessee.
One question keeps coming to mind. Are the wishes of a group of
environmentalist more important than the lives and livelihood of
several thousands of people in rural west Tennessee?
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Ms. Kelley. We're going to have our
last testimony, and we'll immediately recess for votes and then
return, and we'll get started immediately on questions.
So Mr. Schuh, you're now recognized for 5 minutes, sir.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROD SCHUH, COUNTY MAYOR, LAUDERDALE
COUNTY, TENNESSEE
Mr. Schuh. To all Committee members, thank you for this
opportunity. I'm representing four counties today that will
ultimately be affected by the 120,000-acre expansion, and they
are Tipton, Haywood, Dyer, and Lauderdale, and of course we're
on the Mississippi and Hatchie Rivers.
After the public meetings, many citizens in these counties
were either against the expansion or the massive size of the
expansion. A petition was started opposing the plan. It was
signed by 443 citizens. The Lauderdale county commission also
passed a resolution asking for Chickasaw and Hatchie to be
removed from the top 50 refuge target list. Opposition to the
expansion State wildlife agency--opposition is that they
currently own 45,000 acres, and they still have rights on
another 55,000 acres.
A second reason for opposition toward the expansion is the
inclusion of the 46,900 acres of farmland and 23,000 acres of
pasture grasslands. Common concerns are: Will the Government
enact imminent domain; what about field drainage through the
refuge; potential restrictions of agricultural pesticide
runoffs. And I'd like to state that our farmers are
conservatives, and we do worry about conservation. Farming is
the main industry in my small county of 26,000 people, and we
have a lot of high unemployment. We farm about 56 percent of
the county, and our greenbelt tax relief consisting of farms
all the way down to the wetlands is about 71\1/2\ percent of
the county. The eventual loss of 23,500 acres in the 70,000 in
our area can affect us by $42 million annually and our State
and local taxes by over $4 million annually.
As revenue and the economy dries up, of course the result
is lost jobs. On the reimbursement issues, wildlife
representatives tell our citizens that the Refuge Revenue
Sharing Act allows the agency to offset the tax losses to the
counties. Lauderdale County historical receipts related to the
agency's payment of in lieu of taxes over the last 15 years
show the payments received have never matched the total dollars
authorized, and I've put in a historical chart. In the last 3
years, our county has received 24.6 percent of the dollars
authorized for the agency.
I have two examples to add to the question of equal tax
dollars. I have a 3,000-acre farm in my county. It's not
greenbelt assisted, and the taxes on this one plot are about
$42,000. If it were in the greenbelt, it would be approximately
$21,000. And the Wildlife Agency's past 4 years' payment
average of $3.18, we would equal approximately $9,900 or about
$11,000 deficit to the greenbelt. The second example is a
greenbelt farm with 168 acres ranging from farmland to
woodlands. I'd get $1,053 in taxes compared to approximately
$543 using the agency's past averages. My county's total
greenbelt tax income dollars is approximately $1.1 million with
196,000 acres from the greenbelt program. It averages to be
$5.74. Yet if the expansion were to happen today, we'd lose
$205,000 in taxes. Under the U.S. Wildlife's average of the
last 4 years, we'd get a total of about $113,000 or we'd lose
$91,000 to $100,000 a year.
Please understand the $3.18 is only 25 percent of the
authorized amount, and I've recently talked to the financial
department of Wildlife Services in Colorado, and they indicated
that this year's revenues are going to be downsized again. The
basic point, after these examples is that in Lauderdale County,
the agency is not living up to the statements about the Refuge
Revenue Act and is not covering the equal lost tax dollars.
U.S. Wildlife relies on Southwick studies showing how
tourist dollars may offset lost tax revenues. They reported
that Chickasaw had 78,500 visitors last year or 215 visits a
day. My belief is that at least 75 percent of these visits are
local people, and we are a small county. We don't have any
attractions. We do have day trippers and day hunters from close
proximities, but they go home without spending the dollars. In
conclusion, fair ``in lieu of tax'' payments are very important
to our county's budgets. And the overwhelming future problem is
the loss to the local farm.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schuh follows:]
Prepare Statement of The Honorable Rod Schuh, County Mayor, Lauderdale
County, Tennessee
To all Committee members thank you for this opportunity to discuss
the positive and negatives of the proposed expansion of the Chickasaw
and Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuges.
I am here representing four counties that will ultimately be
affected by the proposed 120,000 acre expansion; they are Tipton,
Haywood, Dyer and Lauderdale Counties that border the Mississippi,
Hatchie and Forked Deer rivers.
After the public meetings many citizens were either against the
expansion all together or the massive size of the expansion. A petition
was started opposing the plan and was signed by 433 Lauderdale County
citizens, Lauderdale County Commission also passed a resolution asking
U.S. Wildlife to remove Chickasaw and Hatchie from the top 50 refuge
target list.
A major reason for the opposition to the new 2013 expansion is
twofold.
1. At present there is a purchase program available to landowners
in the Mississippi and Hatchie River bottoms by the U.S.
Wildlife with an identified boundary of approximately
83,500 acres of land primarily in Lauderdale County that
consists of farm and forest land. The service currently
owns 27,967 acres in this boundary area identified as
Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie Refuge's. The State of
Tennessee owns an additional 17,000 acres in an adjacent
area for a total of 45,000 acres between the two agencies.
The 2013 proposal seeks an additional 120,078 acres with
35,781 of this land in Lauderdale County alone. The
remainder primarily affects Tipton and Haywood counties
along the Hatchie River.
2. The second reason for opposition toward the 120,000 acre
expansion is the inclusion of 46,903 acres of agriculture;
row crop land along with 23,213 acres of agriculture
pasture grass land. This makes the farm land 58 percent of
the expansion. These prime bottom farming lands are
exceptionally fertile and referred to by the hill farmers
in our county as ice cream land. Farmers would love to
purchase this ground but they cannot afford to purchase
large tracts of land compared to the Government therefore
they do not feel it is fair competition. The common
questions arising in my county is how much Government land
is enough, will Government enact imminent domain in the
future. They also question drainage issues, beaver dams and
the potential restrictions of pesticide runoff.
The citizens of west Tennessee appreciate the contributions that
U.S. Wildlife has made to our land and wildlife habitat. We understand
that some of the lowest bottom lands are blue mud and that farmland
that holds large expansions of water should be converted over to
natural habitat. What we have a hard time understanding is the reaching
out for prime cropland in areas that don't flood or hold water on a
continual basis. The Fish and Wildlife officials question since the
land is in the 5 year flood why all the opposition.
financial impact to our communities
Farming is the main industry in Lauderdale County. We have gone
through the southern industrial expansions of the 1960s, 1970s, and
1980s. Since the 1990s my county alone has lost 15 companies that hired
between 100 to 2,000 people. Industry moving overseas has devastated
our local economy and in 2009 my county reached 22 percent
unemployment. Currently we vary over the year between 12 and 14 percent
unemployment. Lauderdale County is the second poorest county per capita
in the State of Tennessee with a negative forecasted population growth
in the next 10 years. Farm revenue currently is the life blood to our
economic quality of life. The population of Lauderdale County is 26,000
people, not counting the State prison. We farm 170,000 acres or 56
percent of the 305,000 acres in the county. Total farming and greenbelt
tax relief property consisting of farms, forests, and wetlands is
218,000 acres or 71.5 percent of the county.
The eventual loss of an additional 23,500 acres of farmland in
Lauderdale County and 70,000 acres to the region will significantly
impact our tri-county economy. For example 1 year 70,000 acres of lost
soybean production at 45 Bu/Acre $13.50 market price would
equate to $42,525,000 of revenue to the local economy. State and local
sales taxes would be affected by $4,146,188. The area also grows cotton
and corn which would magnify the lost revenues and severely affect our
local economy, schools, roads and government.
When revenue in the economy dries up the result is lost jobs all
over the region. From Ag related supply companies, Ag equipment
dealers, to fuel, car and truck dealers all the way down to small
retail shops.
Many citizens in the public meetings remarked about the local tax
effect and will they be affected. Fish and Wildlife representatives
responded that the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act allows the agency to
offset the tax losses by annually paying the county or local units of
government an amount that often equals or exceeds that which would been
collected from taxes if in private ownership.
These statements bring up an interesting point related to the
agencies payment of In Lieu of taxes over the last 15 years to
Lauderdale County. Our records show that the payments received have
never matched the totals authorized when compared to authorized
dollars. A brief history of the payments to Lauderdale County is
contained in the attached Historical Chart of In-Lieu of Tax Payments.
In the last 3 years 2010-2012 the County has received 24.6 percent
of the dollars authorized by the Agency. The literature states that
Congress is authorized to appropriate money to make up the difference;
obviously this has not happened in many years.
The next two examples add to the question of equal tax dollars. One
farm in the expansion area totals 3,135 acres. The farm is not
greenbelt assisted. The taxes received on this one plot are $41,960 or
$13.38 per acre, if it were in the greenbelt the taxes would be in the
$21,000 range or $6.69 per acre and $20,973 in tax revenue. Under the
U.S. Wildlife Agencies past 4 years payment average of $3.18 per acre
the revenue would be $9,969 or a $11,031 deficit. A second example of a
168 acre farm with woodlands averages $1,053 in tax compared to
approximately $534 using Wildlife Agency's $3.18 per acre 4 year
average for a loss of tax income of $519.
County tax records indicate that county greenbelt tax income
dollars covering farmland to swamps is $1,128,760 dollars. There are
196,761 acres in the greenbelt tax relief program, this equates to
$5.74 cents per acre for greenbelt properties. If the expansion were to
happen immediately on just 35,781 acres of county greenbelt land we
would lose in the range of $205,383 dollars in tax revenue. If U.S.
Wildlife continues the last 4 year average payment their payment would
total $113,783 for a loss of $91,600 per year. Please understand the
$3.18 is still only 25 percent of the authorized amount. The financial
department of Wildlife Services has indicated that this year's revenue
will be downsized.
The basic point after these examples is that in Lauderdale County
the U.S. Wildlife Agency is not able to live up to their advertised
statement that the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act allows them to offset the
tax losses or even exceed that which would have been collected from
taxes if in private ownership.
U.S. Wildlife felt that tourist dollars according to the Southwick
Studies would make up the difference between the lost tax dollars and
the tax revenues. They reported there were 78,500 visitors to the
Chickasaw Refuge or 215 visits per day. My belief is that at least 75
percent of the visits were locals or farmers going through the Refuge.
Our county is rural and without attractions, yes we have day trippers
and day hunters from close proximities, but they leave home without
spending dollars.
In conclusion In Lieu Of tax payments are very important to our
counties local budgets. The overwhelming future problem however; is the
loss of local farm and timber revenues to our economies.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Schuh. We're now recessed.
We'll return immediately after votes. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Dr. Fleming. The Committee comes back into order. At this
point, we will begin Member questioning of the witnesses to
allow all members to participate and to ensure we can hear from
all witnesses today, members are limited to 5 minutes for their
questions. However, if members have additional questions, we
can certainly have another round of questioning or two. I now
yield myself 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Ashe, what is the preliminary cost to acquire the
120,000 or so acres in some of the most fertile cropland in the
United States?
Mr. Ashe. Well, Mr. Chairman, as I said in my testimony,
when we enter something like this, we expect to acquire land
over a period of decades. And so with the existing refuges that
we have, these refuges were established back in the 1950s. And
so we have established those refuges over a 60-year period of
time, which is normal. But if we acquired 120,000 acres today
at today's land cost of approximately $2,500 an acre, it's not
too difficult to do the math. That's about $300 million.
Dr. Fleming. OK. And where would that funding come from?
Mr. Ashe. With the refuges that we have down there now, the
funding would come from our traditional sources of funding,
mainly from the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, which is duck
stamp money, so money that hunters provide to provide waterfowl
breeding, migrating, and wintering habitat. It would come from
the Land and Water Conservation Fund which comes from offshore
oil and gas revenues, not from taxpayers, or it would come from
the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, which is a mix of
appropriated funding and excised tax and import duty funding.
Dr. Fleming. And certainly the appropriated funds would
come from taxpayers, so what percentage of that would be
appropriated funds?
Mr. Ashe. I can't answer that question directly. We can
give you a historic figure for how we have acquired lands
within these three refuges. I can provide that for the record.
Dr. Fleming. OK. Yes, if you could get back to us, I'd like
to see that. Of the 120,000 acres, how many would be acquired
through the fee title?
