    [House Hearing, 106 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

      HEARING ON: H.R. 2541, A BILL TO ADJUST THE BOUNDARIES OF THE GULF
        ISLANDS NATIONAL SEASHORE TO INCLUDE CAT ISLAND, MS; H.R. 1864,
       (HANSEN) A BILL TO STANDARDIZE THE PROCESS FOR CONDUCTING PUBLIC
     HEARINGS FOR FEDERAL AGENCIES WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR;
      AND H.R. 1866, A BILL TO PROVIDE A PROCESS FOR THE PUBLIC TO APPEAL
      CERTAIN DECISIONS MADE BY THE NPS AND BY THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE
                                    SERVICE

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS

                                     of the

                             COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                       SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 106-64

                                   __________

               Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

     Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
                                     house
                                       or
               Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources

                                     ______

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    64-045           WASHINGTON : 1999
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov  Phone (202) 512�091800  Fax: (202) 512�092250
                  Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                             COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

                          DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
    W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana       GEORGE MILLER, California
    JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah                NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
    JIM SAXTON, New Jersey               BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
    ELTON GALLEGLY, California           DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
    JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado                ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
    JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California            Samoa
    WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland         NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
    KEN CALVERT, California              SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
    RICHARD W. POMBO, California         OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
    BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming               FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho          CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
    GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California     CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
    WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North              Rico
        Carolina                         ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
    WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas   PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
    CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   ADAM SMITH, Washington
    KEVIN BRADY, Texas                   CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
    JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania          DONNA MC CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
    RICK HILL, Montana                       Islands
    BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado               RON KIND, Wisconsin
    JIM GIBBONS, Nevada                  JAY INSLEE, Washington
    MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana              GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  TOM UDALL, New Mexico
    DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania           MARK UDALL, Colorado
    ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina          JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
    MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho                  RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey
    THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

                         Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
                       Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
                  Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
                    John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
                                     ------

                Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands

                        JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
    ELTON, GALLEGLY, California          CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee           Rico
    JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado                NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
    RICHARD W. POMBO, California         BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
    GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California     DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
    WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North          DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN,
        Carolina                             Virgin Islands
    CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   RON KIND, Wisconsin
    RICK HILL, Montana                   JAY INSLEE, Washington
    JIM GIBBONS, Nevada                  TOM UDALL, New Mexico
    MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana              MARK UDALL, Colorado
    DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania           JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
                                         RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey
                            Allen Freemyer, Counsel
                         Todd Hull, Professional Staff
                        Liz Birnbaum, Democratic Counsel
                       Gary Griffith, Professional Staff

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held Thursday, September 30, 1999........................     1

    Statements of Members:
        Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Utah..............................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     3
        Romero-Barcelo, Hon. Carlos A., a Resident Commissioner in
          Congress from The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico..............    14
        Gene, Hon., Taylor, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Mississippi.......................................    15
            Prepared statement of....................................    17
        Udall, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Colorado................................................    15
        Underwood, Hon. Robert, a Delegate in Congress from the
          Territory of Guam..........................................    18
            Prepared statement of....................................    20

    Statements of witnesses:
        Bieti, Fred, Isle Royale Boaters Association.................    60
            Prepared statement of....................................    63
        Boddie-Colbert, Cala, Cat Island, Mississippii...............    31
            Prepared statement of....................................    73
        Falkner, Juliette, Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs,
          Department of Interior.....................................    56
            Prepared statement of....................................    58
        Matson, Jim, President, Vermillion Services..................    89
            Prepared statement of....................................    91
        Monahan, Bob, Chairman, Monahan Group........................    93
            Prepared statement of....................................    97
        Shaddox, William, Acting Associate Director for Professional
          Services, National Park Service............................    27
            Prepared statement of....................................    29

    Additional material supplied:
        Text of H.R. 2541............................................     5
        Text of H.R. 1864............................................     7
        Text of H.R. 1866............................................    11
     HEARING ON: H.R. 2541, A BILL TO ADJUST THE BOUNDARIES OF THE
         GULF ISLANDS NATIONAL SEASHORE TO INCLUDE CAT ISLAND,
      MISSISSIPPI; H.R. 1864, (HANSEN) A BILL TO STANDARDIZE THE
      PROCESS FOR CONDUCTING PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR FEDERAL AGENCIES
    WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; AND H.R. 1866, A BILL TO
     PROVIDE A PROCESS FOR THE PUBLIC TO APPEAL CERTAIN DECISIONS
    MADE BY THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AND BY THE UNITED STATES FISH
                          AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

                                  ----------

                          THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1999

                  House of Representatives,
                           Subcommittee on National
                                    Parks and Public Lands,
                                        Committee on Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m. in Room
    1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V. Hansen
    [chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Mr. Hansen. The meeting will come to order.

    STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                         FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

        Mr. Hansen. Good morning and welcome to the hearing.
        The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands will
    hear testimony on three bills, H.R. 2541, H.R. 1864, and H.R.
    1866.
        H.R. 2541 was introduced by Congressman Gene Taylor of
    Mississippi. This bill would adjust the boundaries of the Gulf
    Islands National Seashore to include an area of land known as
    Cat Island, Mississippi. Gulf Islands National Seashore is
    administered by the National Park Service and consists of a
    number of coastal barrier islands stretching along the coast of
    Mississippi and the panhandle of Florida.
        H.R. 2541 would modify the boundaries of the national
    seashore to include Cat Island. The island is approximately
    2,145 acres in size and offers around 21 miles of shoreline.
    Most of Cat Island, ap-

    proximately 90 percent, is currently owned by one family. The
    other 10 percent is owned by nearly 15 other individuals who
    retain smaller land holdings.
        I understand there are a few problems with this bill that
    need to be ironed out before the bill moves forward. These
    include excluding some of the private land area from the
    boundaries, agreements as to what will become of the land when
    it becomes part of the seashore, and establishing clear
    language as to fishing rights around the island.
        The second bill is H.R. 1864, a bill that I introduced to
    address the problem that citizens have conveyed to me over a
    number of years concerning the Department of the Interior. This
    bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to standardize a
    process for conducting public hearings for Federal agencies
    within the Department to help ensure that the public
    understands and can fully participate in public hearings.
        Presently, public hearings held by Federal agencies do not
    have any standard way that they are conducted. As a result,
    these agencies hold hearings any way they see fit. This has led
    to numerous complaints and confusion by the general public when
    appearing at these public hearings.
        For example, no established regulation requires Federal
    agencies to respond to legitimate questions asked by the
    public. People walk away from these hearings confused and many
    times irate that the government did not attempt to address
    their concerns.
        H.R. 1864 would help alleviate this problem by
    standardizing the procedures used by Federal agencies for
    public hearings. This would give the public an understanding as
    to what is expected from Federal agencies, along with what is
    expected from them, when they conduct a public hearing.
    Standardizing these procedures would also provide a process for
    the public to ask relevant questions and receive informed and
    timely answers from the Federal agencies.
        I want to note that nothing in this bill limits or
    interferes with other opportunities for the public to comment
    on or participate in agency decisions pursuant to NEPA or the
    Administrative Procedures Act. Nor does H.R. 1864 replace any
    existing law or policy which provides for public involvement in
    hearings held by Federal agencies.
        The third bill is H.R. 1866, another bill that I
    introduced. This bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to
    establish a process for the public to administratively appeal
    certain decisions made pursuant to NEPA by the National Park
    Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These
    regulations would establish what types of agency decisions are
    appealable, who may appeal such decisions, the responsibilities
    and procedures of the appellant or other party, and also
    establish a process the Federal agencies would follow for
    notifying the public for their appeal process.
        Obviously, decisions made by Federal officials are an
    important function for Federal land management agencies. These
    decisions, of course, have direct effects on the methods used
    and the result of the land management activities. Frequently,
    however, members of the public disagree with the decisions made
    by these Federal agencies. Two Federal land management
    agencies, the Forest Service and the BLM, currently have an
    administrative process whereby the public can appeal certain
    decisions in regard to the land management. However, at
    present, the only recourse the public has if disagreeing with
    decisions made by the Park Service or the Fish and Wildlife
    Service is to take the issue to court. I believe a similar
    administrative appeal process for NEPA decisions made by the
    Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service should be made
    available to the public so that decisions made by these two
    agencies could be reviewed and modified, if appropriate.
        Before we begin the testimony, I would like to mention a
    few things related to the two bills that I have introduced. I
    believe that both of these bills are good ideas, and it is time
    we took a look at what they are trying to accomplish. However,
    I realize that these bills, especially H.R. 1866, only
    represents a starting point. I am very open to ideas and
    discussion with interested parties and the minority so that the
    bill can be crafted to meet the needs of the public and the
    agencies while at the same time avoiding creating a
    bureaucratic mess which bogs the system down rather than
    improves it.
        All of that said, I want to thank our witnesses for being
    here today and those that are going to testify on the bills.
        [The prepard statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]

     Statement of Hon. James V. Hansen, a Representative in Congress from
                               the State of Utah

        Good morning everyone and welcome to the hearing today. The
    Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands will hear
    testimony on three bills, H.R. 2541, 1864, and 1866.
        H.R. 2541 was introduced Congressman Gene Taylor of
    Mississippi. This bill would adjust the boundaries of the Gulf
    Islands National Seashore to include an area of land known as
    Cat Island, Mississippi. Gulf Islands National Seashore is
    administered by the National Park Service and consists of a
    number of coastal barrier islands stretching along the coasts
    of Mississippi and the panhandle of Florida.
        H.R. 2541 would modify the boundaries of the National
    Seashore to include Cat Island. The island is approximately
    2145 acres in size and offers around 21 miles of shoreline.
    Most of Cat Island (approximately 90 percent) is currently
    owned by one family. The other 10 percent is owned by nearly 15
    other individuals who retain smaller land holdings.
        I understand there are a few problems with this bill that
    need to ironed out before this bill moves forward. These
    include excluding some of the private land area from the
    boundaries, agreements as to what will become of this land when
    it becomes part of the seashore, and establishing clear
    language as to fishing rights around the island.
        The second bill is H.R. 1864, a bill that I introduced to
    address a problem that citizens have conveyed to me over a
    number of years concerning the Department of the Interior. This
    bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to standardize a
    process for conducting public hearings for Federal agencies
    within the Department to help ensure that the public
    understands and can fully participate in public hearings.
        Presently, public hearings held by Federal agencies do not
    have any standard way they are conducted. As a result, these
    agencies hold hearings any way they see fit. This has led to
    numerous complaints from and confusion by the general public
    when appearing at these public hearings. For example, no
    established regulation requires Federal agencies to respond to
    legitimate questions asked by the public. People walk away from
    these hearings confused and many times irate that the
    government did not even attempt to address their concerns. H.R.
    1864 would help alleviate this problem by standardizing the
    procedures used by Federal agencies for public hearings. This
    would give the public an understanding as to what is expected
    from Federal agencies, along with what is expected from them,
    when conducting public hearings. Standardizing these procedures
    would also provide a process for the public to ask relevant
    questions and receive informed and timely answers from the
    Federal agencies. I want to note that nothing in this bill
    limits or interferes with other opportunities for the public to
    comment on or participate in agency decisions pursuant to NEPA
    or the Administrative Procedures Act. Nor does H.R. 1864
    replace any existing law or policy which provides for public
    involvement in hearings held by Federal agencies.
        The third bill is H.R. 1866, another bill that I
    introduced. This bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to
    establish a process for the public to administratively appeal
    certain decisions made pursuant to NEPA by the National Park
    Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These
    regulations would establish what types of agency decisions are
    appealable, who may appeal such decisions, the responsibilities
    and procedures of the appellant or other party, and also
    establish a process the Federal agencies would follow for
    notifying the public of their appeal procedures.
        Obviously, decisions made by Federal officials are an
    important function for Federal land management agencies. These
    decisions, of course, have direct effects on the methods used
    and the results of the land management activities. Frequently,
    however, members of the public disagree with the decisions made
    these Federal agencies. Two Federal land management agencies,
    the Forest Service and the BLM, currently have an
    administrative process whereby the public can appeal certain
    decisions in regard to their land management. However, at
    present, the only recourse the public has if disagreeing with
    decisions made by the Park Service or the Fish and Wildlife
    Service is to take the issue to court. I believe a similar
    administrative appeal process for NEPA decisions made by the
    Park Service and Fish & Wildlife Service should be made
    available to the public so that decisions made by these two
    agencies can be reviewed and modified, if appropriate.
        Before we begin the testimony I'd like to like to mention a
    few things related to the two bills I introduced. I believe
    that both these bills are good ideas and its time we took a
    look at what they are trying to accomplish. However, I realize
    that these bills, especially H.R. 1866 represent a starting
    point. I am very open to ideas and discussion with interested
    parties and the Minority so that a bill can be crafted to meet
    the needs of the public and the agencies, while at the same
    time, avoid creating a bureaucratic mess which bogs the system
    down rather than improve it.
        With that said, I want to thank all of our witnesses for
    being here today to testify on all the bills and now turn the
    time over to the Ranking Member Mr. Romeo-Barcelo.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.009

        Mr. Hansen. Now I turn the time over to the Ranking Member,
    the gentleman from Puerto Rico.

        STATEMENT OF HON. CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, A RESIDENT
     COMMISSIONER IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO

        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First of all, I would like to welcome the two fellow
    members, one of the fellow members from this Committee, from
    Guam, Mr. Underwood, and Mr. Taylor, one of the sponsors of one
    of these bills.
        Today, the Subcommittee will hear testimony of the two
    bills relating to the hearing and the appeals process of the
    agencies within the Department of the Interior as well as an
    unrelated measure dealing with the Gulf Islands National
    Seashore.
        H.R. 2541, which is the Gulf Islands National Seashore
    Bill, is about the islands which stretch for 150 miles along
    the Gulf Coast from Mississippi to Florida. The seashore is
    more than 135,000 acres in size and includes portions of both
    the mainland and a chain of barrier islands.
        Apparently, when the seashore was first conceived, it was
    hoped that Cat Island, one of the islands in this chain, would
    be included. However, the family which owned most of the island
    did not wish to be included at that time. As a result, despite
    the fact that Cat Island was thought to be the crown jewel of
    the area, the seashore did not include this originally, and it
    is our understanding that the family is now willing to have
    their land included in the seashore.
        H.R. 2541, sponsored by my colleague, Representative
    Taylor, would alter the boundary that encompasses this
    addition. We understand there are several issues which may need
    to be resolved regarding this legislation, including the
    exemption of a portion of the island from the legislation and a
    question regarding the ownership of the water surrounding the
    island. I look forward to hearing from the family and the Park
    Service on this issue as well as our colleague.
        H.R. 1864 and H.R. 1866 would require the Secretary of the
    Interior to develop new regulations concerning the public
    hearing process of agencies within the Department of the
    Interior as well as the appeals process for National Park
    Service and Fish and Wildlife Service decisions. Both bills
    contain specific requirements that would have to be part of any
    such regulations. We don't know the extent or exact nature of
    the problems these two bills seek to rectify nor do we know the
    consequences of the proposed solutions. Hopefully, the
    testimony we will receive today will shed some light on these
    issues. We would like to welcome each of our witnesses here
    today, and we look forward to their testimony.
        Mr. Hansen. I thank the gentleman.
        We are honored to have two of our colleagues with us, Mr.
    Gene Taylor of Mississippi and Bob Underwood from Guam. We
    appreciate these gentlemen being with us.
        Mr. Taylor, we will start with you, sir.
        Hold just a minute, I apologize. The gentleman from
    Colorado. I am sorry, I didn't see you. Do you have an opening
    statement you would like to make?

    STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
                         THE STATE OF COLORADO

        Mr. Mark Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I just want to the echo the comments of both the Ranking
    Member and the chairman, and I look forward working with you,
    particularly on this issue of public input that is heard and
    that leads us to the kind of outcomes that we all want. I am
    open to working with the chairman and the Ranking Member and
    look forward to the testimony.
        Mr. Hansen. I appreciate your comments.

      STATEMENT OF HON. GENE TAYLOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                     FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

        Mr. Hansen. Mr. Taylor, we will turn to you now; and the
    time is yours, sir.
        Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Hansen, Mr. Romero-Barcelo. It
    is pretty ironic that we are now in a position where an island
    in the other guy's backyard is subject to each of our
    jurisdictions.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. You better hide it from the Navy. They
    like the pretty islands.
        Mr. Taylor. I am looking forward to traveling to Puerto
    Rico once we adjourn to see if we can't do a better job for the
    sake of the people of Puerto Rico.
        Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I
    am pleased to be before the Committee today, testifying on
    behalf of H.R. 2541. I introduced this bill to adjust the
    boundary of the Gulf Islands National Seashore to include Cat
    Island, which is the island you see in the photo taken from
    space by the NASA remote sensing lab. I have submitted a copy
    of this testimony to the Committee and ask this document be
    part of the record.
        I have been a life-long resident of the Mississippi Gulf
    Coast. As many residents of the area, I have had the incredible
    good fortune of enjoying the natural beauty, physical resources
    and wildlife of this pristine island. I would add that the
    present owners of the island have been incredibly generous to
    allow people to go on their private property which is how so
    many of us have had the opportunity to enjoy it.
        I come here today to urge adoption and the inclusion of a
    portion of Cat Island that the Boddie family offers, as willing
    sellers, to be included in the Gulf Island National Seashore.
        The Gulf Island National Seashore was established by Public
    Law 91-660 on January 8, 1971, to preserve Petit Bois, Horn and
    East and West Ship Islands for public use and enjoyment because
    of their natural beauty and recreational values. At that time,
    Cat Island was also considered for inclusion within this
    boundary. In fact, in a hearing held in June of 1970 regarding
    establishment of the seashore, the Assistant Secretary of Fish
    and Wildlife, Parks, and Marine Resources testified before the
    Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on
    National Parks and Recreation, that Cat Island offers an--now I
    am quoting--``ecological array of conditions which cannot be
    located anywhere else.''
        The total uniqueness Cat Island offers makes it a key
    addition to the Gulf Island National Seashore. Cat Island is
    the last of the Gulf Islands to be publicly protected. I would
    like to see a majority of this island preserved for future
    generations to enjoy.
        Therefore, I come before the Committee today, Mr. Chairman
    and Ranking Member, to urge adoption of H.R. 2541 with two
    exceptions.
        The first exception is to remove the Boddie family parcel
    and the existing privately owned subdivided lots on Cat Island
    from the proposed boundary of the Gulf Island National
    Seashore. In the early 1970s or late 1960s, the family sold off
    several lots on the island. The family would also like to keep
    a small portion of the island, and the total of this adds up to
    about 160 acres. I insist on leaving these parcels out of the
    seashore boundary simply because this designated acreage is not
    being willingly offered for inclusion. The rest of the island
    is. I value the importance of this and have promised the owners
    that I would never do anything to forcibly take their land from
    them with or without compensation.
        Secondly, I would like to bring to the Committee's
    attention that in July of 1986, subsequent to the Gulf Island
    National Seashore being established, the Supreme Court of the
    State of Mississippi ruled on a case entitled Cinque Bambini
    Partnership versus the State of Mississippi. In this case, the
    claimants brought action against the State of Mississippi to
    clarify title resulting from oil leases granted by the State.
    The Supreme Court held that fee simple title to all lands
    naturally subject to tidal influence inland to the current mean
    high water mark is held by the State of Mississippi in trust;
    and lands bought within the ebb and flow of tide by avulsion or
    by artificial or non-natural means are owned by the record
    titleholders.
        All of that being said, basically means that that land up
    to the high water mark belongs to the State, since our laws are
    based on English law and that was the English common law prior
    to the United States becoming a separate entity. Since this
    case has happened, since the inclusion of the other islands
    clarified that as far as we would recognize, the State of
    Mississippi owns everything up to the high water mark,
    everything above the high water mark would be included in the
    Gulf Island National Seashore.
        With this said, I ask that the bill include clarifying
    language that ensures that the State boundary of this island is
    determined by the current mean high tide line of the
    Mississippi Sound and the Gulf of Mexico and any tidally
    affected streams emptying into those bodies of water. Again,
    this is Mississippi State law. Everything below this line is to
    remain under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State.
    Furthermore, it is intended that the agency currently referred
    to as the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources retain
    responsibility for determining fishing regulations around Cat
    Island.
        In conclusion, I wish to remind you of the opportunity
    before us today to preserve a major portion of this island in
    its natural state for public enjoyment and use. I respectfully
    request the Committee to do all it can do to expedite this
    legislation.
        I will go on in my remaining time to say that the major
    impetus for this is just the phenomenal growth of not just
    coastal America but coastal Mississippi. About 10 years ago, I
    was one of three sponsors of a bill that legalized gaming in
    Mississippi. We were in the throes of a recession. We thought
    that we could create 8,000 jobs by doing it. To date, that has
    led to the creation of about 50,000 jobs. It is now a $2
    billion business. People that we never dreamed would come to
    Mississippi and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars are now
    coming to Mississippi and spending $2 billion a year.
        When I was a high school teenager, about half of my
    graduating class had to move away in order to find jobs. That
    has changed. Instead of people moving away, we have a job for
    anybody who wants one. We have an incredible influx of people,
    incredible demands on our resources and, quite frankly, I would
    like to see this resource preserved in its natural state so
    that future generations could have the great benefit that I
    have had and my kids have had.
        To take it a step further, we are often asked--our
    constituents throw us a ringer in our town meetings, which you
    and I have been around for a while. We have had every tough
    question we could think of thrown at us. But one of the tougher
    questions I have had recently is what have you done to bring
    your folks closer to God. And I have got to admit that I was
    taken aback. I tried to come back with the lame excuse that I
    voted for the 10 Commandments being posted in public buildings,
    which tried to set a good example.
        But the bottom line is, if you look at what happened in
    Colorado and in most of those places, this happened in fairly
    urban areas. I think that a lot of this has to do with the fact
    that, in the urbanized areas, folks have gotten so far away
    from nature that they have lost the ability to see the hand of
    God. When I look at Cat Island, I see the hand of God. Whether
    it is a porpoise and her child or an osprey or something as
    strange looking as a horseshoe crab or an alligator, they are
    all out there.
        And I really think we could do the people of this Nation,
    in particular the people of Mississippi, a tremendous favor by
    taking one of the last remaining parcels in its true natural
    state and preserving it for perpetuity. This would include
    about 21,000 acres and leave the remaining 160 acres for the
    private property owners. I would certainly appreciate your
    assistance on this.
        Mr. Hansen. We thank our colleague from Mississippi for his
    testimony.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Taylor follows:]

