Transfer of Rockview (Spring Creek) Land

[Wulff-Man]

I haven’t had time to check in on the board much lately and I’m not sure if you have discussed the PSU/Rockview land deal recently, but I just got this e-mail notice that you might be interested in.

Subject: Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:08:43 +0000

We are asking Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences' alumni to help us with a unique and strategic opportunity for Penn State and the College. A bill has been introduced by State Representative Mike Hanna to provide for approximately 1,100 acres of land at the State Correctional Institution at Rockview to be conveyed to Penn State to be used by the College of Agricultural Sciences. Your support can help make it happen.

The transfer would allow Penn State to use the land for education, research and extension programs in agricultural, environmental, and bio-energy areas. It would also enable Penn State, with the oversight of the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, to develop a management plan, with public input, to preserve and protect the environment and to offer recreational opportunities on the land, including hunting.

Currently, the land is isolated from the Prison by highway construction, and recreational use is prohibited.

Following are links to documents that provide more background on the issue: a Fact Sheetin question-and-answer format and information on the bill by its author, State Representative. Mike Hanna.

On Oct. 25 the House State Government Committee will hold a hearing on a bill (H.B. 1657) that would allow the land transfer to go forward. Before the hearing, please email the Chair of the Committee, Babette Josephs (bjosephs@pahouse.net), and Minority Chair, Matthew Baker (mbaker@pahousegop.com), and please copy Senator Jake Corman (jcorman@pasen.gov), and our office (nmk107@psu.edu) in support of the transfer. For your convenience, a draft letter is included below.

Thanks very much for your interest in this very important issue and for supporting Penn State.


At least it looks like they are committed to preservation and recreation on the site. I’m not so sure I agree with their position in their fact sheet that the requirement to manage state lands “for the benefit of all the people” may include things like research that may be beneficial to the public. I’m pretty sure the original intent is that the public is supposed to be allowed to directly use the resource. It sounds kind of like the way some have been stretching the intent of eminent domain. I mean, you could use similar logic to say that building a Wal-Mart on state land benefits all of the people because it will provide jobs, taxes, and low-cost products. But, in any event, if they are going to preserve open spaces and truly allow recreation and hunting, it might not be so bad. I think it would be better as state game land, but it looks like there’s no chance of that happening now.

It appears that the land that borders Spring Creek (Spring Creek Canyon) would actually go to Benner Township, and it looks like this is to be managed for conservation according to the Clearwater Conservancy’s recommendations (although this isn’t clear). If this is true it looks like it would be a good thing for fishermen.

 

[highsticker]

any chance to see the links to the other documents? It would be good to read the actual letters.

I'm not 100% on this, but Penn State is a state-related school right? So this is somewhat of a transfer of property from one state agency to another? If not, it's at least a case where the government would be giving up land to the public, not the public giving up land to the public. I don't think they're going to go around turning state parks into wal-marts because of this action.

This isn't really a case of one public entity taking a private entitie's land (eminent domain) is it?

 

[Wulff-Man]

I edited the original post to add the links that were in the original e-mail.

My Wal-Mart comment was just to make a point that I didn't agree with their statement that use of the land for research meets the requirement that state land must be used "for the benefit of all the people" (this is in the fact sheet that you can now read). That's all. I don't think they are going to turn state land into Wal-Marts! The same with my eminent domain comment - I was just making a point about how sometimes "the public good" can be bastardized to support special interests. This case has nothing to do with eminent domain.

Yes, this is public land being transferred from one state institution to another. The background to this is that there was a lot of concern among the fly fishing community that undeveloped state prison land would be given to PSU, who would develop it to some extent (along with the baggage the university carries related to contamination of Spring Creek years ago). It was also compounded by the fact that the Game Commission wanted the land, which was preferred by many fly fishers and hunters, but PSU won that battle.

P.S. It isn't clear to me whether Benner Township ownership of the Canyon section will be good for fishermen, because they have said that they may want to keep the public out of the area, in the interests of conservation and preservation. I doubt that it will end up this way, but if it does, at least the land will be preserved and there will be no impacts on the stream from development. You can't fish there now anyway.

 

[highsticker]

Ah, that makes more sense now. Your comments make more sense now too.