Mr. Ashe. Our plan presently is to acquire all those lands
in fee title. With the existing refuges down there, we do not
acquire lands using easement, but we would acquire land with
easement if the landowner had an interest in easement and if
that would fit the conservation purpose. But our plan at this
point as proposed is to use fee title acquisition as we do with
our existing refuges there.
Dr. Fleming. So how does that differ from the central
Florida. We discussed that a year or 2 ago. I mean, your plan
you say is fee title, but you say that you also leave the
option open for easements. So how does that differ from the
approach in, say, central Florida?
Mr. Ashe. The Everglades Headwaters Refuge in Florida is
designed specifically for a fee title to have a traditional fee
title refuge of about 50,000 acres and then to have easements
in a larger area surrounding that fee title refuge where we're
working with ranchers to put easements on ranches within that
larger conservation design. And so in that case, as you know,
we're working directly with Bud Adams and his family, a five-
generation rancher, who wants to keep his land in a working
status, and that works for wildlife, too.
So that's a case where we've sat down with the private
landowners, which I think is our practice and our experience,
and we're working out a design that works in that context. Here
in Tennessee, we've worked traditionally with fee title
acquisition and have, I think, a good history and tradition of
working with the State of Tennessee and the local landowners
using fee title acquisition. So that's the approach that we're
designing here. It's not to say we couldn't use a different
approach, but that's the approach we're using.
Dr. Fleming. But it just seems to me to be far more
practical to use the easement approach. It's much less
expensive. It allows the landowners to continue to utilize
their land. It prevents them from developing the land such that
waterfowl and others no longer have access to the benefit, and
with this maintenance backlog that we have, the pressure is
obviously on us to appropriate more money to cover that,
whereas with the easement, of course, the farmer is going to
continue to maintain his or her own land.
So it really seems to me that that's a much better way to
go, a much more efficient way, a much more flexible way, and I
would certainly urge you to emphasize that piece of this. With
that, I'd be happy to yield to the Ranking Member for
questions.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ashe, this proposed expansion of the area where you can
acquire easements or land from willing sellers is authorized by
the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. I
understand and I believe that act was passed by a House and a
Senate controlled by one party, the Republican Party at that
time. You were with the service--I believe you were with the
service at that time. Do you recall the number of votes, when
it was passed?
Mr. Ashe. The vote in the House was 419 to 1. I don't
recall the vote in the Senate, but it was a similarly
overwhelming vote.
Mr. Sablan. So it must be a good policy, it's very rare
that Congress passes that. So in your opinion, why did Congress
ask the service to plan and direct the continued growth of the
refuge system? Why does it need to grow?
Mr. Ashe. The needs of wildlife change and can sometimes
change rapidly depending upon the environmental conditions that
they face, depending upon our human use of the land for our
purposes, and so I believe that Congress, beginning with
President Teddy Roosevelt, every President, Republican and
Democrat, have used this authority wisely, and we've grown the
National Wildlife Refuge system, and I believe that's one of
the reasons why we have a vibrant, diverse, and healthy
wildlife population.
And it's because, as my colleague Steve Patrick said, we
have a rich tradition of working with our State counterparts,
and if you look at the map of this proposed expansion, it
includes existing refuges and existing State lands, and so we
have the opportunity to begin to connect these lands, improve
our cooperation and joint management of these lands so that
we'll have abundant wildlife populations in the future.
Mr. Sablan. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Patrick, in your testimony you mentioned increased
urbanization is likely in Tipton, Lauderdale, and Dyer
Counties, and that this would lead to loss of wildlife habitat
and agricultural lands. Does this mean this now is the best
time to start conserving existing wildlife habitat, and will
you please tell us why?
Mr. Patrick. Now is the critical time to take this action.
As urbanization continues to expand, one of the things that we
see is the price of undeveloped lands increases significantly.
So the cost of preserving critical habitats will go up
significantly as urbanization continues.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you. I had conversations with almost all
of you I think earlier. And I've got my own issues here, but
I'm happy to see that Ms. Kelley is talking to Mr. Ashe,
because I think it's the first time they've met. But let me go
back to you, Mr. Ashe. In Ms. Kelley's testimony, she stated
that she thinks the service is going to harass landowners if
the refuge acquisition boundary is expanded. Are there working
farms within the current acquisition boundary for the refuge,
and have there been any efforts to force landowners who are not
willing sellers?
Mr. Ashe. There are working lands within the current refuge
boundary, we have not in any way attempted to force out any
landowners. As I said during my testimony, we work in the
context of willing sellers, and we manage 150 million acres
nationwide, and I can think of many landowners that we are
working cooperatively with and believe the Fish and Wildlife
Service is a great partner, which is not to say that we don't
have disagreements from----
Mr. Sablan. Yes, and Ms. Kelley, she farms cotton, Ms.
Kelley. And it wouldn't hurt to hear Ms. Kelley out, and Mr.
Ashe, I'd appreciate it if you'd do that.
And I'm out of time, Mr. Chairman, so I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Duncan
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'll use my time mainly to lay out some facts before I ask
a question. I'm concerned about the amount of property that the
Federal Government owns as a whole. And when we look at a
western map and look at the Western States, it's concerning to
the folks within Congress that represent those States at the
amount of property that is not available for residential
commercial development, energy utilization, and other things.
I think about my home State and the amount of property the
Federal Government owns in a county like McCormick, South
Carolina, and that property is not available for industrial
development and for other things. And their tax base is very,
very low. And they struggle because the Federal Government owns
such a huge portion of that very rural county.
So those are the number one concerns, and then we see that
we're wanting to buy 120,000 more acres in Tennessee, and it
just seems to be concerning when I look at the fact--and this
is--well, let me back up and talk about deferred maintenance
for just a second, because I think my friend from Tennessee is
going to expound on this, but I look in South Carolina. There's
275 projects in our State around a total cost or a deferred
maintenance cost of $85 million. If you go to Tennessee, 357
projects, almost $100 million, we can't pay for what we've got
now. So we're going to spend tax dollars to purchase more that
we can't maintain, and this just seems to exacerbate the
problem.
Now the Federal Government ought to be selling properties
that we currently own that are sitting vacant in this city that
we're having to maintain, and those need to be sold and that
money needs to go down to pay down the public debt. We're $17
trillion in debt in this Nation. Let me repeat that number: $17
trillion. We're borrowing money from China just to meet our
normal operating expenses out of the Nation, and we're going to
borrow more money from China to buy more property in Tennessee.
That baffles my constituents.
And so when I look at the current refuge boundaries of
Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie, it's about 83,500 acres. And when
I look at the number of acres within that existing boundary
that are not owned by the Fish and Wildlife Service, there's
about 45,156 acres within that Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie
boundary there that we don't own yet. So instead of trying to
take taxpayer dollars and maybe shore up our boundaries and buy
all the contiguous property within those boundaries, we're
going to go out here and buy another 120,000 acres to extend to
another refuge.
That doesn't make sense to me when we're taking property
out of grow crop by doing that. We're taking the property out
of production agriculture altogether. We're taking the timber--
the bottomland timber at a time that we hopefully are going to
see a rebound in construction and need to harvest that hardwood
timber for that.
And so the question I have for you for the Fish and
Wildlife Service is: Why we're not targeting that 45,000 acres?
Is it not available? Is there not a way we can make it
available? And shouldn't we identify those landowners and try
to own that in a fee simple title before we go to buy 120,000
acres? Could you answer that question?
Mr. Ashe. Thank you. What we're trying to do is--our job is
to ensure that in the United States of America that in the
future we continue to have abundant populations of fish and
wildlife. And in order to do that we have to be able to think
50 to 100 years into the future.
So what we're doing is we're trying to lay out a vision for
the future that we believe in concert with our partners in the
State of Tennessee and our partners nationwide, organizations
like Ducks Unlimited and others that we are trying to identify
a landscape that will continue to provide these abundant and
healthy wildlife resources that we believe that we need and
need to enjoy in the future. And so what we're doing is we're
outlining a vision for the future.
And so what we see here is we propose an expansion is what
we believe is responsible and will contribute to vibrant
wildlife populations nationwide. And that's our responsibility.
And Congress has asked us to consider and to grow the National
Wildlife Refuge System strategically in order to provide those
benefits, and this is one of those areas where we believe we
can do that working with local communities. And so that's why
we're doing it is because it's our responsibility to think 50
and 100 years into the future.
Mr. Duncan. Let me be clear. No one appreciates the job
that you've done and continue to do more than I do. I'm an avid
outdoorsman. I've taken the opportunity to experience
tremendous hunts and fishing experiences western and eastern,
Mississippi Basin and other places on Federal land. So I
understand that, and I appreciate that. But we're in days of
austerity. We're in days of austerity, and I would be more apt
to support an option on purchase of that going forward, when
times get not as lean as we are now. And if that option expired
because we didn't have the money as a nation to purchase that,
so be it. That's what private business does. But a fee simple
purchase like this of 120,000 acres concerns me in these times.
And we'll need to be clear. As Americans we need to
understand the amount of debt and the fact that we're running
deficits every year. We can't pay our bills without borrowing
money to do so. And so when private individuals and small
businesses can't pay their bills, they don't go out and
mortgage the future just to acquire more stuff. We just don't
do that. And the Government shouldn't operate that way either.
And that's philosophical, but it's common sense.
And so I appreciate that, but I will go back to commending
you for the job you do leveraging those dollars that Ducks
Unlimited and other conservation groups put together. I've seen
the benefit of that, but I just think we need to proceed
cautiously on things like this going forward. And with that
I'll yield, because I know the gentleman from Tennessee has a
vested interest in this issue.
So Mr. Chairman, thanks for letting me go over, and I yield
back.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back, and the gentleman
from Tennessee is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Fincher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to have this hearing today, and I appreciate you
allowing me to be part of the Committee and your Committee
staff for helping.
I appreciate the witnesses taking time out of their busy
schedules to be with us today and my colleague from South
Carolina, Mr. Duncan, he and I talk a lot about hunting and
fishing and the outdoors and how important it is to us, our
families. But I only have 5 minutes; I've got to be brief.
Many, many things that have been said today are troubling.
The 500,000 visitors per year--I'm a seventh generation west
Tennessean. I've been all over these refuges, I've hunted, I've
fished. I appreciate the outdoors. I appreciate what Fish and
Wildlife is doing, what you're trying to do. But I also have an
obligation now that I'm a representative to represent the
constituents of my district. And this is troublesome, very,
very troublesome, they are very skeptical of what is happening.
So I want to start with Mr. Ashe just a couple of questions
with you, and then Mayor Schuh, and I'll try to get to Ms.
Kelley, too. There was a press statement that was given. Tom
MacKenzie, a spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife Service said,
``The expansion will help protect a unique habitat. It's a cool
part of the country. Anytime you get rivers and hard bottomland
hardwoods, it's a good place to grow critters and offers
excellent hunting opportunities.'' Now I mean there's more to
it than that. Correct, Mr. Ashe?
Mr. Ashe. I think Tom was speaking from the heart. Of
course there's more than that, and I think that as Steve
Patrick identified in his remarks, this is an effort that we
began with the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency a decade ago
looking at this, and these areas are critical for waterfowl,
for migrating songbirds and shorebirds, for threatened and
endangered species, and so we don't establish a unit of the
National Wildlife System lightly, and we don't propose an
expansion lightly.
As I said, this is a piece of a vision for the future in
the United States of America, and the National Wildlife Refuge
System, especially in concert with lands and assets that the
State of Tennessee has invested in an area like this make it a
strategic investment, and that's why we're doing it.
Mr. Fincher. Let me ask this: Are you aware that citizens
that are impacted by this proposal were only given 7 days
notice? And if you're aware, why such a short amount of time?
Is that consistent with current policy? Are you aware of that?
Mr. Ashe. I'm aware that we wrote letters to over 1,000
landowners who are within the proposed acquisition boundary. So
we communicated with those people directly. We did provide
public notice of the hearings. We had what I believe is ample
opportunity----
Mr. Fincher. Seven days? Is that ample time? Is that
consistent?
Mr. Ashe. I think that--in terms of notice for a public
hearing--when we notice a public hearing, you like it to be
contemporary with the hearing--because I know if I see
something and it's 4 weeks out, I'll tend to forget about it.
Mr. Fincher. Right.