      Statement of Hon. Gene Taylor, a Representative in Congress fro the
                               State of Missippii

        Good morning, Mr. Chaitrman and Members of the Committee. I
    am pleased to be before the Committee today, testifying on
    behalf of H.R. 254. I introduced this bill to adjust the
    boundary of the Gulf Islands National Seashore to include Cat
    Island. I have submitted a copy of this testimony to the
    Committee. I ask this document to be made part of the hearing
    record.
        I have been a life-long resident of the Gulf Coast, and as
    many residents of this area, I have had the good fortune of
    enjoying the natural beauty, physical resources and wildlife of
    this pristine island. I come here today to urge adoption of the
    portion of Cat Island the Boddie family offers, as willing
    sellers, to be included in the Gulf Islands National Seashore.
        The Gulf Island National Seashore was established by Public
    Law 91-660 on January 8, 1971 to preserve Petit Bois, Horn and
    East and West Ship Islands for public use and enjoyment because
    of their natural and recreational values. At that time, Cat
    Island was also considered for inclusion within this boundary.
    In fact, during a hearing held in June of 1970 regarding the
    establishment of this seashore, the Assistant Secretary for
    Fish and Wildlife, Parks, and Marine Resources testified before
    the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on
    National Parks and Recreation that Cat Island offers an
    ``ecological array of conditions which cannot be located
    anywhere else.'' The total uniqueness Cat Island offers makes
    it a key addition to the Gulf Island National Seashore. Cat
    Island is the last of the Gulf Islands to be publicly
    protected. I would like to see the majority of this island
    preserved for future generations to enjoy.
        Therefore, I come before the Committee today, Mr. Chairman,
    to urge adoption of H.R. 2541, with two exceptions. The first
    exception is to remove the Boddie family parcel and the
    existing privately owned subdivided lots on Cat Island from the
    proposed boundary of the Gulf Islands National Seashore. I
    insist on leaving these parcels out of the seashore boundary
    simply because this designated acreage is not being willingly
    offered for inclusion. I value the importance of this land to
    these owners.
        Secondly, I would like to bring to the Committee's
    attention that in July 1986, subsequent to the Gulf Islands
    National Seashore being established, the Supreme Court of
    Mississippi ruled on a case entitled Cinque Barmbini
    Partnership versus the State. In this case, the claimants
    brought action against the State of Mississippi to clarify
    title resulting from oil leases granted by the state. ``The
    supreme court held that (1) fee slimle title to all lands
    naturally subject to tidal influence inland to the current mean
    high water-mark is held by the State of Mississippi in trust,
    and (2) lands brought within the ebb and flow of tide by
    avulsion or by artificial or nonnatural means are owned by the
    record titleholders.'' With this said, I ask that this bill
    include clarifying language which ensures that the state
    boundary of this island is determined by the current mean high
    tide line of the Mississippi Sound and the Gulf of Mexico and
    any tidally affected streams emptying into those water bodies.
    Everything below this line is to remain under the jurisdiction
    of the Secretary of State. Furthermore, it is intended that the
    agency currently referred to as the Mississippi Department of
    Marine Resources retain responsibility for determining fishing
    regulations around Cat Island.
        In conclusion, I wish to remind you of the opportunity we
    have before us to preserve the major portion of this island in
    its natural state for public use and enjoyment. I respectfully
    request of this Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries
    Committee to do all it can to expedite this legislation through
    the Committee. I wish to thank the chairman and the Committee
    for the opportunity of appearing before you. This concludes my
    statement. I am prepared to respond to any questions you may
    have.

        Mr. Hansen. We will turn to our colleague from Guam, Mr.
    Robert Underwood, who is also a member of the full Resources
    Committee.
        Mr. Taylor. Mr. Chairman, if I may, one last request is we
    have a number of letters of support for this, including an
    editorial from the Mississippi Gulf Coast's largest newspaper
    just yesterday, in favor of the proposal that I would like to
    include for the record.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Without objection, it will be
    entered into the record.
        [The information follows:]
        Mr. Hansen. Mr. Underwood.

    STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT UNDERWOOD, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM
                         THE TERRITORY OF GUAM

        Mr. Underwood. I thank you for the opportunity to provide
    testimony on H.R. 1866, which encourages and allows for public
    participation to appeal of land management decisions made by
    the National Park Service and the United States Fish and
    Wildlife Service.
        As you are well aware, Mr. Chairman and other members of
    the Committee, the government of Guam, like other State and
    local governments and private citizens, are subject to land
    acquisition methods employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service. In March, 1994, the Fish and Wildlife Service declared
    more than 20 percent of Guam a national wildlife refuge overlay
    or approximately 24,500 acres island-wide. Eighty-three percent
    of the refuge had been in the possession of the U.S. military,
    14 percent owned by the government of Guam, and by the
    remaining 3 percent by private landowners. The majority of the
    acreage is located in the northern end of the island. The
    refuge was established under the guise of protecting Guam's
    endangered bird populations from extinction.
        Since the establishment of that refuge, Guam has received a
    considerable amount of attention and publicity about the
    decline of the island's bird populations. Books, documentaries,
    magazine articles, academic papers and even websites have been
    published or produced to inform the American public about the
    decimation of Guam's bird population and its effects on the
    wildlife ecosystem. I believe that it has been accepted by not
    only the scientific community but by the American public in
    general that the extinction of many of Guam's indigenous bird
    species is a direct result of the introduction of the brown
    tree snake which is an invasive species introduced to Guam in
    the 1950s along with military cargo.
        The designation of a wildlife refuge which ``roped off''
    land for the Fish and Wildlife Service essentially preempted
    many opportunities for Guam to regain title to these properties
    which the military had been considering as declaring as excess
    property. The land was originally taken in the immediate post-
    World War II era to ensure national security.
        The island of Guam would have been better served if the
    Fish and Wildlife Service did everything necessary to eradicate
    the brown tree snake rather than acquiring precious lands that
    are needed by the people of Guam. It doesn't take a scientific
    community and, in fact, many biologists working for the
    Department of the Interior acknowledge that it is the abundance
    of the brown tree snake and not land preservation efforts which
    were needed to reverse the decline of Guam's native birds. So,
    in short, this was a problem of an invasive species rather than
    a lack of critical habitat.
        Mr. Chairman, I believe Fish and Wildlife Service has too
    much land acquisition authority and, in particular, there are
    very few opportunities to challenge the manner in which they
    establish the refuge in Guam. Indeed, I am working on
    legislation to find a way to balance the approach to this
    wildlife refuge.
        I am not adverse to more extreme measures if they are
    necessary. However, I believe that your approach, Mr. Chairman,
    H.R. 1866, is a reasonable and fair beginning to ensure that
    all interested parties are taken into account before private or
    public land is taken in the name of preservation. This
    legislation asks no more than what is required by the U.S.
    Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management. This
    legislation is a fair proposal, and I give it my full support.
    I promise that I will work with the chairman and other members
    of the Subcommittee to make the legislation workable.
        Had this process been in place for Guam rather than a
    couple of perfunctory public hearings on it, we would have
    had--the local community would have had a fair chance at
    explaining its perspective on this manner.
        So, with that, I appreciate the opportunity to share this
    particular story. I wish that this legislation would be
    retroactive, but it has fallen on my watch to attempt to deal
    with this very tragic situation regarding public lands in Guam.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman's support
    and his comments.
        [The prepard statement of Mr. Underwood follows:]

    Statement of Hon. Robert A. Underwood, a Delegate in Congress from the
                               Territory of Guam

        Mr. Chairman:
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on H.R.
    1866, which encourages and allows for public participation to
    appeal land management decisions made by the National Park
    Service and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
        As you are well aware Mr, Chairman, the Government of Guam
    like other state and local governments and private citizens are
    subject to land acquisition methods by the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service. In March 1994, The Fish and Wildlife Service
    declared more than 20 percent of Guam a national wildlife
    refuge overlay or approximately 24,562 acres island wide, 83
    percent of the refuge had been in the possession of the U.S.
    Military, 14 percent ovined by the Government of Guam and the
    remaining 3 percent by private landowners The majoriry of the
    acreage is located in, the northern end of the island. The
    refuge was established under the guise of protecting Guam's
    endangered bird populations from extinction.
        Since the establishment of the refuge, Guam has received a
    considerable amount of attention from the decline of the
    island's bird populations. Books, documentaries, magazine
    articles, academic papers, and even websites have been
    published or produced to inform the American public of the
    decimation of Guam's wildlife eco-system. I believe it has been
    accepted by not only the scientific community but the American
    public that the extinction of many of Guam's indigenous bird
    species is a result of the introduction of the brown tree snake
    which is an invasive species introduced to Guam in the 1950's.
    The designation of a Wildlife Refuge which ``roped off'' land
    for the Fish and Wildlife Service, essentially preempting any
    opportunity for Guam to regain title to these properties wbich
    had been taken to ensure national security in the post war era,
    was unnecessary.
        The island of Guam would be better served if the Fish and
    Wildlife Service did everything necessary to eradicate the
    brown tree snake rather than acquiring precious lands which are
    needed by the people of Guam. It doesn'ttake a scientific
    community to figure out it's the abundance of the brown tree
    snakes and not only land preservation efforts which are needed
    to reverse the decline of Guam's native birds.
        Mr. Chairman, I believe Fish and Wildlife Service has too
    much land acquisition authority and the manner in which they
    established the refuge in Guam was wrong. Indeed I am working
    on legislation to find an equitable solution to this problem
    but I am not averse to more extreme measures--if necessary.
    However, I believe that H.R. 1866 is a reasonable and fair
    approach to ensure that all interested parties are taken into
    account before private or public land is taken in the name of
    preservation. This legislation asks no more than what is
    required by the U.S. Forest Service or the Bureau of Land
    Management. This legislation is a fair proposal and I give it
    my full support.

        Mr. Hansen. Questions for our colleagues?
        The gentleman from Puerto Rico.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. I have one for my colleague from Guam.
    Are there any objections that you know of from the Department
    of the Interior to this legislation, and, if so, what are their
    objections? Do you know?
        Mr. Underwood. I can't speak for what their objections
    would be, but I would assume that anything that reduces their
    authority or extends the time line for appeals would certainly
    be objected to. In this particular instance, I think they were
    fully aware of the level of objection to this particular effort
    in Guam. As a consequence, they did it in a very rapid manner
    with as little public input as possible.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. We have had the same experience at
    home. I think once in a while we look at this very, very
    carefully, and we appreciate your testimony and your support of
    this.
        Mr. Underwood. If I could just add to that, the frustrating
    part of it for us was the science behind it was clearly on the
    side of dealing with the invasive species which is the brown
    tree snake, which is almost legendary now in light of--I think
    when you do an article search on Guam, some 30 or 40 percent of
    the articles are on the brown tree snake. That was clearly the
    problem.
        Fish and Wildlife took control of some 300 acres for a
    headquarters, declared this wildlife refuge, and then refuses
    to spend money on eliminating the brown tree snake, leaves it
    to special appropriations to fight the brown tree snake but
    continues to spend money on its own to work on perfecting this
    refuge. So the net result is we see many more Fish and Wildlife
    personnel than we see birds now, not as many as snakes.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Do local authorities have free access
    to these lands to deal with the problem of the brown tree snake
    or not?
        Mr. Underwood. There are other Federal programs to deal
    with the brown tree snake, but they were done by special
    appropriations as add-ons. I have consistently argued that
    those funds that are used to fight the brown tree snake should
    come from Fish and Wildlife because their objective was to deal
    with the issue of the endangered species.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Thank you.
        Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons.
        Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate your leadership in having this hearing today, and I
    appreciate our colleagues and their testimony this morning.
        I would ask the gentleman from Guam and our friend, Mr.
    Underwood, whether he thinks the territory of Guam could better
    handle the decision-making with regard to the control of the
    brown tree snake versus the Federal Government's intervention
    in this issue.
        Mr. Underwood. I think a collaborative effort is necessary
    because it involves Customs. It involves moving--the potential
    of the brown tree snake moving on to Hawaii and other places.
        But in this particular instance it has been most
    frustrating that the agency designed to deal with the
    endangered species has not come to the table with the resources
    to confront it. What we are left with is we are now left to
    advocate on our own through other--including some Department of
    Defense money--to help fight the brown tree snake.
        Mr. Gibbons. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.
        Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Udall.
        Mr. Mark Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no
    questions at this time.
        Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Washington, Mr. Inslee.
        Mr. Inslee. Mr. Taylor, I am reading a comment from George
    Shloegel in our file. He is extolling the virtues of Cat
    Island. It says here, quote, Just last month our own
    Congressman, Gene Taylor, and his daughter Emily landed a
    monster red fish and played a hand-over-hand line much like the
    Old Man and the Sea and presented a delicious meal to their
    entire family, close quote.
        Now, I realize that you are not under oath, but how big was
    that fish? Could you just show us?
        Mr. Taylor. It was indeed the biggest fish I ever caught.
    It was my daughter Sarah.
        Mr. Inslee. I don't have a question. I just have a comment
    for Mr. Taylor.
        Your comments about the importance of seeing the hand of
    God in nature--I have been in Congress for 3 years, off and on.
    That is was the most eloquent statement I have heard on
    environmental issues since I have been here. I appreciate your
    comments. I think that we should share it with other Members.
        Mr. Taylor. I am rarely accused of being eloquent.
        Mr. Inslee. That is why I noted it. I appreciate what you
    had to say.
        Mr. Underwood, you are getting some help because last night
    on the Learning Channel they had a story on the brown tree
    snake on your island, so you are getting a little help. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Underwood. I am not sure that I like that kind of help.
        Mr. Hansen. Mr. Taylor, what is it that you envision for
    Cat Island?
        Mr. Taylor. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned before, and I
    really don't know who was behind it back then, my hunch would
    be then Congressman Colmer, who was a very influential member
    of the Rules Committee, Senator Eastland and Senator Stennis, I
    don't know who was smart enough to do it. I guess all of them.
    But they took several approaches to the islands that were
    purchased in the Gulf Island Seashore.
        One of them has a Civil War fort that was used as a prison
    during the Civil War. That island is Ship Island. It has a
    regular passenger service to it, and I would presume probably
    over 100,000 people a year go out there and swim on the
    beaches, tour the fort. They have some beautiful boardwalks out
    among the marshes so people can see the alligators, the egrets,
    get an idea of what nature was like.
        Another island, Horn Island, was kept primarily in a
    primitive state. They allow for primitive camping out there.
    They allow folks to sail out there, anchor off and swim off the
    beaches, basically do everything short of hunting out there, if
    I am not mistaken. I would leave that up to the Park Service as
    to what they think the market is for the best use of this
    island. Either one would be wonderful, as far as I am
    concerned. It is not very far from Ship Island where the vast
    majority of tours go by way of the regular passenger service.
        But I think with the incredible growth of the Mississippi
    Gulf Coast--and again, no one anticipated it. I was one of the
    sponsors of the bill, and it is 50 times bigger than anyone
    guessed it could have been. I think we should leave it to the
    Park Service, the flexibility to do one or the other depending
    on what they think the market is. If they find that Ship Island
    has gotten so crowded that people are tripping over each other,
    much like the Jersey Shore, I am sure they would want the
    option of doing with Cat Island what they did with Ship Island.
        Mr. Hansen. Do people go over there in their private boats
    on those islands that are close to the mainland for recreation
    purposes?
        Mr. Taylor. I was out at Ship Island in July when they have
    an annual get-together as a fund raiser for the island. I would
    estimate that at least 50,000 people were out there. Most of
    them got out there in their private boats.
        We have a really great thing about the Mississippi Gulf
    Coast, is that we have these barrier islands that range
    anywhere from about 7 to 10 miles off shore that protect us
    from the big waves of the Gulf of Mexico. So even people with
    fairly small boats, 14-, 15-, 16-foot boats, can access them
    knowing they are not going to encounter too great a sea.
        We have a very good presence of the United States Coast
    Guard. We have an excellent National Weather Service. It is
    something that truly the average Joes of south Mississippi can
    use.
        Again, to the compliment of the Boddie family--I have only
    recently gotten to meet them--I have been going out there since
    I was a kid. They have been very good about saying if you stay
    on the beach and don't come in where our things are, they kind
    of just let people do it.
        Mr. Hansen. You say 7 to 10 miles from the mainland?
        Mr. Taylor. Yes, sir. But, again, it is in a place where
    the seas rarely get as high as this desk top.
        Mr. Hansen. So small boats can go through there unless
    inclement weather? They can make it all right?
        Mr. Taylor. Yes. And the beauty of it is it is accessible
    so that almost anyone who can afford a boat or has a friend who
    has a boat can get to Ship Island. Again, in the case of Ship
    Island, which I am going to guess is 5 miles to the east, there
    is a regular passenger service available through a charter to
    the----
        Mr. Hansen. Your bill does not dictate to the Park Service
    or any other entity what they should do with it. You are
    leaving it up to them. So if they decided that the Marriott
    Corporation should put three hotels you would go along with
    that?
        Mr. Taylor. That is prohibited, if I am not mistaken, from
    the 1970s law.
        Mr. Hansen. If they decided to put it in wilderness, would
    you feel okay with that?
        Mr. Taylor. Again, that is they have done with Horn Island
    and allowed for primitive camping. I would think that, as far
    as the Park Service is concerned, that would be the low-cost
    option for them, the easiest for them to maintain. I would love
    to give them that option.
        Again, since our tourism industry has just exploded, they
    may find that they need additional beaches made available to
    the public. They may want to establish a passenger service to
    that island they way they have at Ship Island. That is their
    call. I would like to see it included. I would like to make
    those opportunities available to them.
        Mr. Hansen. From the map it appears that it has quite a
    nice beach along that one side; is that correct?
        Mr. Taylor. It is a phenomenal beach. I have seen
    everything from manta rays, dolphins. I really did catch the
    largest red drum of my life just a couple of weeks ago. It is
    where most of the crabs from the Mississippi Sound go there
    during the summer to lay their eggs. You literally will go out
    there on a day where you can hardly take a step for fear of
    stepping on crabs. The only horseshoe crabs that you see
    anymore in the Gulf Coast are out there. The white albino crabs
    that you see on the sand, you normally think of as down in the
    Bahamas, you see out there. Whitetail deer, osprey--the Boddies
    have been incredible stewards of this resource.
        Mr. Hansen. What is your estimation of cost? Do you have
    one yet?
        Mr. Taylor. Yes. The rough estimate--the Gulf Island
    National Seashore is in the process of having a survey done. If
    I am not mistaken, they are going to have two surveys done,
    just to comply with the law. The estimate is somewhere in the
    $28 million range. But if I may say, that is not out of line.
        Mr. Gibbons is here. A lot of the folks that have casinos,
    some of those casinos are paying in rents from people $5
    million a year for the equivalent of half a city block on the
    waterfront. So $28 billion dollar compared to that, those are
    the folks who really can afford to buy this island.
        The Boddie family contacted me this summer and said, we
    have heard some of their proposals, and we have decided that
    the best long-term use for this island is to preserve it, and
    we would like to sell it. They could sell it either way. They
    can get a lot of money for it either way. It is their wishes
    that it be preserved as it is. I would--I think it is a great
    opportunity for the people of this country, and I would like to
    honor their wishes.
        Mr. Hansen. Where does it get the name Cat Island?
        Mr. Taylor. I am told that when Bienville and D'Iberville,
    the French explorers that first explored the Mississippi Gulf
    Coast around 1699, were working their way from Florida to what
    they hoped would be the mouth of the Mississippi River--it is
    fairly shallow around here, so a lot of it had to be done kind
    of touchy-feely to keep from running aground. When they passed
    the island, from a distance they saw a large number of raccoons
    which are still on the island. From a distance, they mistook
    them for cats. Hence the name Cat Island.
        Mr. Hansen. Always a story on those names, isn't there?
        Mr. Underwood, you are of the opinion that the Fish and
    Wildlife is spending the money that they should have been using
    to take care of the birds and for the brown tree snake, and the
    people of Hawaii are really kind of ticked off for you folks
    for transporting the tree snake in the undercarriage of the
    airplanes. Your comment regarding where the money is going.
        Mr. Underwood. Actually, let me clarify that. The Fish and
    Wildlife Service doesn't really put any funding into fighting
    the brown tree snake. It is done by special appropriations. The
    leader on that has been Senator Inouye who has appropriated
    some money from the Department of Defense to help in
    controlling the brown tree snake.
        My--I think the people of Guam could be ticked off for a
    lot of things. One, they could be ticked for the military
    planes that brought in the brown tree snakes to begin with.
    That is the first issue. But secondly is the fact that, under
    the guise of trying to help protect the endangered species, the
    birds, there has been more effort given by Fish and Wildlife
    towards dealing with property issues and land issues than the
    actual invasive species which have led to the decline of the
    birds.
        Obviously, one of the--I have always kidded both Senator
    Inouye and Senator Akaka, the fastest way for us to get
    attention is to take a dead snake and throw it on the tarmac
    over in Honolulu. That gets everyone excited.
        In reality, it is a serious problem, a serious public
    relations problem; and people of Guam are very much in favor of
    bringing back the bird species.
        I have recently gone to a little cleared-off area in the
    north of Guam trying to bring back what is known as the koko or
    the Guam rail. The Guam rail existed only in Guam. It is the
    only place in the word that it existed, and this flightless
    bird had been wiped out by the brown tree snake.
        Mr. Hansen. Always a problem.
        The way the 1973 bill reads, if you are very successful in
    eliminating the brown tree snake down to a certain extent it
    will then become endangered and we will have to appropriate
    millions of dollars to save it. I don't know whether we ever
    get the balance worked out, but someone around this place ought
    to be smart enough to figure out how to change the Endangered
    Species Act. In some people's opinion, it came from Mount Sinai
    and the hand of God wrote it, but it really has lot of flaws in
    it.
        With that frustration out of my way, let me say this. We
    appreciate the testimony of our two colleagues. We would
    welcome you to the dais if you would like to. And we will turn
    to the gentleman from Puerto Rico.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. Mr. Taylor, what if the Navy decided
    that one of the islands in the Gulf Coast of Mississippi was
    indispensable for national defense and they started using it
    for bombarding and maneuvers? How would the people around
    Mississippi feel about that?
        Mr. Taylor. Mr. Romero-Barcelo, I am of the understanding
    that during World War II portions of both this island and Horn
    Island were used to train dogs for the military. There is
    actually some chemical weapons testing out there, either on
    this island or Horn Island.
        I certainly understand where you are coming from. I have a
    very large Army tank range that I help to make better in my
    district where they do drop bombs in my district.
        As I have said before, we value our bases as great
    neighbors. I hope to go to Puerto Rico when we adjourn and see
    if I can't do a job of convincing the United States Navy to be
    better neighbors on Vieques.
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. The difference there--we are getting
    into another subject, but the difference there is the community
    is involved in the base, and they get jobs in the base
    different from the situation in Vieques where the Navy is
    completely estranged from the people in Vieques.
        Mr. Taylor. I am going to do the very best I can, in my
    very best mumble, to----
        Mr. Romero-Barcelo. I know that. You have been very
    helpful. Thank you very much on that. You can be sure that we
    will also be very helpful to you in this, whatever we can do.
        Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Nevada.
        Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just one
    question for Mr. Taylor.
        I noticed that the owners of Cat Island have requested the
    retention of a retained right for an in-holding within the
    island itself. Are you in support of their request for
    retention of an in-holding that would be within the area of the
    island but not included within the park boundaries?
        Mr. Taylor. Mr. Gibbons, let's remember, they have a number
    of people who have a lot of money who have offered to buy this
    island. Those people can do, since it is privately owned,
    anything they want with it all the way from razing it--they can
    do anything they want with it right now.
        They have offered to make about 2,100 acres available to
    the public. They have asked that they can keep for their
    children, since this has been in their family for almost a
    century, about 150 acres. About another 8 or 10 acres are owned
    by other individuals in smaller lots.
        You and I, I think, are very much alike in that we don't
    want to take anyone's land. They are willing sellers. They have
    told me that they would like to retain that 150 acres for their
    children and children's children, but also with the knowledge
    and working with the Gulf Island National Seashore to possibly
    one day construct a small lodge, 8 to 15 rooms, where folks
    could come out and have eco-tours. I see that as a great idea.
        We both have districts where a lot of people come for the
    purposes of gambling. But they also come to do a lot of other
    things. In the case of your district, to play golf, see the
    mountains, see the desert. In the case of south Mississippi, we
    have the great resource of the Gulf of Mexico. I think that the
    more assets that already exist in south Mississippi that we can
    make available to the public the better.
        So if they want to give the opportunity to folks that don't
    have a boat to go out to Cat Island and spend a few days and
    see the deer and the alligators, the ospreys and the horseshoe
    crabs, the dolphins, I think it is a wonderful idea.
        Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Taylor.
        Mr. Chairman, I know that we have had discussions in this
    Committee in the past about in-holdings in the park and other
    areas and some of the problems that has been raised by the park
    commission over such things. I would hope that we can make it
    clear that the wishes of the owners in this regard to their
    property making this a public island more or less would be
    recognized down the road. I am afraid what we will see is an
    erosion of that support for private ownership within that
    island after a number of years.
        Mr. Taylor. Mr. Gibbons, to the point, if I may, only
    yesterday I received a letter from someone who owns about 80
    acres on one of the islands previously purchased back in the
    late 1960s, early 1970s. Obviously, it has not been a problem
    for them, that they have retained title to that for these many
    years.
        We are--I would hope that you would ask the same question
    of the Boddie family. They have asked for very specific
    language that would allow them to do just what we talked about.
    I hope the bill would spell that out so they don't have to keep
    going to the expense of coming back and forth to Washington,
    that we could get this straight and have it as part of the
    proposal that your Committee votes on.
        Mr. Hansen. Further questions for our colleagues? If not,
    we will excuse you. Actually, if you would like to join us on
    the dais, we will turn to the first panel.
        Our first panel is William Shaddox, Acting Associate
    Director for Professional Services, National Park Service; Cala
    Boddie-Colbert, Cat Island, Mississippi; and George Schloegel,
    Friends of the Gulf Island National Seashore.
        If these three folk would like to come up, we would
    appreciate it.
        Thank you.