Like you said, at least it's preserved now, whether for public use or just preservation. So long as there are no negative impacts for the stream, it's gotta be a good thing.

Thanks for posting this though! I wasn't aware of any of this until you posted it.

 

[afishinado]

The PFBC is getting some parcels of land, and is asking to be part of the process in protecting and preserving the canyon area.

This appears on the PFBC site:

http://www.fish.state.pa.us/images/people/exec_dir/rockview_test_house.pdf

 

[JackM]

Here's a link to the Bill in the House: HB 1657

Please note that the HB 1657 Proposal contemplates 3 conveyances with restrictions as follows:

The Conveyance to The Pennsylvania State University in Benner Township, Centre County, Pennsylvania, Parcels 1.1 through 1.6 on plans prepared by Sweetland Engineering and Associates, Inc. are to be coveyed with this restriction:
"Under and subject to a condition that the land conveyed herein shall be used solely for agricultural purposes in the furtherance of the Grantees mission of education related to agricultural sciences. Should the Grantee attempt to convey the property, or utilize it for any other purpose, the property shall immediately revert to the Grantor."

Conveyance to Benner Township in Benner Township, Centre County, Pennsylvania, Parcels 6.1 through 6.3 and 18 on plans prepared by Sweetland Engineering and Associates, Inc. are to be coveyed with this restriction:
"Under and subject to a restriction that the land conveyed herein shall be used solely for passive recreational open space for the benefit of the public at large. Should the Grantee attempt to convey the property, or utilize it for any other purpose, the property shall immediately revert to the Grantor."

Conveyance to the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission in Benner Township, Centre County, Pennsylvania, Parcels 7, 14 and 15 on plans prepared by Sweetland Engineering and Associates, Inc. are to be coveyed with this restriction:
"Under and subject to a condition that the land conveyed herein shall be used solely by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission to carry out their legislatively mandated functions and for no other purpose. Should the Grantee attempt to convey the property, or utilize it for any other purpose, the property shall immediately revert to the Grantor."

 

[Chaz]

Nevermind that just about every conservation group in PA wants the land to go to either PGC or DCNR and that the area residents don't want the university to get it. It will not be open to the public if the university gets it. This is environmently sensitive land and should be put in the hands of someone who knows how to conserve land, something that won't happen if PSU get the land. If PSU even uses it for just agriculture and research that bring with it a certain amount of development.

 

[littlejuniata]

PFBC should definately get the Canyon, no question. Paterno doesn't fish so Penn State could make it a training facility for Joe's convicts//hehe. They had just better win tomorrow night or their will be h.e.l.l.. to pay USGS Pa map has nearly all green dots. Great, perfect rain we are getting

 

[troutbert]

Re: “I think it would be better as state game land, but it looks like there’s no chance of that happening now.”

If you think it would be better as a state game land, then that would be a good thing to communicate to the legislators. Jack has provided the contact info.

The bill has not been passed by either the House or Senate. It has not even been reported out of the House committee. The House committee had a public meeting on this issue just yesterday here in Centre County.

Rep. Benninghoff, a Centre County legislator, also prefers the state game land option, and said so at the meeting. A legislator from Tioga County (I forget the name) also seemed very interested in the state game land option at the meeting.

The state gameland option is also very popular among the general public here in Centre County. If there was a referendum on this here in Centre County, I think the gameland option would absolutely crush the PSU ag research land proposal.

 

[JackM]

I had posted that info in the "Save Spring Creek" stickie thread on the Conservation Forum, but I'll repeat it here since it was mentioned:

The current status is: Referred to STATE GOVERNMENT, June 28, 2007

The Bills are often amended in Committee. Members of the State government Committee presently have control of the language and whether it will be "reported out" meaning sent to the Floor for vote. Your contacts now should be with members of the State Government Committee in addition to the Governor's Office and your State Representative and Senator.


State Government Committee
of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives With Links

 

[littlejuniata]

Thanks for that Jack, it appears that this issue could fall under different groups listed,can someone point out the pertinent groups we need to contact??

 

[JackM]

LJ, in my opinion, the only issues are whether PSU gets some of the land, how much they get, and if they get some, whether the use will be restricted. The transfers to Benner Township and PFBC are probably all they can handle for their purposes, so it comes down to either preventing PSU from getting any land or restricting how much they get and what conditions will be on development.