Mr. Ashe. And so usually when we do formal public notice,
we usually do that a week ahead so that it's contemporary with
the public----
Mr. Fincher. It just seems like a short amount of time. The
next question: Were you aware that the proposed expansion plan
published--and I have the book that Randy Cook gave me at
home--published the names of the owners of the parcels,
including the county they live in and the acreage they own? And
is that consistent with other environmental assessments your
agency has done in the past printing all of that information?
Mr. Ashe. It is consistent that we publish--that's publicly
available information. Though you or I could go online, we
could get the same information. And the reason we do that is
for the landowner's benefit. When a landowner looks at a map of
a proposed refuge expansion, we want it to be clear that their
land is in or out.
A lot of times we get comments from people that say they
can't really understand the map. The map is not fine-grained
enough. So what we like to do is identify for the landowners
that their property is within or outside of a proposed refuge
expansion, but it is all publicly available information. We do
not include any information that is----
Mr. Fincher. When is the last time you've been down to
Chickasaw or Hatchie?
Mr. Ashe. I've been in that area at least on three separate
occasions. The last time I believe was in 2009.
Mr. Fincher. OK.
Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back. If the panel would
like, we could have another round. I therefore yield myself 5
minutes.
Let's talk about the idea of willing sellers, Mr. Ashe. Of
course there's willing sellers and then there's willing
sellers. And by that I mean, for instance, if you for whatever
reason buy up all the land around somebody, they can become a
willing seller when they're not very willing to be a seller. So
we have to think about that. But let's focus on maybe some of
the power that your service holds in this. Has the service ever
used condemnation authority for this purpose?
Mr. Ashe. Ever? Yes, we have.
Dr. Fleming. OK. When was the last time that was done?
Mr. Ashe. I've been an employee of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service since 1995, and I'm not aware that we have
used adverse condemnation at any point during that period of
time.
Dr. Fleming. Do you contemplate that if for some reason
you're not getting the sort of success you expect from willing
buyers that you would use it in this case?
Mr. Ashe. I do not.
Dr. Fleming. For Mr. Aiken, Ms. Kelley, and Mayor Schuh, do
you believe--apparently this land has been evaluated at a price
of 2,500 an acre. Do you agree that this is the proper value
for the land?
Ms. Kelley, I see you responding there. Let me have your
feedback on that.
Ms. Kelley. I'm pretty much in tune with what property
sells for in our county, and I can cite one parcel that was
sold just last year which is right within the boundaries of
this plan, and it was open ground, good farming ground, and it
sold for over $4,000 an acre. And I wouldn't sell mine today
probably, my good open farm--good ground for $4,000 an acre.
Dr. Fleming. Mr. Aiken? Mayor Schuh?
Mr. Aiken. I actually am from the east Tennessee area, so
I'm not totally familiar with prices in that area of the State.
But from discussions with other farmers, my understanding is
that price would not be totally in line with the true market
value today.
Mr. Schuh. My farmer friends tell me that land is going
between $3,000 and $3,500 currently in our area.
Dr. Fleming. OK. If land is sold to the service fee simple
considering the fact that could have an impact on the future
value of land that's not yet sold, what's your perception of
that? Do you think that helps, hurts? I think we heard
testimony that somehow that enhances the value of land, do you
agree with that?
Ms. Kelley? Sure.
Ms. Kelley. I'll be glad to answer that question. There
seems to be some discussion about willing sellers. It just
depends on where the property is. If you're, for instance,
between two parcels that belong to Fish and Wildlife, you can
have many, many problems from what they call runoff of
pesticides or they can conduct business on the land where the
land becomes wetlands in their area. And then it bleeds over
into our property and can become wetlands. So you become a
willing seller when things like that happen to you. As far as
them being around us, it just poses a lot of problems.
Dr. Fleming. Does it create access problems?
Ms. Kelley. It does. It does.
Dr. Fleming. Do you see that potential?
Ms. Kelley. The court case I cited earlier--these gentlemen
are having a terrible problem at the present--actually what
happened in the court case was they had dug a well on their
property and spent over $20,000 for the well. And then after it
was dug, U.S. Fish and Wildlife decided that it was really on
their property. So they moved the boundary line over, and they
possess the well.
Well, they had to go through several different court cases
litigating this to secure that property back to the original
boundaries. They were successful in Cincinnati at the Court of
Appeals doing that. But now the problem is U.S. Fish and
Wildlife surround them. They have to have egress and ingress to
the property.
These individuals only use that property for duck hunting
purposes and recreation, and now they can't get in and out to
their property because Fish and Wildlife says if they damage
the road in any way, they have the right to revoke it. And they
can't gravel the roads, so in the wintertime in Tennessee, it's
very hard to travel on a road as rainy as it is without
damaging the roads. So that's just one case that I know of.
Dr. Fleming. Well, then I'll say as I yield that it seems
to me that there is a coercion factor here. Obviously as more
land is scooped up, there's more regulations that are subjected
to the existing landowners. If landowners become forced into
willing sellers, to me that's not being a willing seller. And
really, that expands to a much larger question that we are
examining today: the coercive effect of the Internal Revenue
Service on its citizens; the coercive effect of the EPA, what
it can do to citizens.
And so I really think as we think through and work through
this, we really have to reconsider as an ever expanding
government that begins to work in its own interests rather than
the interests of its citizens and to be accountable to those
citizens. With that, I'll be happy to yield to the Ranking
Member. Yes, yielding to the Ranking Member for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. During the
break when I had a conversation with Ms. Kelley--this is one
thing that I'm so proud of with Congress is that constituents
would bring their grievances with their government like we have
here with Mr. Fincher and that's our job. That's what we do
here, and some of us just love doing it. But whether we agree
or not, back from where I come from it's great that Fish and
Wildlife can actually buy the property, because back from where
I come from, Fish and Wildlife can't buy the property because
they have these laws and these rules. Private owners can't do
anything with a piece of property that they have. So you have
an advantage here that we don't.
But let me go back to Mr. Ashe, because Mr. Duncan
mentioned earlier that he would support the service having an
option to purchase land. But having that option, isn't that
exactly what increasing the refuge acquisition boundary does
also? Mr. Ashe, can you answer that?
Mr. Ashe. Thank you, because, Mr. Duncan, when you were
saying that, I think that's exactly what this proposed refuge
acquisition boundary is. It's an option. And it's an option on
the future. And so as we move forward and as landowners
willingly decide that they would like to sell their property,
it provides them with more options.
Mr. Duncan. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Sablan. I'll yield a minute for Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Ashe. It is precisely an----
Mr. Sablan. Yes. I'll yield a minute to the gentleman.
Mr. Duncan. Let me just clarify that my comments about
having an option were an option not when the seller was willing
to sell that we would be a ready, willing, and able buyer that
would exercise that option to purchase that. The option should
be from the Federal Government, as I was saying in my comments,
when we've got the money.
Mr. Ashe. And it is both because we have to obviously have
the money before we can exercise that option. And so Congress
provides us with money or we have money that duck hunters
provide us to provide migratory habitat, which is what this
would provide. And so when we have the resources and when we
can match that with a willing seller, then we both have an
option.
Mr. Duncan. But is that not always the case in that a
willing seller that owns a piece of property in fee simple
private ownership could exercise their right to sell that
property to anyone to offer that to the Federal Government?
Mr. Sablan. I'm going to reclaim my time here, because I'm
going to----
Mr. Duncan. And I yield, but----
Mr. Ashe. Not unless we have a----
Mr. Sablan. Something happened to the time. Yes, give it
back to me, thank you. So while we're discussing this option,
let me ask: So Mr. Ashe, you're also telling me that say--
because Ms. Kelley said she won't sell her property for $2,500.
For example, so if someone thinks that $2,500 per acre is too
low, so you're saying that they can keep their land?
Mr. Ashe. They can keep their land. And we pay fair market
value. So just like any transaction, we do an appraisal and we
would make an offer at fair market value.
Mr. Sablan. I'm going to try and find a way for you to buy
land in the Marianas that we can't use because your rule says
we can't do anything with it. So I'm going to try seriously, so
now, Mr. Patrick, how does the option to sell land to the
refuge increase economic opportunity in the counties around the
proposed refuge?
Mr. Patrick. A refuge system operates very similar to the
way we operate our wildlife management areas. And as part of
the way we manage wildlife habitat is we use local farmers to
help with our agricultural operations. We sell timber to local
loggers and sawmills. And so rather than an entire loss of
agricultural acres or an entire loss of forestland, there will
be some changes I would imagine, but that total acreage being
totally removed from producing either an agricultural crop or
lumber will continue.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back. I believe we're
back to Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding some
time to me on that issue to clarify my point. About 5 years ago
my wife and I had an opportunity to purchase about 250 acres
adjoining our property, a good stand of saw timber pine, but we
didn't have the money. We couldn't afford it. I was a small
business owner, didn't want to go into debt, didn't want to go
into a tremendous amount of debt, would have had to borrow some
money, discussed it with the bank and just decided that it was
not what I wanted to do and obligate my children possibly of
having to pay for this. And so we missed that opportunity.
Was I concerned about what would happen to that property?
Sure. Was I concerned it was going to be clear cut and never
replanted? Absolutely. Was I concerned it was going to be
developed into something that I didn't want, that was
undesirable beside my property? Absolutely. But you know what?
I didn't have the money. And I'm concerned about what seems to
be an insatiable desire of the Federal Government, not
necessarily just the Fish and Wildlife Service, but our
Government as a whole to own more and more at a time when we
just can't afford it.
And we've got to come to the realization as Americans that,
you know what, we may have to pass on some things because we
can't afford it. And until we expand the tax base and put more
Americans back to work and improve the economy and allow
Americans to thrive and have more money in their pocket and all
the things that good government should do, then we can make
these decisions about whether to expand our resources, whether
it's in the ACE Basin in South Carolina or whether it's the
Hatchie and the Mississippi Delta areas. So I don't have any
further questions for you.
I'm a conservationist. I enjoy the outdoors. I have enjoyed
some of this area probably on the Arkansas side and not
necessarily the Tennessee side of the Mississippi Flyway
because I'm a duck hunter. But I drive through this and through
the gentleman from Tennessee's area looking longingly at that
hardwood bottom that's flooded in January--early January
wondering: I wish I could get out there and wade and watch the
wildlife and maybe shoot some ducks.
But as a conservationist it's a struggle. But as a father
of three sons who are going to eventually work and have to
start paying taxes to pay back this debt and hopefully have a
family of their own and children of their own that are going to
still be paying taxes on this debt that we're creating today,
and as a representative and a Member of Congress representing
this Nation, not just the third district of South Carolina,
we've got to make decisions based on what's the right thing for
our future generations. And I agree with you that trying to be
frugal and setting aside property for future generations as you
mentioned, I don't disagree with you on that because I'm the
benefit of leaders before me that have had that vision. But
I'll tell you, they weren't $17 trillion in debt either.
We've inoculated Americans on what a trillion dollars
really is. But I'm saying $17 trillion, America. That's a lot
of money. And I just can't in good conscience, Mr. Chairman,
support something that will allow the Government to continue to
feed this beast and ``indebt'' future generations.
So I just want to be clear that if we were going to get
serious about paying back our debt as a nation and we did it at
the rate of $20 million a day, and we paid our creditors $20
million a day every day, if we started today, which is
Thursday, we gave them $20 million, put this on the principal,
and we came back tomorrow and said put $20 million on the
principal, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday,
Thursday, Friday of next week, did that 365 days a year, 7 days
a week, $20 million a day and we got in the handy dandy time
machine and we traveled back to the time that my savior Jesus
Christ was born and we paid our creditors back $20 million a
day every stinking day from that day 'til now, we have not paid
$16 trillion in debt.
And we've got $17 trillion in debt to address as a nation.
That's the stark reality of where we are as a nation with
continuing running deficits and spending money that we don't
have. As much as I would like to say let's set that land aside,
let's buy this land, let's create a duck habitat, let's create
opportunities for me and my boys to hunt and fish and
properties in the Lower Hatchie or the Chickasaw--as much as I
want to say that, this overwhelming burden of our Nation's debt
and our borrowing and the deficit spending and an unbalanced
budget overwhelms my desire to do that. And so we need to keep
that in the forefront of our minds and take that under
consideration.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I apologize for the rant, but
I do yield back.
Dr. Fleming. The Gentleman yields back, and the Chairman
now recognizes Mr. Fincher.
Mr. Fincher. Thank you very much. My colleague gets very
aggressive sometimes, I thought he was going to hit me there
for a minute.