      STATEMENT OF WILLIAM SHADDOX, ACTING ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR
              PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

        Mr. Hansen. Mr. Shaddox, we appreciate you being with us,
    and we will turn to you first.
        You folks notice this little machine in front of you. It is
    a new idea that they have come up with around here. It has on
    it: Talk, sum up, and stop. There is the time just ticking
    away. We appreciate it if you would try to stay within your
    time. We realize that maybe you have got to go over for a few
    minutes, and that is all right. We now fine you for $10 a
    minute for every minute you go over. Maybe we would waive that
    in this hearing.
        The floor is yours, sir.
        Mr. Shaddox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    Committee, for allowing us to appear and testify on H.R. 2541
    today to adjust boundaries of Gulf Island National Seashore to
    include Cat Island, Mississippi.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit my statement for the
    record, if you please. Then I could summarize.
        Mr. Hansen. Without objection, your entire testimony will
    be in the record, as it will for all of our witnesses today. If
    you would like to summarize, that is perfectly all right. We
    understand.
        Mr. Shaddox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Congressman
    Taylor for all of his hard work to bring this bill to the
    attention of the Congress. I would like to thank Trust Republic
    Lands for all of the hard work that they have done in this
    measure. I would certainly love to thank the Boddie family for
    their willingness to step forward to help preserve this
    wonderful resource, this beautiful island.
        The Department supports this legislation, Mr. Chairman,
    with the amendments described later in this testimony. The
    significant natural resources of the island and its great
    potential for visitor use make this island a highly desirable
    addition to the national seashore.
        The landowners prefer to have the island added to the
    national seashore, and to that end we have been discussing
    terms of conveyance with the Trust for Public Lands and the
    National Park Service. Meanwhile, because development pressures
    along the coast of Mississippi are intensifying, the owner is
    likely to get very attractive competing offers from land
    developers. We hope that Congress would seize what could turn
    out to be a short-lived opportunity to obtain this magnificent
    resource for the benefit of the public by passing this
    legislation enabling the National Park Service to acquire the
    island. Land acquisitions, however, would be subject to
    National Park Service priorities and the availability of
    appropriations.
        While we agree with the intent of H.R. 2541, we recommend
    two changes to the legislation as follows. If you will bear
    with me, Mr. Chairman, this is somewhat lengthy, but I will get
    through it as quickly as possible.
        First, section 1, subsection 3, would add to Gulf Islands
    and the water area adjacent to the shoreline that is not owned
    by the State of Mississippi. Because the State actually has
    title to all submerged lands below the mean high tide line, the
    boundary would end at the high tide line. The beach area below
    the high tide line and the submerged lands, which are owned by
    the State, would be excluded.
        This proposed boundary is different from the boundaries
    around the other islands within the seashore, which include the
    adjacent submerged lands for one mile from the shoreline or to
    the south edge of the Intercoastal Waterway, whichever is
    closer.
        We recommend that section 1, subsection 3, be amended to
    establish a seaward boundary for Cat Island that is consistent
    with those of the other national seashore islands. We are
    concerned that if the boundary stops at the high tide line, it
    may pose management problems. For example, the Park Service
    would not be able to establish and enforce rules for
    recreational watercraft immediately offshore, as it does for
    other national seashore islands.
        We understand that State officials oppose including State
    submerged lands in the boundary. However, including this area
    in the boundary would not change the ownership of the submerged
    lands. The State would retain ownership. Section 2(a)(6) of
    Public Law 91-660, the original Gulf islands legislation, makes
    clear that the National Park Service may acquire only with the
    consent of the State. The State did in fact convey to the Park
    Service ownership of the submerged land surrounding the other
    Gulf Islands nearly 30 years ago.
        If Mississippi wishes to retain title to the submerged
    lands adjacent to the island, establishing a boundary one mile
    out to see would make it possible for the State to enter into
    an agreement for concurrent jurisdiction of the area with the
    National Park Service. That could be a real advantage to both
    the State and the Park Service. Under such an agreement, it
    would be possible for the State to be relieved of the burden it
    would otherwise continue to bear for management of the water
    surrounding the island, while the Park Service would have a
    greater ability to protect the island's resources and the
    visiting public. But unless the boundary is extended beyond the
    high tide line, the option of entering into such a management
    agreement would not be available.
        Furthermore, should the State ever decide that it wanted to
    transfer ownership of the water within the one mile boundary to
    the Park Service, there would be no need for new legislation to
    adjust the boundary.
        Two alternative maps depicting the island as part of Gulf
    Islands National Seashore are being prepared by the Park
    Service's Regional Office. One depicts the island with a
    boundary one mile seaward, as we are recommending, the other
    with a boundary at the high tide line, as described in H.R.
    2541 as introduced, and we will submit both to the
    Subcommittee.
        Secondly, H.R. 2541 anticipates the purchase of the island
    but does not include an increase in the authorization of
    appropriations for land acquisition. The last authorization for
    the acquisition at Gulf Islands, enacted in 1976, raised the
    ceiling to $22,162,000. Over the years, Congress has actually
    appropriated more than that amount for land purchases in the
    islands. Because we do not yet have a cost estimate for the
    approximately 2,200 acres that would be purchased if this
    legislation is approved, we recommend that the legislation
    authorize the appropriation of such sums as necessary for land
    acquisition. Furthermore, the language should be clear that the
    submerged land, as well as land and water, are eligible for
    acquisition, as that would help avoid confusion over the status
    of submerged lands.
        In summary, we believe that Cat Island would be a very
    valuable addition to the Gulf Island National Seashore, and we
    urge the Subcommittee to act on this legislation as quickly as
    possible before we lose the opportunity to add this wonderful
    property to the National Park Service.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks; and I would like
    to answer any questions that you or the Subcommittee may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Shaddox follows:]

          Statement of William Shaddox, Acting Associate Director for
                  Professional Services, National Park Service

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify on
    H.R. 2541, to adjust the boundaries of the Gulf Islands
    National Seashore to include Cat Island, Mississippi.
        The Department supports this legislation, with the
    amendments described later in the testimony.
        H.R. 2541 would revise the boundary of Gulf Islands
    National Seashore established in 1971, by Public Law 91-660, to
    add Cat Island to the series of barrier islands and onshore
    units in Mississippi and Florida that comprise the national
    seashore. Cat Island, which lies about eight miles south of
    Gulfport, is the western-most barrier island of the group of
    five islands off the eastern half of the Mississippi coast.
    This almost entirely undeveloped, 2,350-acre, T-shaped island
    has more than 21 miles of shoreline varying from sea-level
    beaches to 40-foot high sand ridges.
        Cat Island contains a greater diversity of vegetation and
    wildlife than any of the islands currently within the national
    seashore. Habitats include saltwater marsh, ephemeral saltwater
    marsh, freshwater marsh, palmetto-slash pine forest, and live
    oak stands. The only development on the entire island consists
    of three frame dwellings, some man-made canals, and relics of
    military use during World War II. The significant natural
    resources of the island, and its great potential for visitor
    use, make this island a highly desirable addition to the
    national seashore.
        When plans were under way to establish Gulf Islands
    National Seashore three decades ago, the Administration
    proposed to include Cat Island in the boundary. However, due to
    opposition to its inclusion by the owner, Congress omitted the
    island from the final legislation. The island's principal owner
    now wishes to sell all but 150 acres of the island.
        The owner prefers to have the land added to the national
    seashore and, to that end, has been discussing terms of
    conveyance with the Trust for Public Land and the National Park
    Service. Meanwhile, because development pressures along the
    coast of Mississippi are intensifying, the owner is likely to
    get very attractive competing offers from land developers. We
    hope that Congress will seize what could turn out to be a
    short-lived opportunity to obtain this magnificent resource for
    the benefit of the public by passing this legislation, enabling
    the National Park Service to acquire the island. Land
    acquisitions, however, would be subject to National Park
    Service priorities and the availability of appropriations.
        While we agree with the intent of H.R. 2541, we recommend
    two changes to the legislation, as follows:
        First, Section 1(3) would add to Gulf-Islands National
    Seashore Cat Island and the water area adjacent to the
    shoreline that is not owned by the State of Mississippi.
    Because the State actually has title to all submerged lands
    below the mean high-tide line, the boundary would end at the
    high-tide line. The beach area below the high-tide line and the
    submerged lands, which are owned by the state, would be
    excluded.
        This proposed boundary is different from the boundaries
    around the other islands within Gulf Islands National Seashore,
    which include the adjacent submerged lands for one mile from
    the shoreline or to the south edge of the Intercoastal
    Waterway, whichever is closer.
        We recommend that Section 1(3) be amended to establish a
    seaward boundary for Cat Island that is consistent with those
    of the other national seashore islands. We are concerned that
    if the boundary stops at the high-tide line, it may pose
    management problems. For example, the National Park Service
    would not be able to establish and enforce rules for
    recreational watercraft immediately off shore, as it does for
    the other national seashore islands.
        We understand that State officials oppose including State
    submerged lands in the boundary. However, including this area
    in the boundary would not change the ownership of the submerged
    lands. Section 2(a) of Public Law 91-660, the original Gulf
    Islands legislation, makes clear that the National Park Service
    may acquire State property only with the consent of the State.
    The State did in fact convey to the Park Service ownership of
    the submerged lands surrounding the other gulf islands nearly
    30 years ago.
        If Mississippi wishes to retain title to the submerged
    lands adjacent to Cat Island, establishing a boundary one mile
    out to sea would make it possible for the State to enter into
    an agreement for concurrent jurisdiction of the area with the
    National Park Service. That could be a real advantage both to
    the State and the National Park Service. Under such an
    agreement, it is possible that the State could be relieved of
    the burden it would otherwise continue to bear for management
    of the water surrounding the island, while the Park Service
    would have a greater ability to protect the island's resources
    and the visiting public. But unless the boundary is extended
    beyond the high-tide line, the option of entering such a
    management agreement will not be available.
        Furthermore, should the State ever decide it wanted to
    transfer ownership of the water within the one-mile boundary to
    the National Park Service, there would be no need for new
    legislation adjusting the boundary.
        Two alternative maps depicting Cat Island as part of Gulf
    Islands National Seashore are being prepared by the Park
    Service's Southeast Regional Office. One depicts Cat Island
    with a boundary one-mile seaward, as we are recommending, the
    other with a boundary at the high-tide line, as described in
    H.R. 2541 as introduced. We shall submit both to the
    Subcommittee.
        Second, H.R. 2541 anticipates the purchase of Cat Island,
    but does not include an increase in the authorization of
    appropriations for land acquisition. The last authorization for
    land acquisition at Gulf Islands, enacted in 1976, raised the
    ceiling to $22,162,000. Over the years, Congress has actually
    appropriated more than that amount for land purchases there.
    Because we do not yet have a cost estimate for the
    approximately 2,200 acres that could be purchased if this
    legislation is approved, we recommend that the legislation
    authorize the appropriation of ``such sums as necessary'' for
    land acquisition. Furthermore, the language should be clear
    that submerged lands, as well as land and water, are eligible
    for acquisition, as that will help avoid confusion over the
    status of submerged lands.
        In summary, we believe that Cat Island would be a very
    valuable addition to Gulf Islands National Seashore, and we
    urge the Subcommittee to act on this legislation as quickly as
    possible before we lose the opportunity to add this wonderful
    property to the National Park System.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I would be pleased
    to answer any questions you or other members of the
    Subcommittee may have.

        Mr. Hansen. We have, apparently, a couple of votes on right
    now. We will have to see what they are and determine whether we
    would want this kind of recess for just a moment.
        There is just one on the rule and just a general vote.
    Possibly it would be better if we recessed for just a few
    minutes. We will run over and come right back. I would urge the
    members of the Committee to come right back, and we will get
    right back to the next testimony.
        We will stand in recess.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Hansen. The meeting will come to order.
        We have no control over things such as votes going on. We
    just have to go. That vote ended. I am sure the members will be
    coming back.
        We will now turn to Cala Boddie-Colbert as our next
    witness.