The land transfer was instigated by lobbying from PSU. From what I read, none of the land would be under consideration for transfer from Rockview if PSU had not instigated it. This will all be a legislative/executive decision involving House, Senate and Governor. If PSU is to be prevented from getting land, the Game Commission is the only entity that might be willing to hold the PSU parcels. From what I have read, they do NOT want it. At least one poster who claims to be in the know thinks that PGC does want that land.

Having said all that, if you want to protect Spring Creek, you have three options to urge. The first will not open any new fishing. That option is leave the land as it is in Rockview's custody. The Second option is for PGC to get all the land or that portion now earmarked for PSU in the current legislation. This should open up new fishing opportunities. This option would require convincing PGC to push for the land and also convincing the legislative/executive players to favor PGC. The final option is to push for restrictions on the transfer of lands that are earmarked for PSU to limit development and protect the creek thereby. Again new fishing option will probably open up under this scenario.

I have been as clear as I can be that the third option deserves attention, because I believe that among the players influencing this decision, PSU will be the heavyweight.

So, in summary, depending upon what options you favor, your efforts at lobbying should be directed to the Governor's Office, your own legislators, the State Government Committee members of the House, the State Government Committee in the Senate*, and the PGC. Benner Township and PFBC have a "seat at the table" and may be able to get certain views heard by the pertinent players, so you could also address concerns to them. Centre County officials may also be in a position of influence.

* Senate Bill 740 has already been reported out of Committee. If the House passes a non-identical bill, then the Senate State Gov. Comm. may need to reconsider the matter.

 

[Chaz]

From the Fprest Coalition!!!
The State Is Giving Away Our Land!

HB 1657 proposes to transfer 1800 acres of land along Spring Creek in Centre County to Benner Township (400 Acres) and Penn State University (1,100 Acres). Benner Township would receive the canyon portion of the property that includes Spring Creek to the top of the bluff. The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission will hold land at each end of the canyon, essentially being the gatekeeper.

We are concerned for the long-term future of this property. It lies adjacent to an I-99 interchange, halfway between Bellefonte and State College. In takes little imagination to envision that some years into the future the upland portion of the property that is scheduled to be transferred to PSU will eventually be some sort of development, notwithstanding PSU’s present interest in using the land for agriculture & research.

The Game Commission should get this land to replace about 900 acres of Game Lands Penn State adversely affected by spraying treated sewage on the property. The US Fish and Wildlife Service informed the Game Commission this violated Federal regulations as the use of the land for hunting and wildlife had been adversely affected. Instead of helping the Game Commission obtain the Rockview property, Penn State has actively thwarted them.

We have an unprecedented opportunity to make this parcel a major asset to the surrounding communities by revegetating the uplands with warm season grasses, that will provide habitat for grassland birds, pheasants, and other wildlife typically found in large expanses of grassland habitat. Shrub and grassland habitat will be a bird watchers paradise and protect the water quality in Spring Creek. Interpretive trails will educate young and old alike to the wonders of nature and providing a natural area in an urbanizing environment. Pheasant stocking will allow fall hunting. In short, this area could be a major asset to the community.

Sportsmen’s groups and conservationists have already announced their opposition to transferring the land to entities that do not have the mandate to protect land in its natural state.

We ask that you join with us to ensure that the land is protected in perpetuity for use by hunters and recreationists, as well as providing outstanding habitat for wildlife, by supporting the transfer of this land to the Pennsylvania Game Commission.

A hearing was held near State College today by the House State Government Committee. PFSC testified at the hearing, and our testimony is attached.

For more information, and to see letters from others who oppose a transfer of this land to Penn State, Click on the "Save Spring Creek Canyon (Rockview Property) link under the "Alerts - Just Announced" section of our web site: http://www.pfsc.org

 

[littlejuniata]

Thanks for that Jack, that section of Spring Creek was my home waters in the 50's, would love to be able to fish it again. Thanks again for the information

 

[troutbert]

littlejuniata wrote:
Thanks for that Jack, that section of Spring Creek was my home waters in the 50's, would love to be able to fish it again. Thanks again for the information

Most of that section is open to fishing, and has been for many years. In the late 1980s when I began fishing there a lot, none of the stream corridor was posted and you could walk and fish the whole way through. (The upland areas were posted, but not the stream and its floodplain.)