Let's shift gears now to the revenue part of it, and in
thinking about--look, as a farmer myself, again, my boys hunt
and fish, I hunt and fish, but working together with Fish and
Wildlife, we can take care of the land better than the
Government and better than Fish and Wildlife. No offense.
You've done a great job. But we're hands-on. We're there as
farmers, as conservationists, equip program, filter strips on
ditches, I mean, these things are all great. I mean, quail
habitat, we do all of this. But there's a revenue problem.
Look at the chart that we just put up about the refuge
revenue sharing payments. Look at Dyer, Haywood, Lauderdale,
Tipton, what they're authorized and what they're actually
receiving. Now here's my problem, Mr. Ashe--and I don't think
the President's budget for the last 3 years, any money has been
allocated for--any more than what was previous--24 percent is
all that's been paid out to these counties.
Now again, you've been there in 2009 I think and there's
not much there other than farmland. And there's not going to be
much there other than farmland, and if the refuge takes all of
this property, you've killed the tax base. When agriculture,
when crops are produced, the dollar turns over and over and
over in the local communities, and then on top of that, they're
not getting compensated from the Government what they're told
they were going to be compensated for.
So Mayor Schuh has to go this his constituents of his
county and explain why he doesn't have the money to do what
they need to do. What is your answer to giving the counties the
money they are supposed to be getting before we even talk about
acquiring more land?
And the second question is: Can you buy land now without
drawing this boundary around all of this land? Can you go in
now--this is before the boundaries--and just say I want to buy
a certain tract without the boundaries being drawn? Can you go
in next to the refuge in the old lines and say I want to buy a
piece of property? And then if you--answer both questions if
you don't mind.
Mr. Ashe. I can only buy land that's within an approved
refuge boundary.
Mr. Fincher. OK. All right. Now the second part to the
revenue part of paying the counties.
Mr. Ashe. Refuge revenue sharing, so when we go in and
propose a refuge or a refuge expansion, then communities can
see the same information that you're presenting here. So the
amount that is authorized under the law is like an
authorization under any other law. Unless Congress appropriates
that money, we can't realize that payment. But we're upfront
with communities and with landowners, and we tell them what we
would expect a revenue sharing payment to provide. We don't
promise them a level of funding that is not based upon
traditional----
Mr. Fincher. In the President's budget, the last 3 years
he's recommended zero dollars. Do you tell the landowners that
and the county mayors that? Because I assume if you did, they
wouldn't be for it.
Mr. Ashe. What we tell communities is usually what the
payments have been in the past. But we don't--that's the record
that--you are exactly correct. In the last three budgets we
have recommended no appropriations for refuge revenue sharing.
But Congress has appropriated money for refuge revenue sharing.
But what I talk to communities about is the benefit that comes
from establishment of a refuge.
And every economic study that has been done has
demonstrated that establishing a refuge and operating a refuge
within a community is a net economic benefit. We have never
seen an economic study that does not demonstrate an economic
benefit.
Mr. Fincher. Being here for 3 years, we study a lot. I
mean, there are a lot of things that we study, and you know the
approval rating of Government and Congress right now is not a
very high number either. The people that I've been in contact
with are not for this. And trying to explain to them how
turning this into a refuge is going to be more return, a better
economic impact on the community than $150 bushel an acre corn
or $50 bushel to the acre of soybeans, it's a struggle. I mean,
it's a struggle.
And so if we can't--and giving back my time--it's expired.
But if we can't take care of what we have, if Fish and Wildlife
can't take care of what they have--if they were taking care of
what they had, it would be different. But if they can't, how in
the world can we start to expand the boundaries and take more
land? And my time has expired, so I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back. I know Mr. Aiken
has got to catch a flight. Do we have interest in more
questions?
Mr. Sablan. I think Ms. Kelley is going to try and see the
vote on the farm bill, so I have no questions.
Dr. Fleming. OK. So how about you, Mr. Fincher?
OK. So we'll have another round or another opportunity for
questions.
And Mr. Aiken, if you need to go, certainly we understand,
but otherwise we'll certainly move forward.
I now yield myself time.
Mayor Schuh, if farmland in Lauderdale County is generating
$8.13 per acre in land taxes, why is the Fish and Wildlife
Service only paying $3.18 per acre?
Mr. Schuh. In my conversation with the financial department
in Denver--I only know what I'm told--is that there's only so
much money available, and as Fish and Wildlife continues to buy
land, the piece of the pie gets smaller for everyone. Congress
can put money back in, but they haven't--but they've failed to
do it, and the conversation this past week was that Congress
basically took out some money, and they expect my check to be
lower next year--I mean, within the next month or 2. And he
said, ``I have no idea,'' because he said the refuge money is
not back in. We don't know the revenues of what the refuge
money is. And that's what I was told. I don't understand
everything completely.
Dr. Fleming. Well, I know that my colleagues here from the
West and States that have large portions of their States that
are owned by the Federal Government, they struggle mightily
when it comes to their tax base. That's land that is sort of
taken off the table for revenue production for the local
population, and yet it's used for the benefit of the Federal
Government. So it does seem to be problematic to continue to
take that land that has obvious revenue and to really take it
off the shelf for the local community.
Let's see. For the panel except for Mr. Ashe, because this
I think doesn't really apply to Mr. Ashe, do you believe that
in order to save this 70,000 acres of agricultural lands in
Haywood, Lauderdale, and Tipton Counties Federal Government
must own this land?
Ms. Kelley. I believe in order to save the land, the
Federal Government must not own this land. We as farmers do an
absolutely fabulous job of adhering to natural resource
conservation plans. We have a plan for each farm. We have to do
minimum till. We have to do no till. We are heavily governed
already by the U.S. Government through natural resources in
being good stewards of the land.
And I am a sixth generation person, just like Stephen is,
and am of American Indian heritage. And I really don't want to
see it go back to the way it was when the American Indians
lived here, and that seems to be the goal. But we've done a
fabulous job of co-inhabiting with wildlife. My husband and my
family, my boys, my sons-in-law, they are avid hunters. We try
to protect the land as much as we can.
My main concern is not for unique habitats; it's for the
unique habitat of the human species who live in this area,
because we are going to suffer so greatly from the diminished
economic values that our county will see. As far as the land, I
think we do a fabulous job already.
Dr. Fleming. What are your thoughts, Ms. Kelley, before I
shift to the mayor for that same question, about the idea of
easements as opposed to fee title?
Ms. Kelley. I don't know. I have a distrust of the system
because I guess as the country music song says, ``I've seen it
in color.'' I've seen what really happens when you have to live
next door to these people. We farmed a cotton farm in Haywood
County, and it was acquired by the Tennessee Wildlife
Foundation. The only thing was we owned 100 acres that was the
boundary along the rivers--I think it's Big Muddy Creek or
something like that.
But anyway, they came in, they tore down all of the levees
that we had up there. It was a wonderful producing-cotton piece
of ground. They tore down the levees, they put a gate up, they
planted trees on it, and no one is allowed to go in there
except the director of the Tennessee Wildlife Foundation, and
he hunts on it. So we have had to live next door to them, and
we cohabitate with them, and my husband has bent over backwards
to conform to the new regulations that we have to conform to.
And it's been very difficult, and we have spent many, many
thousands of dollars trying to conform to the regulations that
they put on us.
Dr. Fleming. Sure. I'm running out of time. Mayor, let me
get your just yes or no, and also the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. Schuh. My farmers are very conservative in my county. I
realize that not every farmer is perfect; 5 percent as always
in this population makes it hard on the other 95 percent.
Another concern I have is riverboat barge traffic going up and
down the river. If the Federal Government owns all the land--I
collect $218,000 in taxes from river barge. In the future if
they own all the land, who gets those taxes? Are those taxes
going to go to the Federal Government? It's just a question. I
have no idea. That was a concern. And I thought it was
something to bring up.
Dr. Fleming. OK. My time is up.
Mr. Sablan, you still have no further questions? If not,
I'll--if you do, I'll----
Mr. Sablan. Well, actually, now that you started, Mr.
Chairman, I will ask some questions. I'm only 45 minutes late
for a meeting, but--Ms. Kelley and I had several conversations
in the back. I think I like this lady. I don't agree with her,
but I like her. And we talked a little bit also about the
national debt, because Mr. Duncan brought it up. It's a big
issue. It's something that we should really be all concerned
about.
But Ms. Kelley, you mentioned in your testimony you're
concerned about the national debt just as we had in our private
conversation during the break. I am as well. But in 2012,
farmers in Tipton County received nearly $6 million in Federal
farm subsidies, and I'm certain in the farm bill that's being
debated and will be voted on and soon there will be other
subsidies, but $6 million is far more than their farmland
generates in tax revenue. So do you believe those farm
subsidies are fiscally conservative and an appropriate use of
taxpayers' dollars?
Ms. Kelley. I have to clarify your question. You said that
those farms' subsidies exceed our gross revenues that we put
back into the economy?
Mr. Sablan. No. The farmland generates in tax revenue, not
in gross revenue, tax revenues.
Ms. Kelley. In tax revenues----
Mr. Sablan. Yes.
Ms. Kelley [continuing]. For the county taxes?
Mr. Sablan. For the farmland that receives the subsidy of
$6 million, they get more in subsidy--those farmlands, than
they do generate in tax revenues.
Ms. Kelley. I'm not so sure that's correct. We probably
have about $115 million, total gross receipts, somewhere around
there. And in some years it's even more. It just depends on
what the profit of the farmers was to be able to tax and what
rate that you're at. So I think that's subjective.
Mr. Sablan. Yes. But I'm talking about the subsidy and tax
revenue. But so let me go to Director Ashe.
Mr. Ashe, the House is going to pass a farm bill that
includes $40 billion in commodity program alone. How does that
compare to the total budget of Fish and Wildlife Service?
Mr. Ashe. The total appropriated tax payer funded budget--
--
Mr. Sablan. Yes.
Mr. Ashe [continuing]. For the Fish and Wildlife Service is
about $1.3 billion.
Mr. Sablan. All right. So remaining with Mr. Ashe, let me
ask you--I just want a yes and no answer to my questions,
because you testified that the service acquires land only from
willing sellers. And so I just want to be very clear for the
record. So let me go over this again. Does the simple act of
expanding the refuge acquisition boundary mean the service now
controls even a single additional acre of land?
Mr. Ashe. No.
Mr. Sablan. Would this expansion result in even a single
change to what private landowners can do with their land?
Mr. Ashe. No.
Mr. Sablan. Let me be very clear again. You're saying that
there will be no new regulations or restrictions resulting from
private land being included within a refuge acquisition
boundary, correct?
Mr. Ashe. None whatsoever.
Mr. Sablan. OK. So does this expansion give the service the
ability to do anything at all besides buy land or easements
from people who want to sell them?
Mr. Ashe. No, it does not.
Mr. Sablan. And I keep going back to this wonderful lady
that I hope she and I become friends, Ms. Kelley. Mr. Ashe,
when you have the time, please listen to this lady, because she
can convince you of a lot of things.
But Ms. Kelley, let me go back. And of course we all work
here as a group, so if I was a farmer in Tennessee--trust me,
I'm not a farmer, but if I was a farmer and I want to sell my
private property, why should that be anyone else's business but
my own?
Ms. Kelley. If you want to sell it?
Mr. Sablan. Yes.
Ms. Kelley. Well, if you sold it purely because you wanted
to sell it, that is your business. If you have to sell your
property because you're being surrounded by unfriendly owners
whomever they might be, that might be a different subject. If
for instance----
Mr. Sablan. So if I sell my property because I don't like
my next door neighbor, that should be your business?
Ms. Kelley. That should be that person's right to do that
if they don't like their neighbor.
Mr. Sablan. That's exactly my question, so----
Ms. Kelley. Right.
Mr. Sablan. But why should it be anyone else's business for
any reason why I would want to sell something that belongs to
me?
Ms. Kelley. You misunderstood me. If they damage your
land--for instance----
Mr. Sablan. Sue them.
Ms. Kelley. Yes. Exactly. That's the point. That's what the
Fish and Wildlife force these people to have to do. The
ordinary person does not have enough money to fight a giant
like Fish and Wildlife, and that's when those people turn
around and sell their land because there's nothing else they
can do. It's like let's cut and run and cut our losses. If we
go to court we're going to spend thousands and, well, hundreds
of thousands of dollars. And that's the problem.