        STATEMENT OF CALA BODDIE-COLBERT, CAT ISLAND, MISSIPPII

         Ms. Boddie-Colbert. I am Cala Boddie-Colbert. I am here
    together with my brother and sister. Together with our cousin
    and our nine children, we own all but six acres of Cat Island.
        As you can see from the map over there, it is a T-shaped
    island approximately 7 miles south of Gulfport, Mississippi.
    The island has been in my family for almost 90 years. It has 21
    miles of shoreline and it has pristine views and over three
    miles of totally undeveloped white gulf sand beach.
        The incredible economic growth on the Gulf Coast in recent
    years has put us under intense pressure to decide between
    preserving the island and developing it. We have come to the
    conclusion that, if we are compensated fairly, we would greatly
    prefer to see the majority of the island preserved in its
    natural state. We think that the National Park Service has done
    an excellent job of managing the Mississippi barrier islands
    that are currently in the Gulf Islands National Seashore. For
    that reason, we believe that the seashore is the logical entity
    to preserve and manage the majority of Cat Island.
        But our children are the fifth generation of our family to
    love Cat Island, and it is very important to us that this
    relationship should continue. Therefore, since we were first
    approached by the National Park Service in May, 1998, about the
    possibility of including Cat Island in the seashore, our
    discussions with the Park Service and with the Trust for Public
    Lands concerning an option which it could exercise on behalf of
    the Park Service, it has always been based on the premise that
    our family would retain approximately 6 percent of Cat Island
    in fee simple ownership. We have voluntarily agreed that we
    will place substantial government restrictions on this family
    land once the remainder of the island has been transferred to
    the Park Service. However, we did not contemplate and we have
    not agreed to the inclusion of this family land within the
    boundaries of the Gulf Island National Seashore.
        We completely support the intent of H.R. 2541, but we ask
    that the Subcommittee modify the bill, as Congressman Taylor
    asked, to remove our family land and to remove the existing
    privately owned subdivided lots from the proposed boundary
    amendment to the Gulf Island National Seashore. If the bill is
    amended to that effect, my family will wholeheartedly support
    it.
        The reserved rights that we have negotiated with the Park
    Service will allow us to build houses for ourselves and our
    children and construct a small ecologically-oriented lodge on
    the acreage we will retain. The Park Service has agreed that
    this type of responsible and limited development is consistent
    with its management plans for Cat Island. A copy of the
    proposed reserved rights and restrictions that we have
    negotiated with the Park Service, a map showing the location of
    our family parcel, and a plat of the existing subdivided lots
    on the island are included with our written statement. A legal
    description of the family parcel is being submitted for the
    record.
        We think that the preservation of 94 percent of Cat Island
    in its natural state for public use by future generations is in
    everyone's best interests. But because we want to keep a small
    part of Cat Island for ourselves, our children, and we hope for
    their children, and we also want to ensure the rights of the
    existing lot owners, I do ask you to amend H.R. 2541 to exclude
    our family's retained land and the existing other privately
    owned property on the island from the proposed boundary of the
    Gulf Island National Seashore.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Hansen. We thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Boddie-Colbert follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.021

        Mr. Hansen. Mr. George Schloegel, I hope.

      STATEMENT OF GEORGE SCHLOEGEL, FRIENDS OF THE GULF ISLANDS
                           NATIONAL SEASHORE

        Mr. Schloegel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is George
    Schloegel. I am 43 year employee of the Hancock Bank,
    headquartered in Gulfport. I represent the Friends of the Gulf
    Islands National Seashore, a broad-based volunteer nonprofit
    organization dedicated to the preservation and enhancement and
    operation of the barrier islands that are owned by the Federal
    Government located in the Mississippi Sound and the Gulf of
    Mexico and visited by approximately 4\1/2\ million people
    annually.
        By way of background, my experience with the Gulf Islands
    goes back several generations. My father, Joseph A. Schloegel,
    Sr., personally led the effort to keep Fort Massachusetts from
    being destroyed by the encroaching sea in the early 1930s. I
    was a part of the effort from 1965 to 1971 to have the islands
    transferred from private to public ownership. I am cofounder
    and chairman emeritus of the Friends of the Gulf Island
    National Seashore. I serve as chairman of the reconstruction of
    Ship Island lighthouse which was originally built in 1853,
    destroyed in 1861 during the Civil War, and rebuilt in 1886 and
    accidentally burned in 1972. We rebuilt the lighthouse on
    October 9, 1998. A model that I have in front of me is of that
    lighthouse. It is nearing completion as we speak.
        Now, to the island itself. The beauty and history of Cat
    Island is augmented by the inexpensive accessibility to sports
    fishing by fishermen who do not need costly boats to enjoy
    these waters. Families have access to gigging flounders at
    night or wade fishing along the sandy beaches with only a pole
    and a line. My grandsons fish off of Cat Island as did their
    great, great, great grandfather. Cat Island is a profound part
    of our lives, the lives of many people who live along the Gulf
    Coast of Mississippi. Just last month, as we read in the record
    a while ago, our own Congressmen Gene Taylor and his daughter
    Emily landed a monster redfish employing a hand-over-hand line,
    much like the Old Man and the Sea, and he presented to his
    family a delicious meal. That is common among the people who
    live on the Gulf Coast.
        Today's appearance is ``deja vous'' for me. Under the able
    leadership of M. James Stevens, a New Jersey native who
    migrated to the Mississippi Gulf Coast and became our most
    beloved historian and civil leader, H.R. 10874 was introduced
    May 5, 1969. Sponsors of that bill included Congressman Sikes
    of Florida, Congressman Dickinson of Alabama, Congressman
    Hebert of Louisiana and Congressman William Colmer of
    Mississippi. Congressman Colmer at the time was chairman of the
    House Rules Committee.
        H.R. 10874 created the Gulf Islands National Seashore to
    preserve one of America's most historic and scenic chain of
    barrier islands.
        Included in the original bill was Mississippi's Petit Bois
    Island, Ship Island, Horn Island, and Cat Island. My good
    friend and the owner of Cat Island, the late Nathan Boddie, and
    his family did not want to sell Cat Island at that time. Mr.
    Bill Colmer in his infinite wisdom did not want to invoke
    eminent domain. I remember the stately chairman putting his
    hand on my shoulders here in Washington and saying, ``George,
    Nathan does not want to sell Cat Island and I feel we should
    accommodate him and take Cat Island out of the bill. At a later
    date perhaps we can purchase Cat Island, but condemnation
    simply is not an alternative I can live with.''
        Naturally, I agreed with Mr. Colmer, and H.R. 10874 passed
    the 91st Congress on January 8, 1971. Mr. Calmer's prophesy
    that one day Cat Island could be purchased is the subject of
    today's hearing. The Friends of the Gulf Islands National
    Seashore are grateful to Mr. George Boddie, to his sisters, and
    to all members of the Boddie family for their concurrence of
    the preservation of this national landmark.
        By way of a little additional history, in 1513 Spanish
    explorer claimed the area of Cat Island 94 years before
    Jamestown and 110 years before the Mayflower landed at Plymouth
    Rock.
        Three hundred years ago this year, on February 10, 1699,
    the French established a beachhead on the island and sailed
    through the pass between Cat Island and Ship Island and built
    Fort Maurepas on the mainland in Ocean Springs.
        President Thomas Jefferson declared the control of New
    Orleans the focal point to the western expansion of our young
    Nation in 1801. New Orleans controlled the Mississippi River
    which drains 41 percent of the continental United States,
    including all or part of 31 States from New York to North
    Carolina and Idaho to New Mexico. This territory located just
    west of Cat Island prompted the Louisiana Purchase, America's
    greatest real estate transaction at 4 cents an acre, tripling
    the size of the United States in 1803.
        The islands in question at today's hearing were pivotal in
    the Battle of New Orleans won by Andrew Jackson in 1815. The
    Treaty of Ghent on Christmas Eve, December 24, 1814, ended the
    war of 1812, but the terms of the armistice claimed the British
    did not recognize the Louisiana Purchase and therefore the
    coastal land and islands from Pensacola to Baton Rouge remained
    British. Andy Jackson's decisive defeat of the British at
    Mobile, Pensacola and finally at New Orleans on January 8,
    1815, 2 weeks after the war was officially over, drove the
    British out of America once and for all.
        Admiral David G. Farragut used the Gulf Islands as his
    launch spot for the siege of New Orleans, Baton Rouge and
    Natchez. The USS Constitution, among other transport vessels,
    deposited 18,000 troops on the islands in the midst of the
    Civil War. Those were the troops that General Benjamin Butler
    of Massachusetts used to occupy the City of New Orleans.
        Admiral Farragut again used the islands to stage the Battle
    of Mobile against Admiral Franklin Buchanan, First
    Superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy and former Commander
    of the C.S.A. Merimac-Virginia. In that battle, Farragut
    climbed the mainsail to view the fight and coined the phrase,
    ``Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.''
        Others before you in these hallowed halls have preserved
    pieces of American history dating back to Francis Scott Key,
    Betsy Ross, Patrick Henry, and Nathan Hale. Today you have the
    opportunity to do the same by preserving another vital piece of
    American history where Andrew Jackson, David Farragut, and
    Zachary Taylor made their marks.
        Today's testimony is not only about buying an island, it is
    also about preserving a piece of American history.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Hansen. I thank the gentleman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Schloegel follows:]

            Statement of George A. Schloegel, Gulfport, Mississippi

        My name is George Schloegel. I am a 43 year employee of
    Hancock Bank located at 2510 14th Street, Gulfport, Mississippi
    39501. My telephone number is (228) 868-4706. My degree is from
    Louisiana State University in New Orleans in Business
    Administration with a minor in History. I represent the Friends
    of the Guf Islands National Seashore, a broad based, volunteer
    non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation,
    enhancement and operation of the barrier islands owned by the
    Federal Government located in the Mississippi Sound and Gulf of
    Mexico and visited by 4 1/2 million people annually.
        My experience with the Islands goes back several
    generations. My father, Joseph A. Schloegel, Sr., personally
    led the effort to keep Fort Massachusetts from being destroyed
    by the encroaching sea in the early 1930's. I was a part of the
    effort, from 1965 to 1971, to have the Islands transferred from
    private to public ownership. I am a co-founder and Chairman
    Emeritus of the Friends of the Gulf Island National Seashore. I
    serve as Chairman of the reconstruction of the Ship Island
    Lighthouse originally built in 1853, destroyed in 1861 during
    the Civil War, rebuilt in 1886, accidently burned in 1972 and
    rebuilt beginning on October 9, 1998.
        The beauty of Cat Island is also augmented by inexpensive
    accessibility to sports fishing. Fishermen do not need costly
    boats to enjoy these waters. Families have access to gigging
    flounders at night or wade fishing along the sandy beaches with
    only a pole and line. My grandsons fish off of Cat Island as
    did their great, great, great grandfather. Cat Island is a
    profound part of our lives. Just last month our own
    Congressman, Gene Taylor, and his daughter, Emily, landed a
    monster redfish employing a hand-over-hand line, much like The
    Old Man and the Sea, and presented a delicious meal to their
    entire family.
        Today's appearance is ``deja vous'' for me. Under the able
    leadership of M. James Stevens, a New Jersey native who
    migrated to the Mississippi Gulf Coast and became our most
    beloved historian and civic leader, H.R. 10874 was introduced
    May 5, 1969. Sponsors of that bill included Congressman Sikes
    of Florida, Congressman Dickinson of Alabama, Congressman
    Hebert of Louisiana and Congressman William Colmer of
    Mississippi, Chairman of the House Rules Committee.
        H.R. 10874 created the Gulf Islands National Seashore to
    preserve one of America's most historic and scenic chains of
    barrier islands.
        Included in the original bill was Mississippi's Petit Bois
    Island, Ship Island, Horn Island, and Cat Island. My good
    friend and owner of Cat Island, the late Nathan Boddie and his
    family, did not want to sell Cat Island at the time and Mr.
    Bill Colmer in his infinite wisdom did not want to invoke
    eminent domain. I remember the stately chairman putting his
    hand on my shoulder and saying, ``George, Nathan does not want
    to sell Cat Island and I feel we should accommodate him and
    take Cat Island out of the bill. At a later date perhaps we can
    purchase Cat Island but condemnation is simply not an
    alternative I can live with.''
        Naturally, I agreed with Mr. Colmer and H.R. 10874 passed
    the 91st Congress on January 8, 1971. Mr. Colmer's prophecy
    that one day Cat Island could be purchased is the subject of
    today's hearing, and the Friends of the Gulf Islands National
    Seashore are grateful to Mr. George Boddie and the members of
    the Boddie family for their concurrence in the preservation of
    this national landmark.
        In 1513, Spanish Explorers claimed the area 94 years before
    Jamestown and 107 years before the Mayflower landed at Plymouth
    Rock.
        Three hundred years ago this year, on February 10, 1699,
    the French established a beachhead on the islands when they
    sailed through the pass between Cat Island and Ship Island and
    built Fort Maurepas on the mainland in Ocean Springs.
        President Thomas Jefferson declared the control of New
    Orleans as the focal point to the western expansion of our
    young nation in 1801. New Orleans controlled the Mississippi
    River which drains 41 percent of the continental United States,
    including all or part of 31 states from New York to North
    Carolina and from Idaho to New Mexico. This territory located
    just west of Cat Island prompted the Louisiana Purchase,
    America's greatest real estate transaction at 4 cents per acre,
    tripling the size of the United States in 1803.
        The islands in question at today's meeting were pivotal in
    the Battle of New Orleans won by General Andrew Jackson in
    1815. The treaty of Ghent on Christmas Eve, December 24, 1814,
    ended the War of 1812 but the terms of the armistice claimed
    the British did not recognize the Louisiana Purchase;
    therefore, the coastal land and islands from Pensacola to Baton
    Rouge remained British. Andy Jackson's decisive defeat of the
    British at Mobile, Pensacola and finally at New Orleans on
    January 8, 1815, two weeks after the war was over, drove the
    British out of America once and for all.
        Admiral David G. Farragut used the Gulf Islands as his
    launch spot for the Seige of New Orleans, Baton Rouge and
    Natchez. The U.S.S. Constitution, among other transport
    vessels, deposited 18,000 troops on the Islands in the midst of
    the Civil War. These were the troops General Benjamin Butler of
    Massachusetts used to occupy the city of New Orleans.
        Admiral Farragut again used Ship Island to stage the Battle
    of Mobile against Admiral Franklin Buchanan, First
    Superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy and former Commander
    of the C.S.A. Merrimac-Virginia. In that battle, Farragut
    climbed the mainsail to view the fight and coined the phrase,
    ``Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.''
        Others before you in these hallowed halls have preserved
    pieces of American history dating back to Frances Scott Key,
    Betsy Ross, Patrick Henry and Nathan Hale. Today you have the
    chance to do the same by preserving another vital piece of
    American history where Andrew Jackson, David Farragut and
    Zachary Taylor made their marks.
        Today's testimony is not only about buying an island, it is
    also about preserving a piece of American history.
        Thank you for allowing me to make this presentation.

        Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Nevada, a question for our
    witnesses?
        Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me address my first question to Ms. Colbert, if I may.
        Welcome and thank you for your testimony. I know your
    family is in support of this acquisition. What is the will, if
    you might say that, of the other landholders on the island?
    What do they see with all of this?
        Ms. Boddie-Colbert. I don't speak formally for them, but
    there are approximately 27 quarter acre lots that my father
    sold in the 1960s and early 1970s. Those are probably owned by,
    I would think, 10 to 12 different persons, because several
    people owned more than one lot. We have not talked to each of
    them.
        I think that the overwhelming sentiment is that they would
    like to be outside the seashore, if for no other reason so they
    could drink a Coors longneck on the porch of their house. The
    seashore, for very good reasons, prevents any glass on the
    island's seashore, and that is obviously necessary. But I think
    these people would like to have a little less regulation and be
    able to go into their camps and continue life as usual.
        Mr. Gibbons. So they want to continue their private
    property ownership on the island while still permitting the
    public ownership of the majority of the island that you plan--
    --
        Ms. Boddie-Colbert. We own all but six acres of the island.
    I don't know that other landowners really have a say as to
    whether--into our decision to sell to the Park Service. But it
    is my understanding and it has been my understanding that the
    land that we kept and also the existing privately owned lots
    would not be included within the boundaries of the seashore.
    They would simply be outside the seashore, not in hold.
        Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Shaddox, what is the projected cost of the
    island?
        Mr. Shaddox. We have no estimates at this time. We are
    conducting an appraisal, but we don't know what the costs are
    going to be at this time.
        Mr. Gibbons. Would you be willing to submit for the record
    your determination of the appraisal value prior to the
    acquisition?
        Mr. Shaddox. We would be willing to do that after we share
    it with the landowner, yes.
        Mr. Gibbons. With an included boundary of your suggestion
    for the barrier, the boundary around this island to be included
    as part of the title, would there be any restrictions on the
    access to this island generated by your service for these
    private property inholders?
        Mr. Shaddox. If I may, Representative Gibbons, ask the
    chairman if I could please call Jerry Eubanks, the
    Superintendent of Gulf Islands, to the table and Dan Brown,
    Deputy Regional Director of Atlanta, to help answer some of
    these questions. They are infinitely more familiar with the
    island and its regulations than I am.
        Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Udall.
        Mr. Gibbons. I noticed that it was still green, Mr.
    Chairman. When it turns red, I would stop. I have acceded to
    your wishes.
        Mr. Hansen. The floor is still yours.
        Mr. Taylor. Mr. Gibbons, I believe that I can help answer
    that question.
        Mr. Hansen. You can answer from there.
        Mr. Taylor. I want to show you. I think it is easier. It is
    my understanding that the track of lands the family and the
    other property owners would like to retain is right up around
    here.
        Mr. Gibbons. Yes, I have seen the map in the back. I have
    heard testimony.
        Mr. Taylor. So, as you can clearly see, that land would
    continue to be accessible by water.
        Mr. Gibbons. But the land behind it, which is the other 10
    or 12 property owners, would have also some restrictions, and
    that is the reason why I went to the question.
        Ms. Boddie-Colbert. Sir, do you want me to respond?
        Mr. Gibbons. Sure.
        Ms. Boddie-Colbert. Those privately owned lots are on the
    northern channels that are shown on the map. So they would
    have--they should have waterfront access right to their lot.
        Mr. Gibbons. That would be my question back to the Park
    Service, Ms. Colbert. That is why I wanted to ask the Park
    Service that question. Because if they include a greater
    boundary around the island as their territory, then they would
    end up controlling and making the decisions about access over
    the property for you.
        Ms. Boddie-Colbert. That is a subject of great concern to
    my family.
        Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Chairman, if one of the gentlemen that
    have come to the table could provide an answer, I notice my
    questioning time has lapsed.
        Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Nevada, I apologize for not
    paying attention. Do you want additional time to pursue this
    line of questioning?
        Mr. Gibbons. I would ask one of the gentlemen, if they
    understood my question, if they could respond to it.
        Mr. Eubanks. The private property is on the canal that
    comes on there, so there would be access.
        Mr. Gibbons. I guess my question is, if you include the
    boundary around there extending out into the submerged lands as
    included as part of the acquisition description, then do you
    have the ability to control access? Would that exclude access
    for these individuals or the public?
        Mr. Eubanks. No, sir, not in my opinion, it would not.
        Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Udall.
        Mr. Mark Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy
    to yield to my colleague from Nevada if he had additional
    questions----
        Mr. Gibbons. I do, but you are certainly welcome to take up
    your own time.
        Mr. Mark Udall. Let me ask one or two questions. I don't
    think they will take very long.
        I am interested in clarifying the record as well. I am
    looking at this plat here. It looks like there are 18 lots
    along a certain access and the there is some more on this point
    here. Your family still owns some of those lots. Some of them
    are owned privately. You used the word ``camp.'' It also sounds
    like in large part, that these are fairly primitive places
    where people come to spend the weekend to fish.
        Ms. Boddie-Colbert. There are three buildings currently on
    these lots. The latest one, my brother's, for use of a better
    word, is certainly not primitive. It is modelled on the replica
    of the Horn Island lighthouse, which was built in the early
    part of this century. It is cypress. It is beautifully
    constructed. I would love for you to come out and see it.
        The other two buildings out there are probably more
    correctly described as fishing camps, but I can tell you that
    one of them was built prior to Camille and went through the eye
    of Camille without any major damage. So there has been a--it is
    possible to build out there to withstand the forces of nature.
    It is a beautiful place.
        Mr. Mark Udall. If I could get permission, if your
    Congressman would invite me out there, I would love to have a
    chance to visit. You have to understand a lot of us on this
    Committee are from the mountain West. We sometimes have to take
    a little adjustment to the seashore. But it sounds like a
    phenomenal resource. He has invited me for the weekend.
        So you feel confident that--I think my colleague from
    Nevada is concerned about access regulation. I think I am
    concerned about the private property owners who are there
    getting crosswise with the management policies of the Park
    Service and the general public perhaps having their experience
    impacted by private landowners who have a different point of
    view. But I hear you saying you think the two are compatible
    and you have examples of this and the other islands in this
    seashore area.
        Ms. Boddie-Colbert. Well, now, I can't speak for the other
    lot owners. There are only currently two houses on the island
    that are not under my family's control. The development that we
    have negotiated with the Park Service would allow the members
    of our family to build houses on the land that we retain and to
    put in the small ecologically oriented lodge. We certainly
    expect to be good neighbors with the Park Service. We don't
    have any desire to, I think, undertake any activities that
    would disturb the beauty of the place. We want to enjoy it and
    keep it like it is, if possible.
        Mr. Mark Udall. That is clear from the way that you have
    managed it for 100 years, it sounds like. Do you expect other
    private landowners would expand and develop their parcels over
    time or do you think that it would probably only be a few more
    dwellings and your ecolodge that you are talking about?
        Ms. Boddie-Colbert. I think there could be only a few more
    dwellings. The possibility of additional dwellings would be
    limited to maybe four on those existing lots. I don't think
    there could ever be any significant development out there.
        Mr. Mark Udall. I would be happy to yield whatever time I
    have left to my colleague from Nevada.
        Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Udall. I appreciate that.
        I would presume your purpose would be to have a commercial
    ecotourism base on that island?
        Ms. Boddie-Colbert. We think that it would be something
    that we would enjoy doing.
        Mr. Gibbons. The purpose, is that commercial or it would be
    a private, not-for-profit operation?
        Ms. Boddie-Colbert. I don't think that we could do it if it
    were not for profit. It would be a commercial operation, but I
    think it would be a very small-scale, limited operation.
        Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Shaddox, is that within the park's purview
    to acquire public land for the use of commercial operations
    within it?
        Mr. Shaddox. Normally when we buy lands inside the parks or
    if the park is established and has private lands inside the
    park, we respect those private individuals' rights to do with
    their land what they will. In this case, it doesn't appear that
    there is going to be any inflection against the park. At this
    time, the Boddie's plans are very straightforward, and we
    wouldn't have that much difficulty with it. Our concern is more
    what happens in the future with lands that are not in that
    ownership.
        Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Chairman, may I just take an additional
    moment here to follow up that question? Because what I am
    hearing from the owner of the property today is they want to
    establish a permanent commercial ecotourism operation on the
    island. But then again, if you are a private individual wanting
    to visit the island, I am not sure whether the park is going to
    provide public access to the island outside of this commercial
    operation that is proposed. I would wonder if that was the
    intent of the Park Service and if they could answer that to
    provide access to the island that would be private without
    having to go through the public commercial operation that Ms.
    Colbert is offering.
        Mr. Shaddox. If I could defer to the superintendent on that
    to find out what his plans are.
        Mr. Eubanks. Mr. Chairman, if I understand the question
    correctly, the private owned property would be accessible
    without having to come through the park because of those
    canals. It would through the other rough boundary----
        Mr. Gibbons. That would be true for those accessing private
    property unless they made a private access easement across
    their private property. So if there is that intent for the Park
    Service to create a landing facility, public visitors center
    access to the land, that would be my question to you. Because
    it seems to me it would be very restrictive to have a
    commercial operation which said you can only come to my island
    and tour it if you go to our commercial, paid for for-profit
    tourism.
        Mr. Eubanks. No, sir. I would visualize this being just
    like the others. People are free to go their in their private
    boats, and this one is much closer to the other islands and is
    much more accessible by privately owned boats. The only island
    that we have public access to by concession boat is West Ship
    Island that was referred to earlier. At this point, I don't
    know that we would have any plans for that. That hasn't been
    determined yet, but I would visualize it.
        Mr. Taylor. Mr. Gibbons, the cove that would be on the
    bottom left-hand side is on the Spit Cove, as it is commonly
    referred to locally Smuggler's Cove, because the rum runners
    used it during Prohibition as a stopping-off station as they
    were bringing liquor up from Cuba and other places.
        I have been there. This is a privately owned island, almost
    all of which is owned by the Boddie family. I have been there
    when over 100 boats were in that cove right now. If the
    question is somehow slanted that would this prohibit the public
    from using the island if the family retained a small portion,
    absolutely not. The family has been incredibly generous to
    allow on a regular basis folks to just show up and dock off
    their island.
        Mr. Gibbons. That was not my intent, to say that the family
    has not been generous with their current access. But the
    problem comes is when the Park Service takes over control of
    the majority of the island, they begin to have the ability to
    restrict use and activities. We see it all in the west a lot of
    times where day use or day visitor use gets down to numbers.
    Where they say in a certain area there is too many people
    coming here so we are going to restrict it to ``X'' thousand
    days of use per year and each individual counts for one of
    those day use.
        Mr. Taylor. Mr. Gibbons, to that point, as I mentioned
    before and it may have been before you entered the room, the
    Park Service presently has several islands over in the Gulf
    Coast. One of them is called Horn Island where they allow
    primitive camping right now. Anyone can go there for a day trip
    in unlimited numbers and anyone can camp on the island in
    unlimited numbers.
        They have another island called Ship Island, which has a
    commercial operation that you can pay to go out to the island
    or you can take your own boat out to the island. In parts of
    Ship Island there is unlimited camping. On parts of the island
    where the fort that Mr. Schloegel described, in order to
    prevent vandalism to the fort they limited camping on that
    portion of the island mostly to prevent vandalism to the fort
    that has occurred in the past and the lighthouse that Mr.
    Schloegel and his group have worked so hard to restore.
        Mr. Gibbons. I am sure Mr. Taylor is quite aware of
    Stiltsville in Florida where it was privately constructed
    residences in this bay. When it was turned over to the Park
    Service for a protected status it then became the objective of
    the Park Service to remove the private ownership and the owners
    out there in that bay. What worries me is when we do this, we
    are going to end up at some point down the road developing
    restrictions on these private owners at that point.
        Mr. Taylor. Again, Mr. Gibbons, on that point, I appreciate
    you asking this question, and I can assure that the property
    owners appreciate you asking this question. One of the things
    that we hope to make abundantly clear today, so they don't have
    to keep coming back to Washington and explaining their
    position, is that they would like to retain fee simple title to
    what they retain, which means they can do what they want and
    the Park Service cannot interfere.
        Mr. Hansen. Let's move along. If you need another round, we
    would be happy to.
        The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Sherwood.
        The gentleman from Mississippi, do you have anything that
    you would like to----
        Mr. Taylor. Again, I would like to thank our panelists for
    coming. I know it is a fairly expensive trip up from
    Mississippi and other parts of the country.
        Mr. Schloegel very modestly did not mention that he is not
    only the employee of Hancock Bank but he is the president of
    the Hancock Bank, which is the largest banking institution in
    the State of Mississippi. Again, I am really pleased to see all
    of you here, but in particular I think Mr. Schloegel not only
    brings, as he mentioned, the concern of his family over decades
    for the Gulf Islands, but I think he also speaks for the
    business community of south Mississippi when he says this would
    be a good thing for South Mississippi and for our Nation. That
    is all. I thank you all for being here.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
        Ms. Colbert, let me get this in perspective, could I?
    Apparently your family has owned it for many years; is that
    right?
        Ms. Boddie-Colbert. Since 1911.
        Mr. Hansen. Your father was the titleholder with the
    family?
        Ms. Boddie-Colbert. My father and his sister inherited it
    from their grandmother, I think, in 1935. They each owned a
    half interest in it.
        Mr. Hansen. Now, they are the heirs to your father who I
    assume has passed away?
        Ms. Boddie-Colbert. My father died in 1985. My aunt, who is
    still alive, has given all of her interest in the island to my
    siblings and our children and her daughter.
        Mr. Hansen. So you are all co-owners.
        Ms. Boddie-Colbert. Yes.
        Mr. Hansen. Has it been divided up?
        Ms. Boddie-Colbert. No.
        Mr. Hansen. Like you have a piece and your children have a
    piece?
        Ms. Boddie-Colbert. No, we own it indivisible.
        Mr. Hansen. You are the ones that would be negotiating with
    the Park Service to determine if you want to sell this property
    to the Park Service or some other entity; is that right?
        Ms. Boddie-Colbert. The Park Service approached my brother
    in May of 1998. I think he agreed to take Mr. Eubanks out to
    the island, and they discussed the possibility that we would
    begin negotiations to consider the possibility of putting Cat
    Island into--a portion of Cat Island into the Gulf Island
    National Seashore.
        Mr. Hansen. And your father divided up--I don't know if we
    got this straight, but there looks like a number of lots in
    here. I think that you previously said quarter acre lots?
        Ms. Boddie-Colbert. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Hansen. These are owned by private individuals that
    were sold to these individuals from your family or your father
    or whoever?
        Ms. Boddie-Colbert. Yes, sir. Basically my father did that
    in an attempt to establish property values to keep Cat Island
    out of the Gulf Island National Seashore.
        Mr. Hansen. Is there a family dwelling that your family has
    owned somewhere in this area?
        Ms. Boddie-Colbert. My brother has a house that is on
    that--well, on one of the canals.
        Mr. Hansen. But there hasn't been a family dwelling where
    the family live? You don't consider this your residence?
        Ms. Boddie-Colbert. No, we don't live out there. My family
    had a camp that was built on ground level that washed away when
    the eye of Hurricane Camille passed over Cat Island. Until my
    brother built the house a few years ago, we have not had a
    vacation home out there.
        Mr. Hansen. Mr. Gibbons, following what he is saying
    correctly here, there is always a question. I think Mr. Taylor
    raised a question. The Park Service would possibly have to
    evaluate it very carefully to determine what they want, if
    primitive camping or whatever. Do you envision commercial
    property there or retaining some of the property to sell to a
    commercial entity?
        Ms. Boddie-Colbert. No, sir. We are confident that we would
    like to see this preserved for public ownership. It is a very
    beautiful place. It is a special place to my family. We would
    like to see it preserved. We are confident if that can't be
    done that it could be developed in a low density residential
    development, somewhat like Dewees Island in South Carolina.
    That is not the preferable alternative, but if we are not able
    to come to terms with the Park Service, that would be our
    preferred second course. It is not our desire but I think a
    viable alternative.
        What we have negotiated with the Park Service would allow
    us to keep approximately 150 acres outside the boundaries of
    the seashore, is our understanding of the negotiations, so that
    family land would not be subject to directed regulation by the
    Park Service because it would not be within the boundaries of
    the park. We have agreed that we would put substantial
    development restrictions on that parcel.
        Basically what we asked them for was we wanted the right to
    build houses. It is 11 dwelling units, one for each, my
    brother, sister, me, my cousin and our children. And we wanted
    the right--I don't know that we would do this, but we would
    like to retain the right, if we wished, to build an
    ecologically-oriented lodge or inn up to 28 units that would
    simply be a very small-scale, environmentally sensitive
    development that could easily be contained on the part of Cat
    Island that we would retain. We would hope that our people
    could visit the seashore----
        Mr. Hansen. You have cleared it up for me. I was just
    curious what part you were going to keep, what you were going
    to sell, what the Park Service would do with it.
        The one point that I am sure this Committee would like to
    know and I don't think they will for a while is what kind of
    money we are looking at between these two entities. That is
    always a problem. We have to authorize it. If we authorize
    this, then after you folks come up with agreement, which would
    be kind of nice to know before we authorize it, then we have to
    turn it over to Ralph Regula who does the appropriating.
    Everything has to be authorized because this is an authorizing
    Committee and they are an appropriating committee. They cannot
    legislate; we can't appropriate. We have each other between a
    rock and a hard spot, so we have to work together.
        So I guess the last thing in my mind that hasn't been
    resolved is the most important thing called money. Maybe, Mr.
    Taylor, we will just kind of move ahead slowly and see if this
    is resolved some way so that we now what we are looking at. Do
    you want to comment on that?
        Mr. Taylor. If I may, sir. As you know, in Mississippi we
    have the great distinction, great privilege of having not only
    the Senate majority leader but also the second to senior most
    member of the Senate Appropriations Committee----
        Mr. Hansen. That is very helpful.
        Mr. Taylor. [continuing] Senator Cochran. He has either
    already included language in an Interior appropriations asking
    that the Interior Department work with the Park Service to
    acquire this land with existing funds or he has stated his
    intention to do so. That is why I am a little fuzzy. That is a
    public statement coming from the Senator's office. And so I
    feel very good with the really across-the-board support on this
    all of the way from the environmental groups, commercial
    fishermen and recreational fishermen, the business community
    with the across-the-board support for this project. And with
    the help of those two incredibly influential Senators that this
    would happen and I would hope this Committee would help us
    expedite it on our side of the Capitol.
        Mr. Hansen. I appreciate your comment.
        I am working with the appropriators now on what I am going
    to strike a point of order on. As you know, if they legislate
    on appropriation bill, all we have to do is make a point of
    order and it goes down the tubes. Both houses have to work this
    thing out, regardless of the clout that they have got which we,
    of course, appreciate.
        I don't want to be an obstacle. I would hope that it could
    come to pass. But still, on the other hand, those of us from
    the West are a little sensitive. We notice those from the South
    and the East have a way of skipping over NEPA and EIS and EIA
    and all of those things. Those of us in the West always get
    hammered. So we are paranoid, if I may respectfully say so.
        Mr. Taylor. Again, to the point, I think the real key here
    is trying to look at it from your shoes, if I may, is we are
    talking with willing sellers.
        The family approached me this summer. For years as I have
    visited this island I have dreamed that one day we would get
    this opportunity. Because I never would approach them because,
    quite frankly, it is their island. It has been their island for
    almost a 100 years. I would never do anything to take it from
    them, whether we compensated them or not.
        It is the wishes of the Boddie family to try to preserve
    it. I hope that I am not going to betray their trust, but it is
    worth saying when I recount the conversation with one of the
    family members and they had mentioned the different groups that
    had approached them to purchase the island, and it really
    caught my attention. At one point one of the family members
    said, you know, after looking at some of the proposals of what
    they would do to the island, we didn't know whether to laugh or
    cry.
        They are trying to preserve it. They are willing sellers,
    and I would sure hope that this Committee would honor their
    wishes. And I certainly understand where you are coming from,
    but I know it to be in the best interests of Mississippi and
    our Nation.
        Mr. Hansen. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. We sure
    don't want to be detrimental to what probably is a pretty good
    idea, just certain hoops that we have to go through around
    here.
        With that said, anybody have any further questions they
    want to bring up? If not, we will excuse this panel and thank
    you for your testimony.
        Our remaining panel is Juliette Falkner, Director, Office
    of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior; Fred Bieti,
    Isle Royale Boaters Association; Jim Matson, President,
    Vermillion Services; and Bob Monahan, Chairman of the Monahan
    Group.
        As you can see by looking behind you, two more lights are
    on. Let's just find out what we have got.
        We have one more vote to do, final passage on something. So
    if you don't mind, I apologize to all of you, we will be right
    back. We will stand in recess.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Hansen. The Committee will come to order.
        We hope that we have about an hour. We have a rule coming
    up; and, hopefully, everyone will talk for the full hour so
    that we can hear this testimony, which is very important, in my
    mind.

     STATEMENT OF JULIETTE FALKNER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF REGULATORY
                    AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

        Mr. Hansen. Juliette Falkner, Director, Office of
    Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior. You are on.
        Ms. Falkner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have statements for
    both H.R. 1864 and H.R. 1866, and I can read both of them at
    this time if you would prefer.
        The Department believes that it is unnecessary to establish
    standard requirements for conducting public hearings on its
    various actions as provided for in H.R. 1864. The Department's
    public hearing procedures are guided by requirements under the
    Administrative Procedure Act, NEPA, the Federal Advisory
    Committee Act, and other statutes.
        In addition, all of the Department's agencies must comply
    with chapter 455 of the departmental manual which describes
    procedures for public hearings. This chapter includes
    guidelines and noticing the meeting in the Federal Register,
    methods for receiving public comments, time frames and
    procedures for witness testimony.
        A significant percentage of the Department's public
    hearings occur in the context of informal remaking under the
    APA and are used as part of the process for obtaining public
    comment on proposed rules. Under the APA, the determination of
    how the final rule will appear must be based on a rule-making
    record developed over the course of an entire comment period.
    However, requirements in H.R. 1864 that would ensure that the
    public have a reasonable expectation of meaningful and timely
    answers to questions posed at public hearings could conflict
    with the APA. It is not appropriate to answer questions which
    in any way appear to prejudge the outcome of the rule-making
    process prior to consideration of all timely submitted
    comments.
        Requiring the Department to ensure that the public have a
    reasonable expectation of meaningful and timely answers to
    questions posed at public hearings, there is a strong
    possibility that opponents to the action could use that
    requirement to make the bureau spend time and money by asking
    questions that are irrelevant to the subject being heard,
    require a great deal of research or for any other reason could
    not be answered close to the time they were asked.
        In addition, H.R. 1864 provides no guidance on what, if
    any, rights an individual has to litigate these issues. If H.R.
    1864 permits such litigation, the Department's ability to
    finalize its decision in a timely manner would be compromised.
    As a general rule, our bureau has tried to answer relevant
    questions asked by the public at hearings. Our concern is about
    the potential unforeseen consequences of mandating that any
    questions asked at a public hearing be answered.
        In closing, findings of H.R. 1864 suggests that a lack of
    standard procedures for conducting public hearings by Federal
    agencies is a government-wide problem, yet the requirements of
    the bill apply only to the Department of the Interior. If the
    intent of this legislation is to establish a framework to
    standardize the procedures for hearings throughout the
    executive branch, other Federal agencies should be included in
    the bill's requirements and have the opportunity to comment.
    If, however, this legislation was prompted by specific concerns
    in the way the Interior bureaus are conducting public hearings,
    we would welcome the opportunity to work with you to identify
    and resolve such problems.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Falkner follows:]

         Statement of Juliette Falkner, Director, Office of Executive
         Secretariat and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify on
    H.R. 1864, to standardize the process for conducting public
    hearings for Federal bureaus within the Department of the
    Interior.
        The Department does not support H.R. 1864. We believe that
    the bill is unnecessary to establish standard requirements for
    conducting public hearings on its bureau's actions, as provided
    for in H.R. 1864. Although it is not clear what the bill would
    require, the result under any interpretation would be increased
    bureaucracy and costs to taxpayers, delays in decisions
    impacting the public, and probable increases in litigation.
    There is a very real risk of unintended consequences from such
    broad legislation.
        The findings of H.R. 1864 suggest that a lack of standard
    procedures for conducting public hearings by Federal agencies
    is a government-wide problem. Yet the requirements of the bill
    apply only to the Department of the Interior. If the intent of
    this legislation is to establish a framework to standardize the
    procedure for hearings throughout the executive branch, other
    Federal agencies should be included in the bill's requirements,
    and should have the opportunity to comment. If, however, this
    legislation was prompted by specific concerns in the way
    Interior bureaus are conducting public hearings, we would
    welcome the opportunity to work with you to identify and
    resolve such problems.
        H.R. 1864 would increase the costs to the taxpayers of
    making decisions on matters on which we hold public hearings.
    The additional costs would result largely from the requirement
    in Section 3(b)(4) that the hearing process ``ensure that the
    public shall have a reasonable expectation of meaningful and
    timely answers to questions posed at public hearings.'' We
    think there is a strong possibility that opponents of an action
    could use that requirement to make bureaus spend time and money
    by asking questions that are irrelevant to the subject being
    heard, or that require a great deal of research, or that for
    any other reason cannot be answered close to the time they are
    asked.
        The Department holds numerous public hearings to solicit
    public comments. Most of these hearings were held in the
    context of a rulemaking or National Environmental Policy Act
    (NEPA) decision. In addition to public hearings, the Department
    solicits public comments by utilizing the Internet, town hall
    meetings and surveys. H.R. 1864 would duplicate many of these
    existing requirements and guidelines. We believe that the
    processes we have at the present time for soliciting public
    comment work well.
        The Department's public hearing processes are guided by
    requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),
    NEPA, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and other statutes.
    In addition, all of the Department's agencies must comply with
    Chapter 455 of the Departmental Manual, which describes
    procedures for public hearings. This Chapter includes
    guidelines on noticing the meeting in the Federal Register at
    least 30 days prior to the meeting, methods for receiving
    public comments, timeframes and procedures for witness
    testimony.
        A significant percentage of the Department's public
    hearings occur in the context of informal rulemaking under the
    APA, and are used as part of the process of obtaining public
    comment on proposed rules. Under the APA, the determination of
    how the final rule will appear must be based on the rulemaking
    record developed over the course of the entire comment period.
    The requirement to ensure that the public shall have a
    reasonable expectation of meaningful and timely answers to
    questions posed at public hearings could conflict with the APA,
    as it is not appropriate to answer questions posed at a public
    hearing that focus on decisions which in any way appear to pre-
    judge the outcome of the rulemaking process prior to receipt
    and consideration of all timely submitted comments.
        The requirement for timely and meaningful responses could
    also pose other problems, in addition to increased costs and
    the potential conflict with the APA. H.R. 1864 provides no
    guidance and is silent on an individual's right to litigate
    these issues. For example, does someone who thinks he is not
    receiving a ``timely'' or ``meaningful'' response have the
    right to sue a bureau? Could someone sue for lack of a timely
    or meaningful response even if the question asked was
    irrelevant to the subject of the hearing? If so, such
    litigation could cause significant delays in the Department's
    ability to finalize its decisions--and, of course, result in
    greater costs to the taxpayers.
        As a general rule, our bureaus try to answer relevant
    questions asked by the public at hearings, if the question can
    be answered. Our concern is about the potential unforeseen
    consequences of mandating that any questions asked at a public
    hearing be answered.
        For all of these reasons, the Department does not support
    H.R. 1864. However, to repeat what I said at the beginning of
    my remarks, we would be pleased to work with the Subcommittee
    to identify and resolve any specific concerns you have about
    our existing hearing processes.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I will be pleased
    to answer any questions you or other members of the
    Subcommittee may have.

