    [House Hearing, 107 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

      DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS AND OTHER
                                    ISSUES

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

                            OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARINGS

                                   before the

          SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS

                                     of the

                             COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

              July 20, 2002 in Cruz Bay, St. John, Virgin Islands
            July 22, 2002 in Frederiksted, St. Croix, Virgin Islands

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 107-143

                                   __________

               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://resourcescommittee.house.gov

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
                                WASHINGTON : 2003

    80-850 PS

    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
    Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

                             COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

                        JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
           NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

    Don Young, Alaska,                   George Miller, California
      Vice Chairman                      Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
    W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana     Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
    Jim Saxton, New Jersey               Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
    Elton Gallegly, California           Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
    John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee           Samoa
    Joel Hefley, Colorado                Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
    Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland         Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
    Ken Calvert, California              Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
    Scott McInnis, Colorado              Calvin M. Dooley, California
    Richard W. Pombo, California         Robert A. Underwood, Guam
    Barbara Cubin, Wyoming               Adam Smith, Washington
    George Radanovich, California        Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
    Walter B. Jones, Jr., North              Islands
        Carolina                         Ron Kind, Wisconsin
    Mac Thornberry, Texas                Jay Inslee, Washington
    Chris Cannon, Utah                   Grace F. Napolitano, California
    John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania       Tom Udall, New Mexico
    Bob Schaffer, Colorado               Mark Udall, Colorado
    Jim Gibbons, Nevada                  Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
    Mark E. Souder, Indiana              Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
    Greg Walden, Oregon                  Hilda L. Solis, California
    Michael K. Simpson, Idaho            Brad Carson, Oklahoma
    Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado         Betty McCollum, Minnesota
    J.D. Hayworth, Arizona               Tim Holden, Pennsylvania
    C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
    Tom Osborne, Nebraska
    Jeff Flake, Arizona
    Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana

                          Tim Stewart, Chief of Staff
               Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel/Deputy Chief of Staff
                    Steven T. Petersen, Deputy Chief Counsel
                        Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
                     James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
                   Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel

                                     ------

          SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS

                   GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman
          DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands Ranking Democrat Member

    Elton Gallegly, California            Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
    John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee       Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
     Joel Hefley, Colorado                   Samoa
    Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland         Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
    Walter B. Jones, Jr., North          Tom Udall, New Mexico
        Carolina,                        Mark Udall, Colorado
      Vice Chairman                      Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
    Mac Thornberry, Texas                Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
    Chris Cannon, Utah                   Hilda L. Solis, California
    Bob Schaffer, Colorado               Betty McCollum, Minnesota
    Jim Gibbons, Nevada
    Mark E. Souder, Indiana
    Michael K. Simpson, Idaho
    Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on July 20, 2002....................................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the
          Virgin Islands.............................................     3
        Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of California....................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     3

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Berry, David, Fisherman......................................    46
            Prepared statement of....................................    48
        Cole, Hon. Donald G., Senator, 24th Legislature of the U.S.
          Virgin Islands.............................................    23
            Prepared statement of....................................    25
        Jackson, Myron, Department of Natural Resources..............    28
        Kean, James, Landowner, U.S. Virgin Islands, Prepared
          statement of...............................................    54
        Kessler, Joe, President, Friends of Virgin Islands National
          Park.......................................................    42
            Prepared statement of....................................    44
        Liburd, Hon. Almando ``Rocky'', President, 24th Legislature
          of the Virgin Islands......................................    19
            Prepared statement of....................................    22
        Mainella, Fran P., Director, National Park Service, U.S.
          Department of the Interior.................................     6
            Prepared statement of....................................     9
        Monsanto, Lorelie, Landowner.................................    38
            Prepared statement of....................................    40

    Additional materials supplied:
        Barshinger, Craig, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands, Letter
          submitted for the record by The Honorable Donna M.
          Christensen................................................    57

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on July 22, 2002....................................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the
          Virgin Islands.............................................    61
        Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of California....................................    59
            Prepared statement of....................................    61

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Brown, Virdin C., Chair, Caribbean Fisheries Council.........   100
            Prepared statement of....................................   102
        Mainella, Fran P., Director, National Park Service, U.S.
          Department of the Interior.................................    63
            Prepared statement of....................................    66
        McAuliffe, Robert N., Fisherman..............................    91
            Prepared statement of....................................    92
        McIntosh, Maxwell, Salt River National Historical Park
          Commission.................................................    85
            Prepared statement of....................................    86
        Plaskett, Hon. Dean C., Commissioner, Department of Planning
          and Natural Resources......................................    75
            Prepared statement of....................................    80
        Pugh, Michelle, Owner, Dive Experience.......................    90
            Prepared statement of....................................    90
        Turner, Bill, Executive Director, St. Croix Environmental
          Association................................................   109
            Prepared statement of....................................   111
        Tutein, Joel A., Superintendent for Christiansted National
          Historic Site, Buck Island Reef National Monument and the
          Salt River Bay National Historic Park and Ecological
          Preserve...................................................    69

       OVERSIGHT HEARING ON VIRGIN ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK AND THE VIRGIN
                     ISLANDS CORAL REEF NATIONAL MONUMENT.