I think maybe Fish and Wildlife and Congress had a very
noble cause when they started back in 1997 as you say. You and
I had this discussion. The causes are noble. The problems are
when an agency gets so large and it runs amok, the people over
the agency don't even realize what's happening out there in the
field. And that's the problem. And things can be done to us
that you guys in Washington don't even know about. If you do,
you're condoning it.
Mr. Sablan. And I just want the record to reflect that Ms.
Ashe didn't throw her water bottle at me; actually just dropped
it. But--I mean, Ms. Kelley. I'm sorry.
And Mr. Chairman, I yield back, and I thank you.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields his time back. Mr.
Fincher is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Fincher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And wrapping up, I
think we've got to go vote here in a minute. But my colleague
alluded to the farm bill, and it's--I guess it's--we need to
make sure that we clarify this point. For the first time in the
history of the farm bill, the direct payments, the farm
subsidies that we've all known to exist are going away. No more
direct payments after today after this farm bill passes. So
hopefully that's an issue that can be removed from the
discussion.
I think what we see--what I see as someone who goes home
every weekend is Mr. Ashe and Mr. Patrick are here before us
today. I trust both of them--I trust what you say is the truth.
But to Ms. Kelley's argument, the Government is so big--IRS,
the Justice Department with the AP and the Fox News story, the
NSA, all of these programs, all of the things that are going
on--the Government is so large that, Mr. Ashe and Mr. Patrick,
you can't see after all of the Fish and Wildlife Agency.
And what happens is you have sometimes within all sorts of
areas of our life and business and government is bad actors
sometimes do bad things and take it upon themselves to make
judgment calls that may not be what the Fish and Wildlife
Service intended any of the time. To Ms. Kelley's point, what
she was talking about is let's say you have a piece of property
that's $4,000 an acre prime cotton land, corn land in the
Mississippi Bottom or the Hatchie Bottom. And let's say that on
both sides of that land, Fish and Wildlife buys that property.
Well, they want to return that property back to the State
that they think is better for the environment. That's OK. Let's
say the drainage ditches on that property get choked up with
debris. Well, many times they don't want to go in and disturb
those drainage ditches.
So what happens is that $4,000 piece of property that Ms.
Kelley owns when she puts it on the market to sell it and not
to Fish and Wildlife, but to someone else, they come down and
look at it, and they say, ``Well, Ms. Kelley, that property is
not worth $4,000 an acre, because you see, on both sides of it,
Fish and Wildlife own it, and they aren't going to let me clean
that drainage ditch. And if they do let me clean it out, it's
going to take an act of Congress to get to do it. So your
property is worth $2,000 an acre.'' These are all valid
concerns of my constituents, Mr. Ashe and Mr. Patrick.
And I'm not saying we can't work this out. I am super glad
to work with you and the farmers, the mayors to help keep and
restore this country and our wildlife habitat back to whatever
we think is responsible. But we need to do it in a way that has
an open relationship. We need to do it in a way that Mr. Cook
just doesn't show up in December with a map and say, ``Here's
what we're going to do. I hope you're happy with it.''
We need to do it in a way that everybody's upfront,
everybody knows what's going on, and if the folks don't want
it, then we don't need to do it. And so that's the
responsibility I have, but I am not anti-Fish and Wildlife. I
promise you. But I am pro-taking care of the country and my
constituents. I've got a minute and fifty left. Mr. Ashe, do
you want to respond? And then I'll let Ms. Kelley just for a
minute.
Mr. Ashe. I do. And I guess quickly I'll just say my
parents live in Massachusetts. And last weekend I was on my way
out west, and my mother said, ``How come you never come to
Massachusetts?'' And I said, ``Well, because that's not where
the problems are.'' I tend to go where the problems are. And I
will be direct with you and say we own 150 million acres of
land, and just like any--I have sometimes day-to-day problems
with my neighbor. And so we do have from time to time, we have
problems. But the idea that we are flooding adjacent
landowners' land in order to drive the values down----
Mr. Fincher. No. No. And I'm not saying intentionally--no,
no. I'm not saying intentional.
Mr. Ashe. Right. And so let me just say just for the record
clearly, does not happen. We have an excellent record of
working with private landowners. And where we do have issues
with landowners, I hear from Members like yourself, and I think
we have an excellent record of meeting with folks like
yourself, with landowners and working those problems out, and
I'm happy to do that. And I would say that what we have made is
a proposal, Congressman, and I am committed to working with you
and the communities on this proposal. And I think we can do
that.
Mr. Fincher. Well, and again, if this was all as good as it
seems, then I think all of my farmers at home would not be up
in arms against it. And so we've got some work to do.
Ms. Kelley and Mr. Schuh just for a few minutes--a few
seconds before we go. Thank you for coming, but any further
comments?
Ms. Kelley. I just want to say that Mr. Sablan's right. I
really do like him.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Fincher. Mayor.
Mr. Schuh. I like all the Committee members and thank you
for giving us this opportunity.
[laughter.]
Mr. Fincher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate
this, and the Ranking Member.
Dr. Fleming. Let the record reflect that everybody likes
everybody today.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Fleming. Well, before closing, I would again like to
compliment Congressman Fincher for bringing this issue to our
attention and for superb leadership on behalf of his
constituents in the 8th Congressional District of Tennessee.
Based on this hearing and others during the past 30 months, my
views on this issue have not changed, however. I believe the
acquisition of privately held land by the Federal Government is
a huge job killer. Upon fee title acquisition, all productive
uses of these lands, including farming, grazing, and timber
activities must cease to exist, and with their elimination,
thousands of jobs are lost.
In addition, the Federal Government loses revenue in terms
of tax receipts, local communities lose their economic base,
and the Federal Government must dedicate millions of dollars to
maintain those formerly productive lands forever. It is a lose-
lose proposition.
I want to thank Members and staff for their contributions
to this hearing. There being no further business, without
objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional Materials Submitted for the Record]
Questions Submitted for the Record to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Department of the Interior
Questions Submitted for the Record by The Honorable John Fleming,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular
Affairs
Question. When do you anticipate that a final boundary expansion
plan for these two refuges will be submitted to the Director of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for his approval?
Answer. In early 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service), in coordination with Representative Fincher, plans to hold
additional public meetings and re-open the comment period in an effort
to give the local community an additional opportunity to provide input
on the proposed boundary expansion at the Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie
National Wildlife Refuges (Refuges). Should it go forward, we expect to
submit the final boundary expansion plan to the Director in the second
half of fiscal year 2014.
Question. How many private landowners have approached Fish and
Wildlife Service representatives in the Southeast Region indicating a
desire to sell their property to the Federal Government but have been
told that negotiations are not possible because their land is not
within current refuge boundaries?
Answer. Refuge managers are routinely approached by landowners
offering to sell property to the Service. If the property is located
outside an approved acquisition the Service is unable to acquire the
land, and no further discussions occur. We do not track the number of
landowners that approach the Service with an interest in or an offer to
willingly sell property outside an approved acquisition boundary.
However, the Service does track the number of willing sellers within
the proposed boundary expansion as part of the planning process. In
response to information presented at the scoping and public meetings
for the proposed acquisition boundary expansion at Chickasaw and Lower
Hatchie National Wildlife Refuges, 34 landowners have contacted Service
staff indicating a desire to sell their property to the Service. Five
individuals have expressed a desire not to sell.
Question. How many acres a year is the Service currently purchasing
and adding to the inventory of the Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie National
Wildlife Refuges?
Answer. Refer to the table below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Acres
Fiscal Year Chickasaw Lower Purchased
NWR Hatchie NWR by FWS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1980............................. - 393 393
1981............................. - 705 705
1982............................. - 884 884
1983............................. - - -
1984............................. - - -
1985............................. 5,798 2,071 7,574
1986............................. - 80 80
1987............................. 4,144 - 4,144
1988............................. 5,528 - 5,528
1989............................. - - -
1990............................. 1,081 - 1,081
1991............................. - 168 168
1992............................. - 34 34
1993............................. - 3,054 3,054
1994............................. - - -
1995............................. - - -
1996............................. - - -
1997............................. 37 - 437
1998............................. - - -
1999............................. - 318 318
2000............................. - - -
2001............................. 690 25 715
2002............................. 646 1,224 1,870
2003............................. 813 64 877
2004............................. 364 294 657
2005............................. 163 634 797
2006............................. 419 - 419
2007............................. 160 398 558
2008............................. - 42 42
2009............................. 131 - 131
2010............................. - - -
2011............................. 182 838 1,020
2012............................. 357 657 1,014
--------------------------------------
Total (acres)................ 20,914 11,883 32,797
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1: FWS Purchases (fee title only) for Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie
NWRs.
Question. During the past 10 years, how many acres have been
donated by private landowners to either the Chickasaw or Lower Hatchie
National Wildlife Refuges?
Answer. Refer to the table below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chickasaw Lower
Fiscal Year NWR Hatchie NWR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006.......................................... 196 0
2012.......................................... 18 0
-------------------------
TOTAL (acres)............................. 214 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2: Donations (fee title) from private landowners at Chickasaw and
Lower Hatchie NWRs.
Question. It is my understanding that the current refuge boundaries
for Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie Refuges is 83,500 acres. How many acres
within the existing boundary are not owned by the Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Answer. Fee title ownership by the Service, State owned lands
within the current acquisition boundary, and State lands under lease by
the Service account for 45,310 acres. This leaves 38,190 acres within
the approved acquisition boundary that are not within the Federal
conservation estate for both refuges.
Question. Why not purchase this land first before targeting an
additional 120,000 acres of private property in these four counties?
Answer. The Service's inability to acquire lands within the current
acquisition boundary due to funding limitations or unwilling sellers
does not eliminate the biological need to conserve, restore, and
enhance those habitats within the 5-year floodplains of the Mississippi
and Hatchie Rivers. The habitats within the proposed expansion area
have been identified as important for fish and wildlife species as well
as for meeting the public's needs to hunt, fish, and observe wildlife.
Question. What is the preliminary cost to acquire 120,078 acres in
some of the most fertile crop land in the United States? How much do
you anticipate paying on a per acre basis?
Answer. Because the timing, availability of land, and mixture of
conservation easements or other land protection options versus fee
title acquisition are unknown, the Service has no ability to predict to
total cost that would result from a boundary change. The average cost
at this time for a fee title acquisition for an acre of private land
within the 5-year floodplain is approximately $2,500.
Question. How long do you anticipate it will take to acquire all
120,000 acres?
Answer. Many of the acres identified within this proposal may never
be acquired depending on funding, willing sellers, and other Service
acquisition priorities. We anticipate over the next 10 years, the
projected increase from lands acquired in this proposed 120,000 acre
expansion area would likely be less than 10,000 acres.
Question. Of the 120,000 acres, how many would be acquired through
fee title?
Answer. The amount of acreage that may be acquired through fee
title will depend upon the availability of willing sellers and funding.
The Service intends to acquire parcels in conservation easements and
fee title to provide the most flexibility in managing priority lands
and working with willing landowners. However, we may fulfill our
management goals by working with landowners to acquire long-term
leases, cooperative agreements, or memorandum of agreements. The
Service also will consider donations and exchanges to protect lands
within the proposed expansion areas.
Question. Does the Fish and Wildlife Service normally print the
names and land descriptions of property they are interested in
acquiring in a Draft Environmental Assessment Document for the
expansion of a national wildlife refuge?
Answer. The Service includes property identification information in
its planning documents to inform a landowner that his/her property
falls within a proposed acquisition boundary. We generally identify
private land by the landowner's last name, first name and then a number
that is usually dependent on how many tracts are owned by the
landowner. We obtain the property identification information from
public records that are often readily available through State and local
government online data bases.
Question. It is my understanding that the Service is precluded from
negotiating with land owners whose property is not within an existing
refuge boundary. Is that correct? Is that based on a statutory
restriction or regulations issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service?
Answer. By law, the Service must purchase lands within the
identified boundaries. However, Pub. L. 99-646 requires the Service
(all government agencies) to acquire lands outside boundaries as part
of acquisitions for lands inside boundaries when the lands outside the
boundary would be an uneconomic remnant for the landowner.
Question. The Service indicates that it purchases property from
``willing sellers''. Has the Service ever used condemnation authority?
Does the Service still have condemnation authority?
Answer. The Service, like other Federal agencies, has the power of
eminent domain. As a matter of policy, the Service only acquires land
from willing sellers. The Service has not used adverse condemnation
since the 1980s.