        Mr. Hansen. Do you want to comment on the other bill?
        Ms. Falkner. Thank you.
        The Department also does not support enactment of H.R.
    1866. The result of this bill would be increased bureaucracy,
    cost to the taxpayers, delays in decisions impacting the
    public, and probable increases in litigation. Section 3 of H.R.
    1866 requires the Secretary to establish an administrative
    appeals process for decisions by the Fish and Wildlife Service
    and the National Park Service made pursuant to NEPA. However,
    the only agency made pursuant to NEPA are whether agency
    actions requiring environmental assessment or environmental
    impact statements are categorically excluded from the
    compliance.
        The only other interpretation of section 3 is that it
    requires an appeals process for decisions that the two agencies
    make involving NEPA clients. This could then open the door to
    appeals of far more than land use decisions and could, for
    example, include appeals regarding the migratory bird hunting
    regulation. Allowing such decisions to be appealed would
    essentially end migratory bird hunting. There is virtually no
    chance that the appeals could be resolved between the time the
    data needed to set the season and bag limits becomes available
    and the end of the hunting season.
        Most importantly, there is a fundamental difference between
    the lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and Forest
    Service proprietary national parks and national wildlife
    refuges. The BLM and Forest Service plans for multiple use
    lands provide that a variety of valid but competing interests
    may exist. The extension of the appeal process for the
    decisions regarding the management and use of these lands
    impacts the situation.
        In contrast, national parks and national wildlife refuges
    are established to protect the resources found in the parks and
    to conserve our Nation's wildlife resources. No use of a
    national wildlife refuge is permitted unless a written
    determination is made after public comment that the use is
    compatible for the purposes for which the refuge was
    established. Similarly, no activity or use may occur on
    national park lands unless the Park Service determines it is
    consistent with the National Park Service Organic Act which
    requires that park resources be left unimpaired for enjoyment.
        Existing decision-making procedures for land management by
    the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Park Service appear to
    work well and have general acceptance by the public. Both the
    Fish and Wildlife Service and the Park Service have appeals
    procedures. Requiring the duplication of the BLM or Forest
    Service appeals process for the very different land use
    decisions of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Park Service
    would certainly lead to increased bureaucracy, costs and
    delays. In addition, there is a very real risk of unintended
    consequences.
        We accordingly urge this Subcommittee not to take further
    action on the bill.
        Mr. Hansen. We thank you.
        Mr. Bieti, you are recognized for five minutes.

        STATEMENT OF FRED BIETI, ISLE ROYALE BOATERS ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Bieti. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
    come here and discuss H.R. 1864, the hearings process.
        There can be no doubt that you do need a formal hearings
    process. One of the pieces of background information that I
    received was asking what areas this hearing process might
    cover. I would suggest that you should have a hearing whenever
    there is a decision circulating in the agency that, number one,
    would alter or restrict traditional visitor use; two, any
    action that would result in the removal or failure to maintain
    public facilities. You should have a hearing if the removal of
    these existing facilities may adversely affect the ability of
    the disabled to access this park or wilderness.
        The second item was a process where the public can be made
    informed in a timely fashion. There isn't a lot that I can say
    about that except that the public certainly should be informed,
    and there are websites, there is newspapers, there is a number
    of ways to inform the public.
        I would be concerned that the public have an increased
    amount of time, for example, two season cycles, if the decision
    or a plan like a general management plan would be removing
    facilities from a park. I don't think that you should allow the
    removal of facilities for 2 years after a record of decision is
    made. I give thought to the agency cooperating with groups like
    the Isle Royale Boaters Association who disseminate this
    information. A lot of us would be happy to include this
    information on widely read websites. I am sure concessionaires
    would like to pass out information relative to a plan being
    considered. I don't think getting the message out is a problem.
        A third area was the method by which these hearings should
    be conducted. These hearings can be very beneficial to an
    agency or I think they can be rather harmful. These hearings
    should be held in a public forum where the speakers are
    addressing the entire assemblage of public listeners. They
    should not be held in small group sessions where, one, the
    government officials speaking may not necessarily be held up to
    task for his thoughts that might be predisposed nor his
    comments. This divided session group seems to result in small
    groups and the public doesn't have a chance to really bring to
    bear its interest as a group.
        A fourth item that you discussed was a process to ensure
    that the public have a reasonable and timely answer to a
    question. I can tell you that does not occur and without a
    formal hearing process I can see no way for that to occur.
        In addition, they have in this process--I question what it
    is the hearing process is going to yield. If, in fact, the
    public opinion is ignored, as it has been in cases I am
    familiar with, then why have it? But I do think you should have
    the hearing process formalized. Maybe the problems that we saw
    could be taken care of.
        There were newsletters--if I may, let me talk about the
    process to develop a general management plan for Isle Royale
    national park. Your briefing paper said that people come away
    from some of these public comment sessions, one, confused and,
    two, filled with complaints. I would certainly agree. I am
    surprised to hear that the Park Service isn't aware that there
    is some problems going on. I have books that agree.
        Newsletter two came out relative to the Isle Royale plan
    and summarized the public opinion this way. It said, generally
    speaking, we find that the public thinks things are fine just
    the way they are. Questions come up and say why would we spend
    $6 million to develop a new plan when we could stay with the
    plan that we have?
        Newsletter three came up. Another newsletter came out. They
    changed the number of issues from 25 to 18. They had five
    alternative concepts. The response form gave us two issues to
    answer. One was, did we eliminate enough areas or did we
    eliminate just the right number of areas? I am paraphrasing,
    but that is how I felt the answer to be. They didn't give us
    the opportunity to speak to the big picture. If I was doing a
    survey and said, do you like a red Chevrolet or do you like a
    black Chevrolet and the person said, yes, I would like a red
    Chevrolet, that doesn't mean they don't like Fords.
        Newsletter five came out. Incidentally, I would point out
    that when we had discussions prior to newsletter five, the
    public was not allowed to comment or ask questions. The crowd
    actually got a little bit upset and said, we came here to
    learn, we came here to interact. The Park Service said, I am
    sorry, we only booked this room for 30 minutes. The public
    volunteered to get up and move their chairs to adjacent areas
    so they could ask questions.
        At the end of the session, this newsletter five pointed out
    that the public generally preferred the plan that said keep the
    status quo. I will summarize here. They said that in 350
    written comments, alternatives A and B were the most popular.
    The March meetings said, in summary, in the public meetings
    where 300 people attended the meetings, even more people
    expressed support for alternative A.
        So much for the public input. I came to Washington last
    November in what we tried as an appeals process. We met with
    the Deputy Secretary; and the comment was made to us, well, why
    would we spend all of this money on a plan and then decide to
    keep the direction we had before? We have got to change
    something. I kind of feel if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
        Item number five, you are talking about making the hearings
    a part of the official record. I guess I use some language in
    here that was strange to my friend, the attorney sitting behind
    me. He assumed that these things are assumed to be a fact. I
    said, if you have a hearings process or communications, one, do
    it in plain English, and, two, make the people tell the truth.
    If you did those two things, you would have far less confusion,
    far fewer complaints, I would say.
        If I might, I will go on to the appeals section. If you are
    going to run these together, I certainly think that if you
    don't have an appeals process this is all going to stay within
    a black box and none of these public comments have a chance to
    come out.
        Mr. Hansen. We will give you a couple of minutes on that,
    okay?
        Mr. Bieti. On the appeal process?
        Mr. Hansen. These gentlemen are testifying on two bills, so
    we gave them more time than normally.
        Mr. Bieti. I thought it was 5 minutes each.
        Mr. Hansen. We have given you 10 so far. But we will give
    you another two.
        Mr. Bieti. Oh, you have? I'm sorry.
        The type of decision that can be appealed, I would say
    anything that applies to the traditional visitor use of an area
    like a park.
        I am a little confused here. I am an engineer by trade and
    a businessperson, but when you have a Committee meeting like
    this, I am of the opinion that this meeting constitutes some
    degree of import. Back in 1976, the wilderness legislation that
    was written for Isle Royale, and I quote, ``The Senate
    committee understands that no significant expansion of boat
    docks will be made, but the continued maintenance of these
    facilities is essential.''
        Where I come from in the business and engineering world, if
    it is essential, it means that it is essential. That is plain
    English. Yet today's National Park Service interpretation of
    that is, well, it is really an allowance to do whatever we
    really think we need to do to maintain this. An allowance
    versus essential doesn't seem to cut in the area of truth in
    plain English.
        If these bills are passed, I think that you should be able
    to appeal it if you find that these decisions do not even
    follow NPS management guidelines. I have a long list of
    examples of management guidelines that are ignored daily.
        Public use limits require scientific research. Ensure that
    recreational uses are consistent with the authorizing
    legislation. Well, it seems to me that the decisions to
    authorize Isle Royale in 1931 have been redefined along the way
    so that the authorizing legislation is not recognizable.
        I can see the red light. I will stop and answer any
    questions that you might have.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Bieti. I appreciate your
    comments.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bieti follow:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.042

        A[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4045.047

        Mr. Hansen. Mr. Jim Matson, the floor is yours, sir.

        STATEMENT OF JIM MATSON, PRESIDENT, VERMILLION SERVICES

        Mr. Matson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
    Committee.
        I am Jim Matson. I live in southern Utah. It is an area of
    immense expanse and beauty, large public areas.
        If you look at Arizona and Utah, interestingly enough it
    would be counterintuitive to say, boy, those are really some
    very great places, but you would say those two States have some
    of the most urbanized populations in the area--or in the
    country, for that matter. If you take a look at the Wasatch or
    what takes place in Maripoca and Pima counties, they pretty
    well dictate and dominate what takes place in the local
    political scene.
        I am a local rural communities kind of an advocate. I live
    in an area and a county that has fewer than 5,000 people. We
    are surrounded by Federal lands, Federal administrations that
    includes Park Service, Forest Service, BLM, some 15,000 square
    miles including the Dixis National Forest, Kaibab National
    Forest, Glen Canyon recreation area, Lake Meade recreation
    area, Grand Canyon National Park, Zion National Park, Bryce
    Canyon National Park, and, of course, Pipe Springs Monument. I
    could name the BLM portions of that as they are around us.
        In looking at the processes that take place out there, our
    communities thrive or just barely exist based on what takes
    place with the Federal administration. These communities were
    put in place historically from a pioneering effort that
    basically made their living off of the resource, off of the
    land. They are still dependent on those resources even today.
        Today we have been limited pretty much to tourism. Tourism
    by itself does not pay the bills. If anything, we end up with
    seasonal employment, low-wage employment. As a result of
    closures of mills and mining operations, we have family incomes
    that have dropped from $24,000 a year to under $19,000 a year,
    and we have close to four people in each one of those families
    trying to make a living and exist in those islands as they are
    surrounded by Federal administration.
        I am quite familiar with Forest Service and BLM appeals
    procedures and also public input procedures. I can say that,
    for the most part, I support what they are doing. I just
    learned today that the Forest Service is considering adopting
    the same system that the BLM has in place for appeals, so it
    would appear there is some standardization that is taking
    place.
        I am here to talk about both the appeals and the public
    input part as it relates to Park Service and Fish and Wildlife
    activities. I support the two bills that you are considering
    and recommend their passage. I think it would go a long way to
    helping represent rural people in rural areas that need more
    than just a reliance upon the population centers to represent
    their point of views.
        In more recent years, my experience particularly with the
    listing process for the Mexican spotted owl virtually took
    place in a vacuum as far as we are concerned on what took place
    on a local basis. The process is driven out of the State, out
    of the area, by an environmental movement that pretty much
    dictated the listing of the owl in circumstances that were
    questionable at best. We would have benefited by a more open
    public involvement process.
        I can recall going to public meetings in Flagstaff and over
    in Williams wherein the Fishing and Wildlife Service panel,
    which had a contract mediator to put these public meetings on,
    sat there basically and didn't respond to questions. We had
    issues that we wanted to get addressed as best we could.
    Without the appeals process that would go along with that, you
    are forced into litigation.
        There is a large area north of the Grand Canyon in the
    Kaibab National Forest, 250,000 acres. It ended up being
    designated as critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl.
    They have yet to find an owl up there. It is a travesty because
    the process is so far out of line that you can't get in and
    break through those lines unless there is something that makes
    those people in the agencies more accountable. It is an awesome
    amount of power that the Fish and Wildlife Service is able to
    dictate based on a biological opinion.
        Those are the kinds of things that severely limit us at a
    local basis. We need to have a better way of getting input and
    to be heard and be a part of the process and not just victims
    of special interest processes.
        In another event, the California condor has been released
    on two sites in the Arizona strip. At first, the Fish and
    Wildlife Service conducted some very limited and fully attended
    meetings in Page, Flagstaff, and Kanab, Utah. When local
    elected officials and the people got an idea of what this could
    mean as it would have the reintroduction or relocation of
    condors as an endangered species, it would be like having B-52s
    fly around the countryside. After having the experience of what
    we did on the Mexican spotted owl issue, it is the kind of
    thing that really causes some concerns.
        I would have to compliment the Fish and Wildlife Service
    for taking a look at and listening to the comments and coming
    back to the table to sit down and negotiate and work some of
    these things out. Happily, we ended up working out a process
    under the 10(j) section of the Endangered Species Act in order
    to utilize an experimental nonessential population approach,
    and the condors are up there now. They are flying over the
    countryside. They go clear from Northern Arizona to Green
    River, Wyoming. They have been seen over in Grand Junction, and
    they are far outside that 10(j) area. But, for the most part,
    locally our folks have adopted those birds and have become
    quite friendly with them. It is interesting to watch them
    following the crows around and the ravens around and finding
    them at Lone Rock and at Lake Powell. You find them along the
    Colorado River. They are not recluses. They are not hiding out.
    They seem to be going where people are at, and they have good
    visibility.
        I guess I would wrap up my comments and say that if we had
    some owls around, we would like to adopt those, too.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Matson. I appreciate your
    comments.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Matson follows:]

          Statement of James L. Matson, President, Vermillion Services

        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee,
    I appreciate the opportunity to appear and testify in regard to
    the proposed legislation contained in H. R. 1864 and H.R. 1866.
    I am Jim Matson, I live, work and enjoy Southern Utah and
    Northern Arizona. Our home is in Kanab, Utah. We are completely
    surrounded by Federal lands administered by the BLM, Forest
    Service and Park Service. There is not a day that passes that
    the significance of the public lands and their impact on my
    neighbors and me isn't matter of daily discussion and concern.
    Local experiences due to cultural attachments and economic
    dependence on the land and associated resources are
    understandably necessary and generational. I have personally
    experienced both the joys and frustrations of public lands
    legislation, regulations and management. On the whole I have
    benefited professionally and personally from the availability
    of renewable resources from the National Forests and the
    grasslands of the BLM.

    Background and basis for support of H. R. 1864 and H. R. 1866:

        Public laws, policies and regulations that apply to the
    administration of public lands have always affected rural
    communities, in one way or another. During the early part of
    this century and until the early 1980's, the Congress and the
    administration concentrated its efforts on the occupation and
    development of the lands under policies of conservation ethics
    for public lands west of the 100 meridian. These conservation
    principles shaped management policies for public lands that are
    under the administration of the Park Service, Forest Service
    and BLM. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is a rather recent
    entity and has become a major regulatory and enforcement factor
    in public lands administration due to the enactment of the
    Endangered and Threatened Species Act.
        Roughly 3 percent to 5 percent of the lands in the 15,000
    square miles of South Central Utah and the Arizona Strip are in
    private ownership, the balance of the area is controlled by
    Federal agencies. As a result the communities of Alton, Big
    Water, Fredonia, Glendale, Lee's Ferry, Marble Canyon, Mt.
    Carmel, Moccasin, Skutumpah, and Vermillion Cliffs either just
    exist or prosper as the Federal agencies dictate access and
    utilization of natural resources. It is important to note that
    as the population of the United States urbanizes itself and
    becomes further removed from the land there are increasing
    major problems for rural communities and economies to cope
    with. The most formidable is community sustainability. We live
    and work in an area of enormous and spectacular beauty, but
    that alone does not sustain us. Low wage and seasonal tourism
    is simply unable to provide enough economic fuel to run our
    rural communities. To date the areas biggest export is its
    young people. Our population is gradually increasing in age, as
    our youth must go elsewhere to find opportunities to raise
    their families.
        The values of urban life are understandably distant from
    the values of deep rural life. The majority of people residing
    in the nation's urban population shape the policies of the day.
    For the most part special interest lobbying agendas on the
    environment are radically opposed to sustaining rural
    communities and peoples in isolated island communities
    surrounded by public lands.
        Prior to the closures of natural resource based businesses
    engaged in forestry and mining in Southern Utah and Northern
    Arizona the average family incomes with 1.5 people in the
    workforce was about $24,000 per year prior to 1995. Today we
    have 2.6 in the family working and making just under $19,000
    per year. Constant special interests pressures to under utilize
    economic renewable resources from public lands only burden
    rural public land dependent communities. Our communities
    possess the means and the desire to be working partners in
    developing and sustaining resource stewardship programs that
    can benefit public lands ecosystems and rural communities.
    However a willing Federal partner is either missing or
    unwilling to risk criticism for participating in ecosystem
    restoration programs that enhance landscapes and habitats.
        A missing element in all this is a lack of due process by
    all of the Federal natural resource managing and regulatory
    agencies. Environmental and cultural struggles of the past two
    decades has brought two agencies, the Forest Service and the
    BLM to a leadership role of responsible public involvement.
    Rural and public land dependent communities must have a
    reasonable opportunity to be heard and to compete with distant
    special interest agendas. At the very least, our communities
    require an affordable means of appealing Federal decisions and
    actions that threaten community sustainability.
    Appeals and adequate public hearings at the Department Interior
    for the Fish and Wildlife Service and Park Service:

        For years special interest groups have lobbied Congress,
    and Federal agencies to open up the public input and processes
    for these interests to have a chance to shape or appeal public
    land management policies and implementation decisions. In the
    long run this has proven to be a wise undertaking for both the
    BLM and Forest Service. The American people for the most part
    are quite capable of having an impact on policies and the
    politics of public resource management. There are however two
    Federal agencies, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Park
    Service lacking adequate administrative appeals procedures and
    requirements for public hearings. This situation often mandates
    the resolution of issues to the Federal courts. Litigation is
    always long, drawn out and very expensive. Most solutions to
    land and resource management issues are readily at hand through
    the administrative appeals processes including open and
    responsive public hearings. Lacking these process elements the
    Fish and Wildlife Service and Park Service operate in a manner
    with little regard for rural community values and knowledge
    about local people's connectivity to the land. Agency
    preoccupation with their daily problems and programs
    regrettably take primacy over public involvement and input
    particularly at a dependent community level. Much must be done
    about this, before we slide toward total dissatisfaction with
    all Federal land management and regulatory agencies.

