[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.]