Occasionally, the Service uses ``friendly condemnation'' to clear
title when ownership is not clear. Sellers consent to friendly
condemnations in the interest of having a court determine ownership,
and they are not adversarial proceedings.
The Service's three most recent friendly condemnations were:
1. Umbagog NWR, March 2012--The Service used a friendly
condemnation to clear title when the ownership of a \1/36\
interest in a 156-acre property was not clear. The Society
for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests (SPNHF), which
owned a \35/36\ interest in the property, requested the
friendly condemnation to have a court determine ownership,
after both the Service and the SPNHF were unable to
identify the owner of the \1/36\ interest.
2. Stewart B. McKinney NWR, February 2003--The Service used a
friendly condemnation to remove 1955 deed restrictions.
3. Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR, January 1998--The Service used
friendly condemnation to determine ownerships in an 11,950-
acre acquisition from the Resolution Trust Corporation
(RTC), the U.S. Government entity charged with liquidating
assets from insolvent savings and loan associations.
Question. Are there any restrictions on a landowner donating their
property to the Service whether it is in or out of a refuge boundary?
Answer. 16 U.S.C. 742f(b) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior
to accept any gifts, devises, or bequests of real and personal property
for the benefit of the Fish and Wildlife Service. This authorization
does not require that the real property be located within approved
acquisition boundaries. It is the Service's policy to not retain
donated non-program real property for more than 1 year, 342 FW 5(F)(3),
and, in disposing of it, to give first consideration to exchange. 342
FW 5(F)(2).
Question. Has any of the property identified within the 120,000
acre expansion been designated as critical habitat for any listed
species?
Answer. No. None of the land within the proposed expansion has been
designated as critical habitat.
Question. Where does the acquisition of additional land for
Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuges rank under the
Service's annual Land Acquisition Priority List? What is the basis of
that ranking?
Answer. Chickasaw NWR and Lower Hatchie NWR ranked 24th and 32nd,
respectively, on the Service's fiscal year 2014 LAPS list. Both refuges
scored highly in the LAPS Fisheries Component, because they support
nursery, spawning, and migration life cycles for anadromous fish with
declining populations, including the alewife, Alabama shad, and
blueback herring. Both refuges scored well in the LAPS Endangered
Species component, because the refuges and nearby habitat support
greater than 5 percent of the entire Mississippi River basin population
of the federally listed least tern, as well as populations of the
federally listed pallid sturgeon. The refuges scored moderately well in
the Bird Conservation Component because they provide habitat for 33 of
the 148 migratory bird species on the national list of Birds of
Conservation Concern, which are bird species at risk for Federal
listing. The refuges and the surrounding area also support wintering
waterfowl populations in excess of 300,000, including American black
duck, Canada geese, canvasback, lesser scaup, mallard, and northern
pintail.
Question. Is it true that the fundamental goal of the Refuge
Revenue Sharing Act of 1935 is to compensate local counties for lost
tax revenues when private property is incorporated within the refuge
system?
Answer. No, the goal of the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (RRSA) is
not to compensate counties for lost tax revenues. The purpose of the
RRSA is to share revenues derived on refuge lands with localities.
Economic use activities such as grazing, haying, trapping, and timber
harvesting on refuge lands generate $6 million to $12 million in
receipts per year. These receipts are deposited into the National
Wildlife Refuge Fund (NWRF). Each year, the Service distributes these
revenues, minus any associated costs, to counties with Service lands.
If Congress appropriates funds for the NWRF, then the Service adds the
amount of the NWRF appropriation to the funds it distributes to
counties with Service lands.
Question. Does the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act compensate for lost
economic activity?
Answer. See above. In addition, all rigorous economic analysis of
which the Service is aware indicates that refuge acquisition and
operation is an economic benefit to adjacent communities.
Question. For instance, I have a 1,000 acre soybean farm and I
employ 30 people to work on my property. If I sell my property to the
Fish and Wildlife Service, there will be no farming and no employees.
Does the program compensate for this lost economic activity? I purchase
a new John Deere tractor every 3 years from a local dealer. Does the
program compensate for those lost sales? How about the seed grain that
I will no longer be buying?
Answer. As noted in the previous answer, the Refuge Revenue Sharing
Act does not compensate for lost economic activity but rather it
provides for the sharing of revenues derived on refuge lands. While the
acquisition of new refuge lands may result in loss of economic activity
associated with previous land uses, refuge lands typically generate
significant new economic activity from hunting, fishing, birding,
hiking, other recreational activities, and associated tourism
expenditures in local economics. For an analysis of the economic impact
of recreational and other uses of Interior Department lands see the
U.S. Department of Interior Economic Report for Fiscal Year 2012 at:
http://www.doi.gov/ppa/economic_analysis/upload/FY2012-DOI-Econ-Report-
Final.pdf.
Question. What about the wages I paid to my employees? Are those
factored into the county entitlement payment?
Answer. See above.
Question. During the two public meetings on the proposed refuge
expansion were there any representations made that locally affected
counties would be compensated for lost tax revenues under the Refuge
Revenue Sharing Act? Please explain any promises or commitments that
were made at those meetings.
Answer. The Service presented information on revenue sharing
payments for the past 5 years at all scoping and public meetings. The
payment information was specific to the four counties affected by the
proposed expansion. No promises or commitments were made relative to
the amount of future revenue sharing payments.
Question. What is the current operations and maintenance backlog
within the six national wildlife refuges in Tennessee? How many of
these projects are ``mission critical''?
Answer. There are 82 mission critical operational or resource
management projects identified for all seven Tennessee refuges,
totaling $9 million. The current maintenance backlog for Tennessee
refuges totals $90.7 million.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been working to refine our
processes associated with deferred maintenance cost estimating and are
making a concerted effort to reduce the National Wildlife Refuge
System's deferred maintenance backlog. At the end of fiscal year 2012
the National Wildlife Refuge System's deferred maintenance backlog was
at $2.4 billion and at the end of the third quarter of fiscal year 2013
we officially reported a backlog of $1.75 billion. This is an overall
reduction of $650 million.
Question. How many individuals visit the Chickasaw National
Wildlife Refuge each year? What kind of wildlife dependent activities
are available at this refuge?
Answer. Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge welcomed approximately
78,500 visitors in fiscal year 2012. Visitors may hunt, fish, and
observe and photograph wildlife on the Refuge.
Question. How many individuals visit the Lower Hatchie National
Wildlife Refuge each year? What kind of wildlife dependent activities
are available at this refuge?
Answer. Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge welcomed
approximately 71,000 visitors in fiscal year 2012. Visitors may hunt,
fish, and observe and photograph wildlife on the Refuge.
Question. What commitment can you make that hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation and the other three forms of wildlife dependent
recreation will be available on all of the lands purchased with fee
title under the expansion plan?
Answer. Compatible recreational opportunities will be provided on
acquired land in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act and Service Policy and Regulations. Chickasaw and Lower
Hatchie National Wildlife Refuges are open to hunting and fishing in
accordance with State regulations. Additionally, the Refuges are open
to the other wildlife-dependent priority use--wildlife observation,
photography, and environmental education and interpretation--year round
except for the seasonal closure of small areas for waterfowl use.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record by The Honorable Stephen Lee
Fincher, a Representative in Congress From the State of Tennessee
Question. Can the Service cite specific data that was used to draw
the boundary lines?
Answer. We relied on a range of science, data, and management plans
to inform the proposed acquisition boundary. The North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners in Flight data, and wildlife
management plans such as the Service's comprehensive conservation plans
and the West Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan were used
during this major biological collaborative planning effort. The Service
also incorporated information from multiple Federal and State partners,
including the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency that manages a number
of wildlife management areas in western Tennessee, to identify the
habitat needs for priority biological resources. We also took into
account science and wildlife objectives developed by conservation
organizations such as Ducks Unlimited and the Tennessee chapter of the
Nature Conservancy.
Question. What areas will hunters and fishermen not be allowed
access, and do you see this changing over the course of the boundary
expansion plan?
Answer. Areas within the proposed expansion boundary will be open
to the public with the exception of limited seasonal sanctuaries
necessary to reduce disturbance to wintering waterfowl.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Steve Patrick, Assistant
Executive Director, Field Operations, Tennessee Wildlife Resources
Agency
Questions Submitted for the Record by the Honorable John Fleming,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular
Affairs
Question. On Page 1 of Ms. Kelley's testimony, she highlights the
fact that Tipton County will lose $40 million annually if the Service
is successful in acquiring 38,000 acres of agricultural lands in her
county. How is the State of Tennessee going to replace that economic
activity?
Answer. This statement assumes that of the 38,000 acres of
agricultural land within the acquisition boundary that all of it would
be taken out of production, which is not the case. The Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) has a history of leasing agricultural land on
their wildlife refuges and there is no reason to believe that would not
be the case in Tipton County. Local farmers who lease agricultural land
from the FWS will purchase their seed, fuel, fertilizer and chemicals
from local merchants.
All National Wildlife Refuges have recreational programs that
attract people who enjoy wildlife related recreation. In Tennessee,
wildlife-watching participants are the single largest group. A 2011
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation
estimated that 787,000 residents and non-residents participated in
wildlife watching away from their home, spending over $498,000,000
dollars.
One can assume with some of the 38,000 acres of agricultural land
still in production and wildlife related recreational programs in
place, which will attract people from outside of Tipton County; that
the local economy will not be negatively impacted but could actually be
positively impacted by recreational dollars from outside the County
being spent in the County.
Question. Mr. Patrick, do you believe that in order to save the
70,000 acres of agricultural lands in Haywood, Lauderdale and Tipton
counties the Federal Government must own this land?
Answer. According to the American Farmland Trust, Tennessee is
among the top 10 States in conversion of farmland to development. More
than 4 percent of the State's total farmland has been converted to
urban use and lost to the production of food, fiber and wildlife
habitat. If population growth models are accurate, that percentage will
only grow over the coming years.
For farmers who will not pass along their land to the next
generation, their land is their retirement investment. So when the time
comes to stop farming and retire, the most money to be made is most
often to sell to residential or commercial interest. In other cases,
the farm that passes to the next generation also ends up being sold to
residential or commercial interest.
The preferable alternative for many landowners in both of these
cases; is the ability to sell their land for fair market value to the
Federal Government and thereby protecting it from future development.
If the only alternative is to sell to residential or commercial
interest, Tennessee will continue to loose productive agricultural land
to development.
Question. Are you familiar with the farmers that live in western
Tennessee? How would you describe their conservation ethic?
Answer. Farmers in west Tennessee have strong ties to the land and
when conservation practices are economically practical they are ready
to implement those practices. Market prices, production cost and
weather put all farmers under extraordinary pressures to remain a
profitable business. It is understandable that if conservation
practices don't improve the bottom line that they receive minimal
consideration. Every practice on a farm must contribute to the overall
profitability and well-being of the business.
Question. Is there any law today that prevents the State of
Tennessee or your agency from negotiating conservation easements with
landowners in western Tennessee? Can you accept donations of land? Can
the State purchase through fee title private property? Does the State
ever use imminent domain?
Answer. There is no law which would prevent the State of Tennessee
or the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency from negotiating
conservation easements. However, these would have to be donated
easements. The only dedicated funding available for purchase of
easements or fee title acquisition is through the State's Wetland
Acquisition Fund and all of those properties must meet the statutory
classification of wetlands. Any other acquisition would require a
specific appropriation by the Tennessee General Assembly or in the case
of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency a specific appropriation by
the Tennessee Fish and Wildlife Commission.
The State and TWRA have accepted donations of land and both have
purchased private land through fee title purchases.
Imminent domain has been rarely used in Tennessee and when it has,
it has been associated with highway projects. The State has not used
imminent domain in the conservation of wildlife habitat.
Question. What do you believe will be the per acre price to
purchase by fee title the 70,000 acres of agricultural lands identified
in Haywood, Lauderdale and Tipton counties?
Answer. Our Real Estate Division estimates that agricultural land
can on average sell as follows:
Lauderdale--$2,500-$3,000 per acre.
Tipton--$2,500-$3,000 per acre.
Haywood--$2,700-$3,200 per acre.
Question. How about the 27,000 acres of bottomland hardwood forest?
What is the cost per acre of this land?
Answer. Our Real Estate Division estimates that depending on the
quality of the timber, hardwood forest can on average sell as follows.
Lauderdale--$900-$1,200 per acre.
Tipton--$1,300-$1,500 per acre.
Haywood--$900-$1,200 per acre.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record From Virgil and Joyce Coats, Burlison,
Tennessee
June 28, 2013.