    Mexican Spotted Owls

        Allow me to share a case in point and one in which I have,
    regrettably, a great deal of first hand involvement in and now
    more than just a passing interest. The listing as threatened by
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife of the Mexican spotted owl in the
    southwest, particularly the plateau areas of the Kaibab
    National Forest and Grand Canyon National Park illustrates the
    difficulty of assuring credible and supportable decisions. I
    have known from the onset that Mexican Spotted Owls simply are
    not found on the North Kaibab. Recent work and surveys indicate
    that these owls may be present in the slick rock canyon
    habitats below the rim of the canyons. After years of survey
    and management for suitable habitat for Mexican Spotted there
    has been a profound lack of confirmed sighting of any these
    owls in the forested areas of the North Kaibab Plateau. The
    Fish and Wildlife Service was assured of this countless times
    before they arbitrarily mandated critical habitat designations
    for the Kaibab for what now appears to have been a bio-
    politically driven agenda. A properly structured public input
    and hearings process would have, I am certain would have
    resulted in a more deliberate and responsive listing and
    regulatory process. The Fish and Wildlife Service under its
    current regulations failed to properly assess and deal with the
    physical realities because they simply were not required to. A
    resultant lawsuit and injunction eventually curbed unnecessary
    critical habitat restrictions. But not before the closure of
    two lumber mills and the loss of over 900 critical and valuable
    jobs to Northern Arizona and Southern Utah. A timely appeals
    process would have been of great value in sorting most of this
    stuff out.
        Regulations promulgated under the Threatened and Endangered
    Species Act are very one sided and quite subjective. Individual
    bias of Fish and Wildlife employees often becomes the rule and
    not the exception. Unsupervised Fish and Wildlife biologists
    have become awesome brokers of unabated power and impact. These
    people must be accountable for their evaluations and decisions.
    Over worked and under funded biologists often error in favor
    overly restrictive and unnecessary requirements. The far
    ranging and in most cases irreversible decisions of the Fish
    and Wildlife Service calls for a more measured and deliberate
    listing and findings process. Properly formatted administrative
    appeals requirements and open public meeting rules would go a
    long way to assuring an adequate and open program of protecting
    our plant and wildlife species.

    California Condor Relocation to the Arizona Strip

        On a different note and on one in which the outcome and
    results were of real value locally was the relocation of
    California Condors to the Vermilion and Hurricane Cliffs on the
    Arizona Strip. The Fish and Wildlife Service attempted a few
    public meetings in Page, Arizona and Kanab, Utah prior to the
    release of California Condors by the Peregrine Fund. The
    meeting were poorly noticed and sparsely attended. As local
    people became aware that endangered condors were to be
    sprinkled out over the landscapes of Northern Arizona and
    Southern Utah. Local county and community officials declared a
    high state of emergency. The Fish and Wildlife Service
    responded by saying that public meetings were held and that no
    one had objected. The response by local officials was one of
    complete surprise and amazement. Just one poorly noticed
    meeting for each community was justification for releasing an
    endangered condor with a flight range of an airplane? After the
    experience of Mexican Spotted Owls and Amber Snails we were not
    having any more of this. The Fish and Wildlife Service
    eventually followed up with improved and coordinated community
    and public involvement process for the release of California
    Condors. A Key element of this involvement resulted in the use
    of the 100(j) rule of the Threatened and Endangered Species
    Act, which allowed for the introduction to be carried out as
    experimental nonessential population of California Condors.
    We're finding that these new birds now think that their
    mentors, the common raven are pretty cool and are to be found
    hanging around campgrounds and the Colorado River. If these
    great birds had been released in the Arizona Strip as
    originally planned there would have been chaos and hell to pay
    for a process lacking in sensitivity and reasonableness. We
    have adopted these new California Condors and would probably
    feel the same about Mexican Spotted Owls if there were any
    around to get to know.

        Mr. Hansen. Mr. Monahan.

           STATEMENT OF BOB MONAHAN, CHAIRMAN, MONAHAN GROUP

        Mr. Monahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        On behalf of Gettysburg, local, State and national
    officials, historians, preservationists and historical and
    preservation groups, I want to thank you for this opportunity
    to speak to H.R. 1864 and 1866.
        Gettysburg is where I grew up and now where I raise my
    family. Gettysburg is a community of great importance to the
    American history because of its role in preservation of these
    United States. Gettysburg is a town that is tied to a co-
    existence with the National Park Service. Gettysburg a town
    that I call home with pride.
        It is in this spirit that I first approached the NPS with a
    new public-private partnership, one that could be used as a
    model of National Parks across the country, one that stressed
    cooperation between the NPS and the local community.
        During my involvement in the 1994 development concept plan
    with Gettysburg, it became very clear to me how bureaucrats
    could manipulate the process and the outcome. I withdrew my
    offer and proposal from the National Park Service because of
    concerns by the local community, national historians and
    preservationists, and affiliated groups. Their fears of
    viewshed impact, congestion, disturbing hallowed ground,
    commercialization and distrust in the National Park Service
    were all major factors in my decision. To this day, many of
    these areas of concern have not been properly addressed.
        The history of what is happening in Gettysburg over the
    past 5 years is known to some extent. However, because of a
    lack of Federal guidelines and requirements on public meetings
    and hearings regarding procedure, documentation, public
    notification, agency responsibility, follow-up and response,
    not all is known. The true story of Gettysburg has been left to
    the conscious Americans, those who have demanded responsibility
    and accountability, to fight the National Park Service, a
    bureaucracy out of control.
        Hearings are not defined to the public for greater
    understanding. Citizens come to hearings thinking that if they
    ask questions, they will be given answers. Two hearings were
    conducted in a manner where citizens asked questions, but the
    NPS stood silent. No information or little was provided. The
    public was outraged at these hearings. In fact, at one of the
    two hearings when the NPS solicitor and superintendent gathered
    the hearings to a close before the allotted time period, the
    public rose from their seats in anger and protest and refused
    to leave the room until the NPS solicitor and superintendent
    reponed the hearing.
        Although the two official hearings were transcribed by
    audio tape, the other public meetings and workshops held at the
    NPS were not transcribed. There were constant requests and
    protests by the public that recordation be done, but the NPS
    ignored the suggestions from the public. This is important
    because it allowed the National Park Service to say whatever it
    wanted to, to answer or not answer the questions without any
    record of it.
        Another case in point, an instance when two staff members
    of this committee attending a meeting in Gettysburg were
    exposed to this firsthand and publicly brought this to the
    attention of the superintendent during the meeting, their
    concerns were ignored.
        The NPS held a meeting concerning the Visitor Center/
    Cyclorama with historians, architects, and preservationists.
    During that meeting a question was asked as to why, at such an
    important meeting, which was to determine the fate of an
    important, historic Federal building, the meeting was not being
    transcribed or recorded. Afterwards, some random hand notes
    were taken by the NPS.
        By not transcribing these meetings and hearings, the NPS
    can hide and not be held accountable. The NPS can state how
    many meetings they had, but they do not have to state what
    actually happened or what was said during those meeting. In
    fact, they can simply deny or not remember what happened.
        The conduct of the NPS at Gettysburg has been and continues
    to be one of pure arrogance and disregard for local, State and
    national elected officials, Congress, national historians,
    preservationists and their organizations. This behavior has
    created a national scandal.
        Superintendent John Latschar was quoted in the York Sunday
    News on March 23, 1997, as saying "I'm bold enough and arrogant
    enough to believe that I have the training and education and
    the ability to cure a lot of Gettysburg and Eisenhower's
    problems." .
        On September 26, 1997, USA Today stated, "As for his local
    critics he, Superintendent Latschar, professes not to pay much
    attention." on July 15, 1998, the Gettysburg Times quoted
    Superintendent Latschar as saying, "Even members of Congress,
    bless their hearts, don't understand all of the legal
    ramifications of the laws they pass." .
        The NPS, through its handling and general management plan
    and proposed public-private venture, has ignored responsibility
    to its constituents to conduct its affairs and public meetings
    in open, accountable, and forthright fashion. The GMP can be
    described in two expressions: "done deal" and a "cart before
    the horse" approach to planning.
        The community was not allowed to see the particulars of the
    preferred proposal until 8 months after the winning bidder was
    selected. That proposal was selected in November, 1997; and the
    public was given a first look at the general nature of the
    proposal on July 4, 1998, a done deal. The NPS Director's Order
    No. 2 says that the GMP should be the first tier of a long-
    range planning process. The proposed GMP puts the cart before
    the horse by inserting a very specific alternative before
    laying the basic general groundwork normally presented in GMP.
        The National Environmental Protection Act mandates that NPS
    planners provide a full range of alternatives for any
    development. The GMP provided two--no action or the selected
    proposal. There was no middle ground such as rehabilitation or
    improvement of the current facility or possible placing of some
    non core essential features such as curatorial or archival in
    separate facilities nearby in the borough.
        The NPS is pushing their plan for Gettysburg because they
    see it as a way of opening the door to entering into a public-
    private partnership at a host of other national parks around
    the country. They are hoping they have found a way to gain for
    themselves millions of dollars of capital and relieve
    themselves of congressional oversight. They believe that it is
    such an attractive prospect that they have been willing to play
    fast and loose with their fundamental responsibilities and the
    facts in order to make the Gettysburg plan a reality. There is
    just too much money at stake.
        The NPS should say what they mean and mean what they say.
    They are doing neither. In the process, they diminish their own
    authority as conservators of the hallowed ground entrusted to
    their care. With hundreds of millions of dollars at stake,
    Gettysburg may only be the beginning.
        Gettysburg also proves an interesting situation for the NPS
    in its potential impact on parks around the country. The often
    pathetic way it conducted meetings and hearings left many
    individuals upset, frustrated, angry, and with a feeling of
    misrepresentation, misleading statements and betrayal.
        Of national consequence is Gettysburg's GMP and public-
    private partnership in that it will, one, be used as a national
    model; two, circumvent Federal concession law; and, three, put
    the NPS and the Federal government into for-profit businesses
    through a nonprofit foundation competing against every mom and
    pop and corporate business, and it would have devastating
    impact with communities who partner and depend on the
    relationship with the NPS.
        At Gettysburg, the NPS has never asked Congress for any
    funds to rehabilitate or build new facilities, yet through
    these public meetings and hearings the NPS has devised a scheme
    that ignored the direction of Congress when it was told that
    the plan should, quote, stop and be redone because it was
    quote, fatally flawed. Individuals who have spoken out against
    these plans have had the NPS make attempts to discredit and
    dismiss their comments to the point of ruining the reputations.
        If hearings and meetings are not run properly, then how do
    we raise concerns that are meaningful? Senators and Congressmen
    wrote and asked for an extension of the 60-day review period
    and were refused by the NPS. Why? Simply because they could
    without any ramifications.
        More importantly, what about traffic, parking, community
    impact, and survival of a living and working community? What
    about the NPS's many concerns, those of viewshed impact,
    disturbing hallowed ground, et cetera? Should they be allowed
    to ignore the concerns and issues they raise with everyone
    else? More importantly, can they break their own and Federal
    procedures and laws?
        Should they be allowed to hold hearings and refuse to
    answer questions? Do you really believe the Superintendent at
    Gettysburg when he was asked why a meeting was not being
    recorded and he responded it was too expensive to tape record
    it?
        This is bad government that has turned into bad politics
    because of extensive lobbying of Hill & Knolton and others who
    don't understand and don't care about what is really at stake.
    This is about a bureaucrat and bureaucracy out of control. It
    is about the worst of the government, a Federal agency that
    refuses the recognize the will of the people and ignore
    Congress. They have essentially told you, the elected members
    representing us, to go to hell.
        Senator Craig Thomas, Chairman of the Subcommittee on
    National Park, Historic Preservation and Recreation, said on
    February 24, 1998, "Any general management plan formulated in
    the future would be perceived by many as predetermined." .
        Mr. Hansen, you said on July 14 of this year, "This
    proposal has soured the general public's perception of the
    National Park Service and infuriated the public with this
    project." .
        Congressman Goodling of the 19th Congressional district,
    where I live, on July 14 on the floor of the House of
    Representatives said, "I am outraged over the Park Service out
    of control and its attitude towards the citizens of Gettysburg.
    I have never seen such a display of arrogance and disregard for
    the well being and opinion of those who will be impacted most."

        The NPS knows full well that the only appeal to a
    bureaucrat and bureaucracy out of control and in violation of
    Federal mandates and law is to use the judicial system. This is
    a very expensive and timely remedy to individuals, groups or to
    local governing bodies.
        I appear to you today as a direct result of this
    superintendent and the NPS's misrepresentation, misleading
    information and botched handling of meetings and hearings. As I
    speak to you today, there is an ongoing GAO investigation, a
    Federal lawsuit, a deposition of the superintendent, as well as
    a pending Inspector General investigation. We cannot allow the
    NPS to push headlong into a project casting all questions aside
    without an appeal process.
        In closing, I urge to you adopt H.R. 1864 as a means to
    standardize the procedures used by Federal agencies for public
    hearings so that the public understands what is to be expected
    from Federal agencies. I urge you to adopt H.R. 1866 in order
    to establish regulations which would address what types of
    agency decisions are appealable and who may appeal such
    decisions and establish a process that Federal agencies would
    follow for notifying the public of their appeal procedures.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Monahan. I appreciate your
    comments.
        [The statement of Mr. Monahan follows:]

      Statement of Robert J. Monahan Jr., Chairman, Monahan Group

        On behalf of Gettysburg, local, state and national elected
    officials, historians, preservationist, and historical and
    preservation groups, I thank you for this opportunity to speak
    to H.R. 1864 and H.R. 1866.
        Gettysburg is where I grew up, and where I now raise my own
    family. Gettysburg is a community of great importance in
    America's history, because of its role in the preservation of
    these United States. Gettysburg is a town that is tied to a
    coexistence with the NPS. Gettysburg is a town I call home with
    pride.
        It was in this spirit that I first approached the NPS with
    a new public-private partnership, one that could be used as a
    model in national parks across the country, one that stressed
    cooperation between the NPS and the local community.
        During my involvement with the 1994 Development Concept
    Plan at Gettysburg, it became very clear to me how bureaucrats
    could manipulate the process and the outcome. I withdrew my
    offer and proposal to the National Park Service because of
    concerns by the local community, national historians and
    preservationists, and affiliated groups. Their fears of
    viewshed impact, congestion, disturbing hallowed ground,
    commercialization and distrust of the NPS were all major
    factors in my decision. To this day, many of these areas of
    concern have not been properly addressed.
        The history of what has happened in Gettysburg over the
    past five years is known to some extent. However, because of a
    lack of Federal guidelines and requirements on public meetings
    and hearings, regarding procedure, documentation, public
    notification, agency responsibility, follow up and response,
    not all is known.
        The true story of Gettysburg has been left to the conscious
    Americans, those who have demanded responsibility and
    accountability, to fight the NPS, a bureaucracy out of control.
        Hearings are not defined to the public for greater
    understanding. Citizens come to hearings thinking that if they
    ask questions they will be given answers. Two hearings were
    conducted in a manner where citizens asked questions but the
    NPS stood silent. No information, or little information, was
    provided. The public was outraged at these hearings. In fact,
    at one of the two hearings, when the NPS solicitor and
    Superintendent gaveled the hearing to a close before the
    allotted time period, the public rose from their seats in anger
    and protest and refused to leave the room until the NPS
    solicitor and Superintendent reopened the hearing.
        Although the two official hearings were transcribed by
    audio tape the other public meetings and workshops held by the
    NPS were not transcribed. There were constant requests and
    protests by the public that recordation be done but the NPS
    ignored the suggestions from the public. This is important
    because it allowed the NPS to say whatever it wanted to, to
    answer or not to answer questions without any record of it.
        Another case in point--an instance when two staff members
    of this Committee, attending a meeting in Gettysburg, were
    exposed to this first hand and publicly brought this to the
    attention of the Superintendent at the meeting. Their concerns
    were ignored.
        The NPS held a meeting concerning the Visitor Center/
    Cyclorama with historians, architects and preservationists.
    During that meeting a question was asked as to why, at such an
    important meeting, which was to determine the fate of an
    important, historic Federal building, the meeting was not being
    transcribed or recorded. Afterwards, some random, hand notes
    were taken by NPS.
        By not transcribing these meetings/hearings, the NPS can
    hide and not be held accountable. The NPS can state how many
    meetings they had but they do not have to state what actually
    happened or what was said during those meetings. In fact, they
    can simply deny or not remember what happened.
        The conduct of the NPS at Gettysburg has been, and
    continues to be, one of pure arrogance and disregard for local,
    state and national elected officials, Congress, national
    historians, preservationists, and their organizations. This
    behavior has created a national scandal.
        Superintendent John Latschar was quoted in the York Sunday
    News of March 23, 1997 as saying ``I'm bold enough and arrogant
    enough to believe I have the training, the education, and the
    ability to cure a lot of Gettysburg's and Eisenhower's
    problems.'' On September 26, 1997, the USA Today stated ``As
    for his vocal critics, he (Superintendent Latschar) professes
    not to pay much attention.'' And on July 15, 1998 the
    Gettysburg Times quoted Superintendent Latschar as saying
    ``Even members of Congress, bless their hearts, don't
    understand all of the legal ramifications of the laws that they
    pass.''
        The NPS, through its handling of its General Management
    Plan and proposed public private venture, has ignored
    responsibility to its constituents to conduct its affairs at
    public meetings in an open, accountable and forthright fashion.
    The GMP can be described in two expressions: ``Done deal'' and
    a ``cart before the horse'' approach to planning. The community
    was not allowed to see the particulars of the preferred
    proposal until eight months after the winning bidder had been
    selected. That proposal was selected in November of 1997 and
    the public was given a first look at the general nature of the
    proposal on July 24, 1998. A done deal. The NPS Director's
    Order No. 2 says that GMP should be the 2st tier of a long
    range planning process. The proposed GMP puts the ``cart before
    the horse'' by inserting a very specific alternative before
    laying the basic, general groundwork normally presented in a
    General Management Plan.
        The National Environmental Protection Act mandates that the
    NPS planners provide a full range of alternatives for any
    development. The GNMP provided two--no action or the selected
    proposal. There was no middle ground such as rehabilitation and
    improvement of the current facility or the possible placing of
    some non ``core'' essential features, such as curatorial and
    archival, in separate facilities nearby in the borough.
        The NPS is pushing their plan for Gettysburg because they
    see it as a way of opening the door to entering into a public-
    private partnership at a host of other National Parks around
    the country. They are hoping they have found a way to gain for
    themselves hundreds of millions of dollars of capital and
    relieve themselves of congressional oversight. They believe it
    is such an attractive prospect that they have been willing to
    play fast and loose with their fundamental responsibilities,
    and the facts, in order to make the Gettysburg Plan a reality.
    There is just too much money at stake.
        The NPS should say what they mean and should mean what they
    say. They are doing neither. In the process, they diminish
    their own authority as the conservators of the hallowed lands
    entrusted to their care. With hundreds of millions of dollars
    at stake, Gettysburg may be only the beginning.
        Gettysburg proves a very interesting situation for the NPS
    and its potential impact on parks around the country. The often
    pathetic way it conducted meetings and hearings left many
    individuals upset, frustrated, angry, and with a feeling of
    misrepresentation, misleading statements and betrayal. Of
    national consequence is Gettysburgs' GMP and public private
    partnership in that it will
             be used as a national model circumvent Federal
            concession law
             Put the NPS and Federal Government into for-profit
            businesses through a non-profit organization competing against
            every Mom & Pop and corporate business, having devastating
            impact on communities who partner and depend on their
            relationship with NPS
        At Gettysburg, the NPS has never asked Congress for any funds to
    rehabilitate or build new facilities. Yet, through these public
    meetings and hearings, the NPS has devised a scheme that ignored the
    direction of Congress when it was told that the Plan should be
    ``stopped and redone'' because it is ``fatally flawe.'' Individuals who
    have publicly spoken out against these plans have had the NPS make
    attempts to discredit and dismiss their comments to the point of
    ruining their reputations.
        If hearings and meetings are not run properly, how then do
    we raise concerns that are meaningful? Senators and Congressmen
    wrote and asked for an extension of the 60-day review period
    and were refused by the NPS--why? Simply because they could
    without any ramifications. More importantly, what about
    traffic, parking, community impact, and survival as a living
    and working community? What about NPS's many concerns: those of
    viewshed impact, disturbing hallowed ground, etc? Should they
    be allowed to ignore the concerns and issues they raise with
    everyone else? And even more importantly, can they break their
    own, and Federal, procedures and laws?
        Should they be allowed to hold hearings and refuse to
    answer questions? Do you really believe the Superintendent at
    Gettysburg when he was asked why a meeting was not being
    recorded and he responded it was too expensive to tape record
    it?
        This is bad government that has turned into bad politics
    because of extensive lobbying of Hill & Knolton and others, who
    don't understand and don't care about what is really at stake.
    This is about a bureaucrat and bureaucracy out of control. It
    is about the worst of government--a Federal agency that refuses
    to recognize the will of the people and ignore Congress. They
    have essentially told you--the elected members representing
    us--to go to hell.
        Senator Craig Thomas, Chairman of the Subcommittee on
    National Park, Historic Preservation and Recreation said on
    February 24, 1998 ``Any General Manaement Plan formulated in
    the future will be perceived by many as `predetermined.' ''
        Mr. Hansen, on July 14, 1999, said ``. . . . this proposal
    has soured the general public's perception of the Park Service
    and infuriated the public with this project.''
        Congressman Goodling, on July 14, 1999, on the floor of the
    House of Representatives said, ``I am outraged over the Park
    Service out of control and its attitude towards the citizens of
    Gettysburg. I have never seen such a display of arrogance and
    disregard for the well being and opinions of those who will be
    most impacted. . . .
        The NPS knows full well that the only appeal to a
    bureaucrat and bureaucracy out of control and in violation of
    Federal mandates and law is to use the judicial system. This is
    a very expensive and timely remedy to individuals, groups or to
    local government bodies.
        I appear before you today, as a direct result of this
    superintendent and the NPS's misrepresentation, misleading
    information and botched handling of meetings and hearing. As I
    speak to you today, there is an ongoing GAO investigation and
    Federal lawsuit, and a deposition of the Superintendent,
    scheduled within days, as well as a pending Inspector General
    investigation. We cannot allow the NPS to push headlong into a
    project casting all who question them aside without an appeal
    process.
        In closing, I want to urge you to adopt H.R. 1864 as a
    means to standardize the procedures used by Federal agencies
    for public hearings so that the public understands what is to
    be expected from Federal agencies. I urge you to adopt H.R.
    1866 in order to establish regulations which would address what
    types of agency decisions are appealable, who may appeal such
    decisions, and establish a process that Federal agencies would
    follow for notifying the public of their appeal procedures.