Right around the end of 1989 a section about 0.6 mile long was closed in the middle of the stretch. It was (and still is) marked by large no trespassing signs.

But other than that 0.6 mile section, the rest of the "Canyon" remains open to fishing, just as it has been for a long time. You can park at Fishermans Paradise and walk up. Or park at Benner Spring and walk down.

So if you are interested in fishing there, just go. It's a beatiful area.

There have been some newspaper articles saying the whole thing has been closed for eons etc., but that is simply wrong. Newspaper writers often have to write about subjects they know very little about, so they often make mistakes.

 

[Stevie-B]

Does this mean the PF&BC want all the land or just part of it? I'm not quite sure?

Steve

(Missed the link above)

 

[JackM]

I think PFBC wants the land the House Bill proposes to give them, plus, they want the stream corridor to be kept open for angler access, plus, they want restrictive conditions to protect the stream on the other parcels.

 

[Stevie-B]

Thanks Jack. Does it significantly cost them (PFBC) to take ownership of the entire acerage? Why not take it all then they would not have to worry about potential risks from the neighboring land that only has restrictions placed on them?

 

[tomgamber]

I helped with a stocking today and the fish came from Benner springs. The guy told me (for what its worth) that Benner Twp is getting some of the land, the game commission is getting some and the PFBC is getting some. That was all he knew. But what the Game Comm, gets will be managed as State Game land. Apparently there is a local push to keep the area open to the "hiking and biking" that goes on now. That all I know.

 

[troutbert]

tomgamber wrote:
I helped with a stocking today and the fish came from Benner springs. The guy told me (for what its worth) that Benner Twp is getting some of the land, the game commission is getting some and the PFBC is getting some. That was all he knew. But what the Game Comm, gets will be managed as State Game land. Apparently there is a local push to keep the area open to the "hiking and biking" that goes on now. That all I know.

The proposed legislation would give the PFBC 59 acres (out of a total of about 1,800 acres). They would get land where Benner Spring hatchery is located, and some land at the lower end. There has been little to no dispute about this.

The proposed legislation would give the Game Commission zero (0) acres. They would get nothing.

The middle portion of the canyon would go to Benner Township. The opposition (including me) thinks that this township, like most townships in PA, doesn't have the finances or professional managers to take care of this type of property, which includes Spring Creek and floodplains, and the limestone cliffs which is a fragile, easily erodible landscape that contains many rare species. We think this land should go to an agency with professional resource managers, such as the Game Commission or DCNR.

The current legislation would transfer the upland areas flanking the Canyon to Penn State Ag Science department for ag research. This could include both field agriculture and the building of research buildings. There is nothing in the legislature that would restrict construction of research buildings, as long as they are related to "agriculture research." Penn State has never denied that they would construct buildings. They could build as many buildings as they want, as large as they want etc. Just as long as the research buildings are for "agricultural research" which could be gene splicing, an ethanol plant, a cheese research facility, a pesticides lab, use your imagination. As long as it can be linked to agriculture, it could be built.

The opposition, which includes Trout Unlimited, Federation of Sportmans Club, and a whole host of other sporting and conservation groups, and a large percentage of the population of Centre County, opposes this land being used for ag research and being transferred from public ownership to Penn State ownership.

We would like the land to be managed for its natural features and to remain publicly owned land. The most feasible option would appear to be PA Game Commission ownership.

Another option would be DCNR ownership. DCNR has said that they don't want it. But many believe that's because Rendell is telling them not to want it. Many of staff who are actually interested in natural resources would probably love to manage such an interesting area.

Rep. Benninghoff, from Centre County prefers this option: PFBC getting the Canyon (stream corridor and cliffs), and the PA Game Commission getting the uplands. Sounds like a good alternative to the proposed legislation.

But the gist of all of this is: If you are interested in the outcome of this, send the legislators an email or a letter. Chatting about it on here does not inform the legislators of your preference and has no chance whatever of influencing the outcome.

A letter or email does not have to be complicated or long. If you would like to see the Game Commission or DCNR or PFBC get the land, rather than Penn State Ag Sciences, just say that. It would take you about the same amount of time to "post" something to a legislator as it takes to post something on here.