Congressman Stephen Fincher,
8th Congressional District of Tennessee.
Dear Stephen:
My family owes land in Tipton County. We are against expansion of
the Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie Refuge for a number of reasons. The
plan by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife to purchase 120,078 acres in Dyer,
Tipton, Lauderdale and Haywood Counties would have a negative impact on
the economy of those counties.
Tipton County currently has 144,000 acres in commercial
agriculture. This plan would purchase around 38,000 acres in Tipton
County alone. That would be approximately one-fourth of our entire
commercial agriculture production. This area includes our most highly
productive farmland in Tipton County. The proposed area is not the
usual targeted land adjacent to the rivers. At one point it lies from
the Hatchie River up to the Covington Airport and even includes a
parcel zoned in the Covington Industrial Development Board.
Tipton County averages $8.13 per greenbelt acre in tax revenue.
Lauderdale County is currently getting $2.90 per acre from USFW revenue
sharing in lieu of taxes and that figure has been decreasing on a
yearly average. Lauderdale currently has 27,000 acres owned by USFW and
17,000 acres owned by Tennessee Wildlife agencies. Tipton County
currently has around 5,000 acres held by USFW. Neither county can
afford to lose these valuable interior farmland s due to loss of tax
revenue and dollars generated by commercial agriculture. This would
alter Tipton County in a negative way as all who currently live and
work around these refuge areas know that they do not generate income as
USFW claim they do. Many of our neighbors have experienced what ``being
a neighbor'' to USFW can cost in our freedom to use our own lands in
the manner we see fit. ``Wildlife protection legislation'' can prohibit
use of certain pesticides on privately held farmland due to ``run off''
onto USFW lands. Also drainage problems caused by USFW practices can
cause privately held lands to become ``wetlands.''
Private landowners care about their land and want to do right by
it. Nobody knows a piece of land quite like the person who owns it and
spends time on it regularly. Let's not increase the Federal
Government's role in purchasing our private land. As Milton Friedman
once said, ``If you put the Federal Government in charge of the Sahara
Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand.''
Sincerely,
Virgil and Joyce Coats.
______
Prepared Statement of Gilbert M. Conyers, Ripley, Tennessee
Sir, I am greatly opposed to the acquisition of land by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife in Lauderdale County of Tennessee. This is a county
with few jobs and little commerce and continues to be one of the
poorest counties in Tennessee per capita. Good farm land and/or any
land with future potential commerce is county taxable. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife's purchase of land would stop this benefit to our county
as well as render much of the land inaccessible because of their out of
control restrictions in the name of wildlife. As a record, land
acquired by this agency has brought little or no benefit to the
effected citizens in other areas.
Their purported claims of area benefit do not hold up to past
records. There is no additional need for this type of land use in
Lauderdale since land restricted to wildlife is above the national
average in this area. I believe there is a great need to protect our
natural resources and wildlife, but allowing the U.S. Government to
continue purchasing land under the name of wildlife without benefit of
the local citizens is wrong.
Please do NOT support the land acquisition by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record From Randy Cook
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Dyersburg, TN, December 4, 2012.
West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Dear Sir or Madam:
To meet the approved wildlife management and public use goals and
objectives of Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuges,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proposing to expand the
acquisition boundaries of these two Refuges. The proposed acquisition
boundary generally extends from the eastern boundary of Hatchie Refuge
westward along the Hatchie River (encompassing the 5 year floodplain)
to Lower Hatchie Refuge, then north from Lower Hatchie Refuge to the
Obion and Forked Deer Rivers north of Chickasaw Refuge. We are
contacting you, as well as other landowners in the proposed acquisition
area, to inform you that your property appears to lie within the
proposed expansion area.
Approval of the proposed expansion will give the Service the
opportunity, depending on funding, to negotiate with you for the
purchase of your property should you decide to sell. Please be advised
that the policy of the Service is to acquire land only from willing
sellers; this is not a plan to take land through condemnation or by any
other means other than purchasing lands from willing sellers.
To ensure that all interested parties have the opportunity to
gather additional information and or comment on the proposed
acquisition boundary expansion, we will be conducting two public
meetings in December; the first meeting will be held on December 11,
2012, at the Tennessee Technology Center in Ripley, TN at 6 p.m., and
the second meeting will be conducted in the basement of the Brownsville
Chamber of Commerce in Brownsville. TN at 6 p.m. on December 12, 2012.
If you would like to learn more or comment on the proposed expansion,
please plan to attend one of the meetings and or contact this office at
the above address. I can also be reached at 731-287-0650 or by email at
[email protected].
Sincerely,
Randy Cook,
Project Leader,
West Tennessee Refuges.
______
Prepared Statement of Larry Davis, Covington, Tennessee
Dear Congressman, I feel strongly that the USFW plan to purchase
Tipton County land is a long term disaster which does not need to
happen! This is productive farm and forest land which should stay in
private hands. We have too much control by the U.S. Government already!
This eminent domain policy should be tabled forever! Please do all you
can to prevent this action. Thank you for efforts.
______
Prepared Statement of Bonnie Featherstone
proposed expansion plan for national hatchie wildlife preserve
I know that a lot of farmers and landowners, like your family are
against this expansion but there are a lot of us who own land along the
Hatchie which is within the expansion plan would like to see this plan
go forward and get funding by Washington for this expansion plan.
Please consider everyone in your decision to vote on this and let this
pan be approved for funding.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record From James F Knox
1635 Poplar Grove Rd,
Halls, TN 38040,
March 23, 2013.
Honorable Steven Fincher,
117 North Liberty Street,
Jackson, TN 38301.
Dear Representative Fincher:
I oppose the expansion of the Chickasaw and lower Hatchie National
Wildlife Refuges. I do believe that the Federal Government owns more
than enough land. I understand that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
has made public a proposal with the intent to buy from willing sellers
120,078 acres, primarily in Lauderdale, Tipton and Haywood counties,
with the largest percentage being in Lauderdale County (my County). If
this purchase becomes reality, over \1/3\ of Lauderdale County will be
owned by Federal and State governments, whom do not pay property taxes
on lands they acquire. Instead, counties are paid money in lieu of or
instead of taxes. As more and more land is owned by the Federal
Government, less and less, of a fixed fund that is divided among all
federally purchased land will be available. Unless legislation is put
in place to change this, as USFW purchases more land the amount paid
per acre (in lieu of taxes) will be less and less.
If the County has less per acre of ``in lieu of'' monies this will
mean that my property taxes will be increased to help fund the county.
I just wanted to let you know that I oppose this.
Sincerely,
James F Knox.
______
[From the Lauderdale County Enterprise, Ripley, Tennessee, March 21,
2013]
Did You Know?
Lauderdale County covers over 305,000 acres. The United States
Government owns approximately 28,000 acres and the State of Tennessee
approximately 25,000 acres for a total of 53,173 acres or app. 17.4
percent of Lauderdale Co.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW) has made public a
proposal with the intent to buy from willing sellers 120,078 acres,
primarily in Lauderdale, Tipton and Haywood counties, the largest
percentage being in Lauderdale County (according to their map). If this
purchase becomes reality, over \1/3\ of Lauderdale County will be owned
by Federal and State governments, whom DO NOT pay property taxes on
lands they acquire. Instead, counties are paid money ``In Lieu of'' or
instead of taxes.
According to U.S. Congressman Stephen Fincher's office, last year
these three counties received approximately 24 percent of the amount
they were due for the in lieu of property taxes payment. The in lieu of
payment is less than the property taxes had the land been privately
owned, thereby raising everyone's taxes. According to information Mayor
Rod Schuh received, ``In lieu'' monies come from a fixed fund that is
divided among all federally purchased lands. Unless legislation is put
in place to change this, as USFW purchases more land the amount paid
per acre will be less and less.
What does this mean to residents of Lauderdale County? Property
taxes account for the majority of the revenue our county operates on.
Local government, education, law enforcement, highway maintenance,
along with many other public services will have to continue to be
funded. How we ask?
By the only means available, HIGHER TAXES. Higher real estate taxes
will only serve to raise the cost of living for every person in the
county, both property owner and renter.
Agriculture is the largest industry in our county. The income lost
from the removal of 40,000 + acres of farmland would take millions of
dollars of spendable income from our local economy, not only affecting
farmers, but businesses, and jobs,
Lauderdale County has one of the lowest per capita income levels in
the State, therefore we do not need the effects of the reduced revenues
or higher taxes to further hinder our economic well being.
At this time, when our Federal economic situation is in such a
crucial state, we need to voice our opinions about the funds that our
governmental agencies spend foolishly, The USFW proposal states they
will pay market value for the property within the expansion proposal,
yet haven't the funding to man, police, or manage the lands they
currently own. This appears to be a typical case of the right hand not
knowing what the left is doing.
We encourage everyone as citizens of our county to contact your
legislators and let them know we are opposed to the expansion of the
``Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuges.'' There will
be petitions opposing the proposal at the Lauderdale County Farm Bureau
in Ripley as well as the Farmer's Co-OP in Halls. Feel free to sign one
of these. The comment period ends on March 29 so please act quickly.
Comments to U.S. Fish and Wildlife may be sent to:
TOM GREENE
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
61389 Hwy. 434
Lacombe, LA 70445
Or emailed to: [email protected]
We also encourage everyone to contact their legislators concerning
thisissue.
Representative Steven Fincher
Dyersburg Office: (731) 285-0910
Jackson Office: (731) 423-4848
Senator Lamar Alexander
Jackson Office: (731) 423-9344
Memphis Office: (901) 544-4224
Senator Bob Corker
Jackson Office: (731) 424-9655
Memphis Office: (901) 683-1910
______
ROD SCHUH
County Mayor THOMAS CALDWELL
County Attorney
LAUDERDALE COUNTY GOVERNMENT
100 Court Square
Ripley, Tennessee 38063
RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED 120,000 ACRE EXPANSION OF
CHICKASAW AND LOWER HATCHIE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES IN LAUDERDALE
COUNTY AND SURROUNDING COUNTIES
WHEREAS, the Lauderdale County Commission is concerned about
our citizens future quality of life and economic well-being; and
WHEREAS, the stated purpose of this land acquisition is to
reduce soil erosion and silt build up in the Gulf of Mexico plus
improve fish and wildlife resources; and
WHEREAS, this legislative body feels that the purchase of
120,000 acres of primarily excellent farmland will be a significant
detriment to Lauderdale, Tipton, Haywood and Dyer counties economic
future; and
WHEREAS, we agree that landowners have the right to sell their
land to the highest bidder, we feel the U.S. Government has an unfair
advantage over the individual citizen in purchasing these lands; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has only paid about
25 percent of the true calculated ``In Lieu of Tax Fee'' formula on the
28,300 acres they currently own in Lauderdale County with the State of
Tennessee possessing 25,000 additional acres which totals 17 percent of
Lauderdale County; and
WHEREAS, when this proposed land expansion is finished the
Government will own over \1/3\ rd of Lauderdale County
resulting in higher property taxes for all citizens; and
WHEREAS, the income earned by farmers and their purchases turns
over in our community four to seven times improving citizens quality of
life through support of small business and directly related
agricultural industry creating approximately 500 jobs for our county;
and
WHEREAS, these government lands purchased with private money
provides no allocation for maintenance of the land, its roads, water
drainage issues, erosion problems and the lack of a quality tree plan
do not show a love of the land currently possessed by the local farmer.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Lauderdale County Board
of Commissioners, that the Lauderdale County legislative body is in
opposition to the proposed expansion of Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie
National Wildlife Refuges and requests that the U.S. Department of the
Interior reevaluate and remove this proposed 120,000 designated acre
expansion off of the top 50 refuge target list.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Clerk send a copy of
this Resolution and Citizens Petition Against the Expansion to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service in Lacombe, Louisiana and also to U.S.
Representative Steven Fincher, Senator Lamar Alexander, and Senator Bob
Corker.
RESOLVED this 25th day of March, 2013.
LAUDERDALE COUNTY, TENNESSEE
ATTEST:
ROD CHUH, COUNTY MAYOR
LINDA SUMMAR, COUNTY CLERK
______
Prepared Statement of Jeff Phillips, Covington, TN
Congressman Fincher, I am writing you in regards to the further
expansion of the Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge as well as
Chickasaw and any other lands purchased in west Tennessee to put into
the refuge system. I am not a big land owner but I am a hunter and have
three sons that hunt. We utilize both lower Hatchie and Chickasaw but
it is no sportsman's paradise. As law abiding citizens we find access
to the refuges to be difficult. Sure they are easy enough to simply
access but so much of what the Government has is practically unusable
because of what it takes to get there and get out with game. Because
money to develop and maintain (that is to say properly manage the
wildlife and ecosystem) the recently acquired lands are simply handed
back over to nature to begin the primary stages of succession.