        Mr. Hansen. Now, you may ask yourself the question of why
    do we come up with legislation. Basically, it is because we are
    all elected by the public. Probably three of us here have over
    500,000 people that we represent. I have been here 10 terms
    now, 20 plus years, and I have sat on six committees and
    chaired three committees. I would assume that the thing that I
    have had more comment on is public hearings on the Park Service
    and Fish and Wildlife than any others. We don't just abstract
    and pull these out of the hat.
        When I read Ms. Falkner's statement that everything is
    going fine, why does the public respond that way? Why do they
    not think that? Contrary to what some folks think in
    Washington, we are here to represent the people. This is a
    people's government. And if the people don't like something,
    that is how Congress gets involved. We don't abstractly pull
    this out.
        I haven't heard that much on the Forest Service, strangely
    enough. Maybe Jim Matson has, because I know he has worked with
    them a lot. I haven't heard too much on BLM. I guess, of the
    four, BLM would be the lowest. Those other two that we are
    specifically addressing here, we got into that.
        With that little editorial, I will turn to my colleagues
    for questions. The gentleman from Nevada.
        Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Indeed, I would echo your comments about public sentiments
    and statements regarding public hearings by certain agencies,
    the Department of the Interior. I think Ms. Falkner can tell by
    the statements that were presented by these gentlemen that
    there is a great deal of cynicism in the general public about
    your agency.
        With that, I would ask, having read your statement here, I
    noticed that you indicated that you think it would be a better
    idea if all Federal agencies were included in this bill, not
    just the Department of the Interior. Is that a correct
    presentation of your written statement?
        Ms. Falkner. I think a more accurate statement would be
    that the findings of the bill suggested that this was a problem
    governmentwide. And so we are looking to you, if you believe
    that this is a problem that is governmentwide, then we would
    ask that the other agencies be put under this legislation as
    well and that they be allowed to comment as well.
        Mr. Gibbons. So you would advocate that all agencies be put
    under this same standard?
        Ms. Falkner. If the findings of this legislation are that
    this is a governmentwide problem, yes.
        Mr. Gibbons. Ms. Falkner, whenever there is a public
    hearing taken by your agency, what do you do with the records
    of that public hearing?
        Ms. Falkner. The records become part of the decision-making
    record. If it is a rule, for example, it becomes part of the
    rule-making record. And those comments are then made part of
    the decision-making process for the final decision on the rule.
        Mr. Gibbons. Do you keep the records?
        Ms. Falkner. They are maintained.
        Mr. Gibbons. All comments from the public?
        Ms. Falkner. Comments that are received are maintained.
        Mr. Gibbons. Is there a standard format that you adhere to
    for those public hearings that you do undertake?
        Ms. Falkner. Most of the rule-making hearings that we do
    are informal in nature. Some of the processes vary depending on
    the size of the public that is involved and the nature of the
    hearing itself.
        Mr. Gibbons. Would you state that it is the policy of your
    Department that you respond to all legitimate questions that
    are proposed by the public?
        Ms. Falkner. In a rule-making context under the
    Administrative Procedures Act we are required to respond to all
    significant comments within the final rule-making.
        Mr. Gibbons. What about at any of these other formal or
    informal hearings when the public asks questions? What is your
    policy? What is the position of your agency with regard to
    responding to public questions?
        Ms. Falkner. We believe it is important to respond to the
    public.
        Mr. Gibbons. Do you?
        Ms. Falkner. We attempt to do that. It is important to
    remember, though, that we may be limited in answering a
    particular type of question because it would be inappropriate
    under another piece of legislation such as the Administrative
    Procedure Act from making a final determination before all
    comments are received.
        Mr. Gibbons. Let me ask one of these other three gentlemen
    their comments. You just heard from the agency about their
    policy about answering public questions. Do you have a response
    to that, Mr. Bieti?
        Mr. Bieti. Yes. Bull.
        Mr. Gibbons. What was that again? You can say it.
        Mr. Bieti. Bullshit. We went into this being turned down.
    We wanted to read these public comments that were recorded. We
    were forced through the Freedom of Information Act to pay for
    4,300 pages of comment. The superintendent alleged for a year
    that there was public support of this plan. Out of 616
    comments, for example, we went through, put into a spreadsheet
    and found four that said we want nonmotorized areas. Four is,
    in the vernacular of the Park Service, most or more or many.
    Four out of 616 where I come from isn't much.
        Mr. Gibbons. Let me interrupt you and make a real quick
    comment in the time I have. I want to go back to Ms. Falkner
    and ask, if these public hearings that you conduct, are any of
    them done where the public is not permitted to ask questions?
        Ms. Falkner. I am not familiar with that.
        Mr. Gibbons. Is anyone behind you who could testify to this
    matter and give us an answer to that question?
        Ms. Falkner. I think the nature of a public hearing is to
    get information.
        Mr. Gibbons. The question is, do you ever conduct a public
    hearing where the public is not permitted to ask a question?
        Ms. Falkner. What I am hearing is that we allow the
    questions to be asked. In some cases, we cannot provide an
    answer at the public hearing.
        Mr. Gibbons. In response to my earlier question, is it the
    policy of your Department to answer questions, obviously that
    would then correct that previous misstatement that it is not
    the policy of your agency to answer the questions of the public
    because you are saying now that you don't permit an answer to
    the question at these hearings.
        The other question that didn't get answered is, at any of
    those hearings are the public precluded from asking a question?
    That is not a statement of saying, well, they can ask a
    question, but we won't answer it. Are they precluded from
    asking a question in any of these hearings?
        Ms. Falkner. I am not familiar with that unless there is a
    question of timing. In some cases we have enormous attendance
    at hearings and maybe not everybody may be allowed to speak.
        Mr. Hansen. Let's have another round, shall we?
        The gentleman from Colorado.
        Mr. Mark Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        As I begin, I just want to make the comment to the Chairman
    and my colleagues that I stayed for the hearing because I have
    an interest in this issue and bring an open mind and don't
    bring a prescribed point of view on this. I think there are
    some important issues that have been raised and this is an
    issue that ought to be looked at in a bipartisan fashion. I
    look forward to doing that with you.
        In that spirit, I want to ask a question of Ms. Falkner. I
    think you mentioned a concern that if H.R. 1864 were enacted it
    could lead to some litigation over this issue of procedure. If
    we take the bill to markup, is this something that we could
    address, some ideas that you might have to speak to your
    concerns about litigation based on procedures?
        Ms. Falkner. I think it is something that we would be
    willing to work with the Committee on.
        Mr. Mark Udall. You would prefer to have additional time,
    to provide us with some specifics? Is that what I hear you
    saying?
        Ms. Falkner. Yes.
        Mr. Mark Udall. I did--in response to my colleague from
    Nevada's questions, the hearings that I have been to seem to me
    to have two purposes, one to gather input from the public; the
    second purpose is often to educate the public. I know there is
    a balancing act that has to take place. In my own experience of
    holding town meetings, it seems to me the best policy is to
    allow the public to speak as much as possible, to hear from
    them. I hope the agencies involved continue to keep that in
    mind.
        Let me direct a couple more questions your way. Moving to
    H.R. 1866, I read it as saying, and I am curious if you read it
    similarly that it would require the Fish and Wildlife Service
    to revise its appeals and procedures for decisions under the
    Endangered Species Act. Would you comment on that?
        Also, answer if you can what is the current procedure when
    you go through an appeals process around the ESA?
        Ms. Falkner. I am going to ask somebody from the Fish and
    Wildlife Service to respond to those questions directly. They
    would be more familiar with that appeals process and the
    opportunity that somebody may have to make a comment on that
    decision, if you don't mind.
        Mr. Mark Udall. Is there somebody here who could do that?
    Mr. Chairman, is that----
        Mr. Hansen. If they would step forward and grab a mike and
    identify themselves, we would appreciate it.
        Mr. Miller. My name is Martin Miller. I am with the
    Division of Endangered Species in the Fish and Wildlife
    Service. There is no formal appeal process for a listing
    decision under the Endangered Species Act.
        Mr. Mark Udall. There is no formal process that you are
    aware of before or after the decision?
        Mr. Miller. That is correct.
        Mr. Mark Udall. Mr. Chairman, at some point you may have a
    comment on this as well, given your experience.
        Ms. Falkner, when I looked at Mr. Bieti's testimony--and if
    I might add an aside, Mr. Bieti, maybe we could clarify your
    earlier statement that you expressed some doubt about whether
    the Fish and Wildlife Service and other have taken your input.
    But it seemed that one concern about the hearings is that
    sometimes the open house format is seen as less satisfactory.
    How do you go about deciding when to use that open house
    format?
        Ms. Falkner. The agencies make a decision based upon the
    community that they are going into, the issues that are
    involved. For example, if it is an Endangered Species Act
    listing and there is a request for a formal hearing, they must
    go through a formal hearing. Otherwise, the intent of the Fish
    and Wildlife Service is to get as much information out as
    quickly and easily as possible. The informal hearing such as
    open houses, by and large, seem to work best. We have a lot of
    people attending those. There is much more of a dialogue
    exchanged at those meetings in the context of a formal hearing.
        Mr. Mark Udall. You mentioned the Fish and Wildlife
    Service. Is that similar to the approaches by the other
    Interior agencies? Can you comment?
        Ms. Falkner. They make decisions based upon the nature of
    the issue involved, the community that they are going into,
    whether or not there has been a request as well for a formal
    hearing.
        Mr. Mark Udall. Would you agree that it is a policy or at
    least a mindset within the Department that a mix of hearings is
    often appropriate, that that is considered at least in the
    process?
        Ms. Falkner. Yes. As you mentioned earlier, sometimes the
    purpose of a hearing can be two-fold. One is to actually
    exchange information and the second is to receive information
    from the public. The agencies need the flexibility to determine
    how best to conduct hearings for those particular purposes.
    Some people are intimidated by a more formal process and prefer
    to enter their comments in a less formal setting such as an
    open house.
        Mr. Mark Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my time is
    up.
        If I could make one brief comment which I think would speak
    to your concern. It has to do with the Federal Highway
    Administration, which is not covered by part of this
    legislation, but there is a proposal in my district to pave a
    particular rugged high alpine road. The Federal Highway
    Administration continues to just hold open house type meetings
    for public input. The communities all around that area kept
    calling for more formal hearings, and the Federal Highway
    Administration refused to call those kinds of hearings. It
    speaks exactly to the situation that you brought attention to
    with this legislation.
        Mr. Hansen. I appreciate the gentleman's comments.
        We will have another round of questioning.
        We don't want to beat up on you folks. Please don't take it
    that way. We realize that you are very strong public servants,
    but our job is to pass legislation when we see a problem.
        Frankly, as I think back to all of the complaints that we
    have had about public hearings, the main one goes this way. It
    says, the agency, whoever it may be, in many cases the Fish and
    Wildlife especially, comes in with preconceived plans that are
    already determined and then work to that. Honestly, I have
    heard employees of different organizations say, we just got to
    go through these hoops before we can implement what we want to
    do anyway. I will ask you three gentlemen, have you had that
    experience or am I just getting the wrong complaints or are
    these just a bunch of people who are perennial naggers?
        Mr. Monahan. I would say your assessment is correct. There
    were decisions made, and it goes back to the general management
    plan and the Director's Order No. 2 which states that that is
    first tier in the planning process. Unfortunately, this is a
    done deal, as has been said, and predetermined.
        You talked about the hearings earlier. They had an open
    period of 60 days for review, and then it was left not to the
    National Park Service, here to Congress or to the regional
    administrator, but to the local superintendent to determine
    whether he wanted to extend the opportunity that people had to
    address concerns that they had. He denied that.
        A lot of what we have seen in Gettysburg and continue to
    see basically about the National Park Service made the decision
    and was going to move ahead regardless--that was very clear
    when they ignored your wishes when you called the plan fatally
    flawed, this Committee, and asked to have it stopped and be
    redone and then proceeded to put it through the 30-day, no
    action period. So as is very clear in my mind and minds of many
    other people, when they make a decision, they just, as you say,
    jump through the hoops.
        Mr. Hansen. Before I came here, I was in the State
    legislature, and I was speaker of the house. We had a public
    hearing with the Federal folks in the State capital. And Scott
    Mathieson, who was governor at the time, really fine gentleman,
    different political persuasion than I am, we sat and listened
    to that. Almost every legislator there testified a certain way,
    as did the public at two other meetings. It came out exactly
    the way they presented, and it didn't change one iota.
        Scott was really ticked off. I remember him flying back and
    beating up on Secretary Cecil Anders at the time, saying what
    the hell are these meetings for? They didn't pay attention to
    us.
        That is when one of the guys that conducted the meeting
    said, I don't care you guys said, we had to go through these
    hoops.
        I found it very distressing. I hope that isn't the case. If
    I hold--back to Ms. Falkner, why would it be? This is an unfair
    question because I am using knowledge that you don't have, and
    I apologize to you. Why would it be we get so many complaints
    about you folks?
        Ms. Falkner. I am sorry?
        Mr. Hansen. Why do we get more complaints about the Park
    Service and Fish and Wildlife on hearings than we do on any
    other agency in government?
        Ms. Falkner. As I said, Mr. Chairman, I am unfamiliar with
    the complaints that you are receiving.
        Mr. Hansen. I will get you some. That is only fair. That is
    not fair to ask you that kind of question. I realize that.
        But you say, why are we getting complaints on all of these
    folks? That is why we have hearings like this. We have some
    hang-ups. We know that you operate under different laws. Some
    of us are of the opinion that maybe we should have had a
    hearing on the Grand Staircase Escalante, but we fully realize
    that was done under the 1906 antiquities law and did not
    require that as some of these others do.
        Mr. Monahan, do you want to make a comment?
        Mr. Monahan. I consider myself a friend of the parks, and I
    have worked over the years as I grew up in Gettysburg to
    support the National Park Service in many ways. The unfortunate
    part is that many people that live in and around a National
    Park have an attitude, and the attitude is the Park Service
    will do what the Park Service is going to do. Unfortunately,
    they did it one too many times in Gettysburg, and that is why
    all of the controversy has erupted.
        I want to be clear with these folks that are here today. I
    think the National Park Service is an institution that we need
    to give our support to, but the other side of the coin is that
    I don't think in many instances it goes both ways. I just want
    to be on the record speaking as a friend of the park even
    though I have testified on serious conditions that have been
    occurring in Gettysburg.
        Mr. Hansen. We have 370 something units in the Park Service
    now. The majority of them do a darn good job. Secondly, a lot
    of these folks can only operate under the laws that come out of
    this group. We give them a law, a lot of latitude. They have to
    interpret it and go from there. Tough job. Pleasing everybody
    is very hard.
        Mr. Matson, your comments.
        Mr. Matson. I would like to comment in terms of a
    responsive process that we can deal with that might be
    standardized between the agencies that are involved in land
    management or resource management issues. The only avenue that
    is left open to us if we don't have an adequate public response
    process and questions and answers and appeals is litigation.
    Then you are talking about expense and cost and frustration and
    time. Those are the kinds of things that local communities and
    small county governments cannot afford to do. We think this
    would be a real nice process to help deal with some of that
    stuff and get issues dealt with in a more responsive manner.
        Mr. Hansen. I agree with you. Especially the little guy
    when he gets into this and he has no appeal but the court. He
    is pretty well had.
        As you mention in your testimony, look at all of the little
    guys that have gone under, especially down in your area. I use
    Escalante sawmills as a classic example. And the company I
    think you used to be associated with, Kaibab Industries, they
    finally threw their hands in the air and that type of thing.
        The gentleman from Nevada.
        Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I only have one brief final question, because I think it
    deals exactly with the subject that we are talking about here
    in the whole process in an effort to get to some public
    confidence in the decision process. I would go back to Ms.
    Falkner and ask her if there has ever been a discussion within
    the agency with regard to establishing an appeals process for
    these various Park Services and Fish and Wildlife Service so
    there is an available recourse for some of these decisions?
    Have you ever had a such a discussion within your Department of
    Interior?
        Ms. Falkner. I am unfamiliar with that type of discussion.
    I can find out whether that kind of discussion has ever
    occurred, but I am unfamiliar with that.
        Mr. Gibbons. Would you ask that question and submit it for
    the record for this Committee, whether there has been a
    discussion and when and get the details and the record of that
    decision?
        Ms. Falkner. Yes.
        [The information follows:]
        Mr. Gibbons. With that, Mr. Chairman, I have no further
    questions.
        Mr. Hansen. I would just like to end it on this.
        Ms. Falkner, you may be of the opinion in your testimony
    that the Interior Department opposes these two pieces of
    legislation. I don't know if that is in cement, we oppose it
    regardless of what you say in it, or is there a place you would
    like to give us some opportunity or some input that you feel
    would make it better legislation of if you just feel it is
    unnecessary, like you say in your statement, let us know that.
    But if you feel there is something in there that would improve
    it or possibly make the whole process better, we would like to
    hear from you. If not, we are going to continue ahead with this
    legislation. If you would like to write us a letter saying the
    President is going to suggest a veto, I would like to have that
    because that will tell me what to pocket it with before I send
    it to the White House.
        With that, thank you very much. We will consider this
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]