It is my understanding one or two of the pumps used to pump up the
water at the waterfowl refuge are in need of replacement or
reconditioning demonstrating the Government cannot maintain what it
already has. Saying this is being done for sportsmen is not true. When
it comes to big deer and large numbers of ducks, private lands far out
perform Government held lands. There are several reasons for this. One
is the development and maintenance of habitat. This work is done at the
land owner's or lessee's expense not the Government and stimulates
local economy by employing local people to work on it and buying local
supplies to build on it. Turning it over to the U.S. Government only
means nothing positive will ever happen again. Poachers will eliminate
the good stuff and nature destroy the other work done on habitat.
Private land owners take pride in there land because it is theirs! They
clean it up and protect it because they own it. Further Government
intrusion is like making our natural areas section 8 housing. When it
is everybody's--it becomes nobody's and when it is not yours you just
don't take care of it as well. The Fed's can't monitor and maintain
what they have. If they are truly concerned about a sportsman's
paradise, then quit taking land and empower and encourage private
development while taking not of what they are doing and copy it on
currently owned land with the money you save from a feeble attempt at
management while grabbing as much as possible. The way I see it and I
use the land we have, this is a complete waste of money unless there is
an ulterior motive not being talked about. Congressman Fincher, I am
against the further acquisitions of lands along the lower Hatchie
River, the Mississippi and its tributaries in west Tennessee.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record From David Templeton, Templeton Farms,
Brighten, Tennessee
March 20, 2013.
Tom Greene, Refuge Planner,
61389 Hwy 434,
LaCombe, La, 70445.
Dear Sir,
USFWS has recently proposed an expansion of the refuge system in
west Tennessee. The proposal is to acquire some 121,000 acres of prime
agricultural and forest land along the Hatchie River in Lauderdale,
Tipton and Haywood Counties.
This letter is to state my total opposition to this project for a
variety of reasons.
First, this land is prime farmland that by my estimate pumps $150
million annually in the economies of this area. My neighbors and I
depend on this land for our livelihoods and this money is vital to the
prosperity of these counties and to west Tennessee as well. I have
heard it said that for every dollar a farmer receives for his
production, that dollar will earn over three to seven times in the
local economy, therefore the negative impact to these counties could be
as high as $750 million to $1 billion!
In addition, I estimate nearly $1 billion (greenbelt only) will
come off the property tax rolls of the affected counties and in
Tennessee our counties are heavily dependent on property taxes to fund
operations, primarily schools. The amount of income received by
counties in lieu of taxes is paltry by comparison and dwindling as it
gets divided over more and more acres!
The Federal and State refuge systems are a success story of which I
am proud. I hunt on them regularly and I see relatively few hunters,
ect. on them. The nearly 150,000 acres of Federal refuge lands in west
Tennessee (along with 150 million acres nationally) and 1.5 million
acres of Tennessee Wildlife Resource lands, (TWRA) owned by the State,
are more than adequate to accomplish your stated goals of wildlife
preservation, hunting, bird watching etc. When you add millions of
acres owned by the Park Service and other agencies the Federal
Government owns 30 percent of the land area and 67 percent of the
marine area of this country!
In addition USFWS efforts to convert farmland back to hardwood
forest in Lauderdale County have been unsuccessful. At a recent public
meeting, pictures were shown promising beautiful cypress lakes,
hardwood forests and very serene settings. In reality, on the land
currently managed by USFWS cottonwood, willow, river birch and vines
and briers have choked out any effort to establish hardwoods! The
agency has ample equipment to maintain the land but allows the land to
grow up in unsightly brier thickets. USFWS should manage what the
agency currently owns and make it usable by the public instead of
buying more land purportedly in the name of sound science!
As stated, the refuge system is a success story but it is ``Mission
Accomplished'' at least in the west Tennessee. The act which
established the refuge system gave it perpetul funding separate from
general funds. Will USFWS ever have enough land?
With all of the acres currently owned by the USFWS, the Park
Service, TWRA, other Federal and State agencies and the Nature
Conservancy, we are past the point where the public good has been
served an USFWS is becoming another overreaching arm of the Federal
Government.
With our irresponsible Federal debt, the law needs to be changed to
return procurement funds back to help balance our budget!
Lastly, a burgeoning world population, (admittedly the reason to
set land aside) is reaching a level where every acre will be needed to
feed the world's population. Population growth takes more and more
farmland for housing, roads, buildings and recreation. This leaves less
land on which to grow the food to feed the world. Farmers are being
told they will have to grow more food in the next 40 years than has
been grown in the last 10,000 years,
As a farmer, I see firsthand how close demand for food and fiber is
getting to catching up with supply. This has been brought to light by
the recent drought and resulting food shortages causing commodity and
food prices to soar. This may be the new reality. Only technological
improvements have helped the farmer to feed an increasing population on
less and less acres to date.
In Summary, I am opposed to this project as the land is better used
by providing continuing income to the farmer, the landowner, the
equipment dealers, the county and city governments and I could go on.
Thereby maintaining a strong rural economy in the area affected by this
project proposal. Procurement funds would be better utilized to help
reduce our national debt. Acquisition of this land and removing its
potential to the local economies is irresponsible and should be removed
from consideration.
In closing, I attended three meetings concerning this proposal (one
by Rep. Stephen Fincher) and the attendees of each meeting were
universally opposed to this project. West Tennessee does not want this.
Sincerely,
David B. Templeton,
West Tennessee Farmer, Hunter, and Sportsman.
______
Letter Submitted for the Record From the Tennessee Soybean Association
July 1, 2013.
The Honorable Stephen Fincher,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Representative Fincher:
I am writing in regards to the Initiative by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to expand the boundaries of the Chickasaw and Lower
Hatchie Refuges, The Tennessee Soybean Association is against enlarging
the refuge, taking productive farm land out of operation, and reducing
the tax roll for those counties,
The arguments by Mrs, Charlotte Kelley, Lauderdale County Mayor Rod
Schuh, and Jeff Aiken were very compelling and expressed the farm
sentiment precisely, We also share your and Representative Duncan's
concerns about increasing our national debt.
Thank you for requesting the hearing, It was wonderful to see the
Committee work through the hearing by the Internet.
Please stand firm in your and our opposition in the expansion of
these refuges,
Sincerely,
Mike Holman,
President, Tennessee Soybean Association.
______
Total Deferred Maintenance by State
------------------------------------------------------------------------
#
State Projects Sum of Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK........................................... 307 102,887,543
AL........................................... 206 85,210,091
AR........................................... 581 182,396,127
AZ........................................... 89 36,048,484
CA........................................... 435 62,113,172
CO........................................... 122 14,553,176
CT........................................... 10 807,787
DE........................................... 48 10,873,000
FL........................................... 609 196,337,659
GA........................................... 251 58,803,638
GU........................................... 11 2,232,764
HI........................................... 129 197,102,322
IA........................................... 58 180,600,085
ID........................................... 140 22,284,097
IL........................................... 626 103,581,356
IN........................................... 174 12,671,174
KS........................................... 108 5,578,913
KY........................................... 23 4,346,098
LA........................................... 474 91,821,392
MA........................................... 45 11,310,090
MD........................................... 139 100,128,372
ME........................................... 57 10,753,610
MI........................................... 172 29,897,655
MN........................................... 1,190 100,518,305
MO........................................... 241 37,127,950
MS........................................... 333 61,513,927
MT........................................... 466 212,301,524
NC........................................... 459 117,712,868
ND........................................... 751 41,919,566
NE........................................... 329 22,396,326
NH........................................... 79 13,118,194
NJ........................................... 104 14,551,155
NM........................................... 102 11,638,048
NV........................................... 80 19,377,942
NY........................................... 85 10,386,662
OH........................................... 68 6,736,773
OK........................................... 163 18,704,745
OR........................................... 513 86,905,676
PA........................................... 26 2,616,413
PR........................................... 137 46,732,840
RI........................................... 25 1,904,514
SC........................................... 275 85,466,307
SD........................................... 418 17,436,884
TN........................................... 357 93,899,507
TX........................................... 352 66,331,376
UT........................................... 91 10,953,759
VA........................................... 133 30,007,245
VT........................................... 15 1,533,385
WA........................................... 433 80,757,021
WI........................................... 377 30,154,745
WV........................................... 20 2,987,730
WY........................................... 56 9,315,072
--------------------------
Total.................................... 12,492 2,706,402,236
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total RONS Funding Needs by State
------------------------------------------------------------------------
#
State Projects Total $ Need
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK........................................... 351 $51,019,621
AL........................................... 95 $9,547,225
AR........................................... 120 $11,892,704
AZ........................................... 111 $12,522,761
CA........................................... 384 $49,671,548
CO........................................... 67 $6,811,128
CT........................................... 11 $2,08S,663
DE........................................... 23 $2,779,309
FL........................................... 288 $36,142,123
GA........................................... 86 $9,450,372
GU........................................... 14 $1,295,510
HI........................................... 177 $30,990,029
IA........................................... 83 $9,706,000
ID........................................... 70 $6,241,873
IL........................................... 101 $10,793,604
IN........................................... 38 $4,424,587
KS........................................... 38 $4,075,733
KY........................................... 11 $1,432,898
LA........................................... 217 $26,146,625
MA........................................... 107 $14,020,835
MD........................................... 47 $9,046,034
ME........................................... 54 $5,045,948
MI........................................... 37 $4,067,428
MN........................................... 270 $39,662,997
MO........................................... 65 $6,344,744
MS........................................... 132 $15,051,151
MT........................................... 130 $15,207,980
NC........................................... 99 $9,902,499
ND........................................... 360 $38,548,481
NE........................................... 57 $5,796,603
NH........................................... 36 $3,971,669
NJ........................................... 62 $7,619,108
NM........................................... 61 $6,427,922
NV........................................... 94 $13,980,950
NY........................................... 46 $4,742,674
OH........................................... 31 $4,537,861
OK........................................... 91 $9,197,957
OR........................................... 190 $21,651,460
PA........................................... 19 $1,920,495
PR........................................... 48 $5,547,697
RI........................................... 26 $2,586,932
SC........................................... 69 $7,571,886
SD........................................... 122 $12,694,620
TN........................................... 80 $8,629,218
TX........................................... 195 $22,006,211
UT........................................... 32 $3,268,421
VA........................................... 79 $8,489,316
VI........................................... 9 $871,100
VT........................................... 13 $1,121,566
WA........................................... 228 $30,217,642
WI........................................... 117 $14,631,311
WV........................................... 17 $1,411,003
WY........................................... 27 $3,260,924
--------------------------
Total.................................... 5,349 $647,692,102
------------------------------------------------------------------------
REFUGE REVENUE SHARING PAYMENTS DYER CHICKASAW $10,782 $2,646
HAYWOOD HATCHIE $453,675 $113,312
LAUDERDALE CHICKASAW $801,576 $199,445
LAUDERDALE LOWER HATCHIE $275,398 $65,980
TIPTON LOWER HATCHIE $181,746 $44,023
---------------------------------------
TOTALS ............... $1,723,177 $425,406
========================================================================
DID NOT RECEIVE $1,299,160
PERCENTAGE 24 PERCENT
RECEIVED
TENNESSEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES UNIT FEE TITLE ACRES EASEMENTSCHICKASAW.................... 20,374.61 5,387.90
CROSS CREEKS................. 91.72 ................
HATCHIE...................... 11,556.10 ................
LAKE ISOM.................... 360.84 ................
LOWER HATCHIE................ 10,388.48 1,872.96
REELFOOT..................... 560.43 7,847.27
TENNESSEE.................... 527.67 1.49
------------------------------------------
TOTALS................... 43,859.85 15,109.62
========================================================================
COST TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY BY
FEE TITLE IN TENNESSEE...... $39,606,497
TOTAL NATIONWIDE COST TO
ACQUIRE BY FEE TITLE
4,350,945 ACRES............. $2,083,355,384
______
The document listed below has been retained in the Committee's
official files
--Peition Against FWS/Hatchie Expansion Proposal, dated March 12,
2013
[all]