                                  ----------

                            Saturday, July 20, 2002

                         U.S. House of Representatives

          Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands

                             Committee on Resources

                       Cruz Bay, St. John, Virgin Islands

                                  ----------

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., Virgin
    Islands Legislature Building, Hill Top Building, Cruz Bay, St.
    John, Virgin Islands, Hon. George Radanovich [Chairman of the
    Subcommittee] presiding.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Radanovich. Good morning, everybody. My name is George
    Radanovich, and I represent the 19th District in California
    which is near Yosemite National Park, and I am Chairman of the
    Subcommittee of the National Parks, Recreation & Public Lands.
        Can you hear me OK in this--
        Audience. No.
        Mr. Radanovich. No? We need to turn the volume up. Can I
    get some help here?
        Can you hear me now?
        Audience. Yes.
        Mr. Radanovich. Is that better? Does it need to be better?
    It's not good enough. Can you hear me now? OK.
        OK. My name is George Radanovich, and I represent the 19th
    District in California. I'm also Chairman of the Subcommittee
    on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands.
        It is a great pleasure to be here on this beautiful Island
    of St. John, and I want to thank Delegate Donna Christensen for
    inviting us down and hosting this event so that we can learn
    more about the issues of the Virgin Islands National Park and
    the Virgin Islands in general.
        So, thank you very much, Donna, and we are very much
    looking forward to it.
        There are a number of issues on the island that we want to
    examine today. Among the important issues is the legality of
    former President Clinton's national monument designation of the
    Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument.
        The Antiquities Act of 1906 clearly states that all
    monument designations must be made on lands owned or controlled
    by the Government of the United States, and must be confined to
    the smallest area compatible with the proper care and
    management of the objects to be protected.
        Many people in the Virgin Islands believe the Clinton
    proclamations violated both provisions of the law.
        One big question still looming is who actually owns the
    submerged lands.
        This question takes on great significance because ownership
    of the submerged lands in question was transferred to the
    Government of the Virgin Islands pursuant to the Territorial
    Submerged Land Act of 1974. When the submerged lands were
    claimed by the Federal Government and the Clinton
    administration it opened up the question as to what lands were
    actually transferred to the Virgin Islands in 1974.
        Associated with this monument designation is the
    elimination, with two exceptions, by the Clinton
    administration, of the fishing rights of the residents of the
    Virgin Islands. Fishing and rights to these fishing areas are
    part of the history and culture of the Virgin Islands.
        These fishing rights were extinguished by the former
    president, even though the threat, if any, to this resource has
    not been adequately explored. In fact, no threat of overfishing
    has ever been mentioned in the proclamation.
        Another issue to be examined today is access to private
    inholdings in the Virgin Islands National Park where conflicts
    have arisen between private landowners and the National Park
    Service over access to the private lands.
        Many of its longtime residents who inherited property
    within the Park have not been able to develop their land to
    their benefit.
        As a result, groups like the Association of Concerned
    Native Virgin Islanders, Incorporated have demanded the
    immediate and unconditional access to their property. They
    assert that since 1960 no Virgin Islander has been able to
    develop land given to them by their families.
        Other issues we will look at include entrance fees for
    Virgin Islands residents into the National Park, permanent fees
    for taxi and tour operators for the National Park, and the
    expansion of a school in St. John into the National Park. I am
    very much looking forward to the testimony from all our
    witnesses, including the Governor of the Virgin Islands, and
    all the other elected officials, along with the residents of
    the Virgin Islands.
        And with that I want to thank, again, Mrs. Christensen, and
    I will turn my time over to her.
        Before I do that, though, I will mention that members will
    be given a chance to give opening statements. We'll go to our
    first panel who will speak for 5 minutes. We'll open it up for
    questions, and invite the next panel.
        And I can assure you that in this process--because I know
    some people complained about only being able to speak for 5
    minutes--with the statements, combined with the questions that
    are going to be asked afterwards, I can assure you that all of
    the issues will be highly visible and recorded into the record,
    which is the most important thing.
        The important reason for doing a hearing is getting all the
    facts into the record.
        So that's our point today, and we'll make sure that all of
    the information is there.
        So with that, Donna, thank you very much, and I turn my
    time over to you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]

          Statement of The Honorable George P. Radanovich, Chairman,
          Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands

        Good morning everyone. My name is George Radanovich, representing
    the 19th District of California, and am Chairman of the Subcommittee on
    National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands. It is a great pleasure to
    be here on the beautiful island of St. John and I want to thank
    Delegate Donna Christensen for inviting me down and hosting this event
    so that we can conduct this field hearing.
        There are a number of issues on the island that we intend to
    examine today. Among the more important issues is the legality of
    former President Clinton's nation monument designation of the Virgin
    Islands Coral Reef National Monument. The Antiquities Act of 1906
    clearly states that all monument designations must be made on lands
    ``owned or controlled by the Government of the United States'' and must
    be ``confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and
    management of the objects to be protected''. Many people in the Virgin
    Islands believe the Clinton proclamations violated both these
    provisions of law. One big question still looming out there is who
    actually owns the submerged lands. This question takes on great
    significance because ownership of the submerged lands in question were
    transferred to the Government of the Virgin Islands pursuant to the
    Territorial Submerged lands Act of 1974. When the submerged lands were
    claimed by the Federal Government and Clinton Administration, it opened
    the question as to what lands were actually transferred to the Virgin
    Islands in 1974.
        Associated with this monument designation is the elimination, with
    two exceptions, by the Clinton Administration of the fishing rights of
    the residents of the Virgin Islands. Fishing and rights to these
    fishing areas are part of the history and culture of the Virgin
    Islands. These fishing rights were extinguished by former President
    Clinton even though the threat, if any, to this resource has not been
    adequately explored. In fact, no threat of overfishing was ever
    mentioned in the proclamation.
        Another issue to be examined today is access to private inholdings
    in Virgin Island National Park where conflicts have arisen between
    private landowners and the National Park Service over access to their
    private lands. Many of its longtime residents who inherited property
    within the park have not been able to develop their land to their
    benefit. As a result, groups like the Association of Concerned Native
    Virgin Islanders, Inc., have demanded the immediate and unconditional
    access to their property. They assert, that since 1960, no Virgin
    Islander has been able to develop land given to them by their families.
        Other issues we will look at include entrance fees for Virgin
    Island residents into the national park, permit fees for taxi and tour
    operators for the national park, and the expansion of a school on St.
    John into the national park.
        I am looking forward to the testimony from all our witnesses
    including the Governor of the Virgin Islands and all the other elected
    officials along with the residents of the Virgin Islands. With that, I
    want to again thank Mrs. Christensen and will turn the time over to
    her.
                                     ______

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
        And good morning, everyone.
        Audience. Good morning.
        Mrs. Christensen. I want to thank you for yielding.
        I want to welcome you, Mr. Chairman and Congresswoman
    McCollum, to St. John, the smallest of our three islands. I
    hope you get an opportunity to meet and talk to my
    constituents, and experience the warm hospitality of the people
    of the Virgin Islands while you're here.
        I also want to publicly express my appreciation to you, Mr.
    Chairman, for your willingness to come to the Virgin Islands to
    conduct 2 days of hearings, and to my colleague Ms. McCollum as
    well.
        Although we're holding our hearing in one of the most
    beautiful places on earth, like our other colleagues who are
    not present with us, both of you could be at home in your
    congressional districts attending to the needs of your
    constituents. So I really appreciate your coming here, and I
    want to also thank the staff for the hard work that they've put
    in to make this trip possible.
        And to those of you in the audience, I know you're looking
    up here and you're seeing three members of the Subcommittee,
    but let me assure you, this is the usual number that we might
    have at a hearing, so we're not slighting you in any way. As a
    matter of fact, the three that you see before you here this
    morning are usually the three who are almost always present at
    the hearings.
        So let me also welcome and thank all of the witnesses who
    are here to offer testimony.
        I want to, in particular, welcome the Director of the
    National Park Service, Fran Mainella, Director Mainella.
        During the course of today's hearing and the one on St.
    Croix on Monday you'll hear a lot about the important issues
    that we in the Virgin Islands have been wrestling with for many
    years.
        I appreciate the fact that you're here. I know this is your
    first visit here, and I look forward to working with you and
    your staff as we work to bring closure to some of those issues.
        I want to welcome the witnesses here, people whom I am
    privileged to represent, and everyone in the audience. I know
    that many would have liked to testify, and I apologize for not
    being able to accommodate everyone but, as the Chairman said,
    all written testimony also becomes a part of the official
    record of this hearing.
        So we encourage those in the audience who are not able to
    testify to present your written statements because they become
    formal parts of the record of this hearing.
        I want to welcome, particularly, Senate President Liburd,
    and thank him for making this room available to us this
    morning. Also, Senator Cole.
        Commissioner Dean Plaskett is not going to be able to be
    with us this morning. He will join us in St. Croix. But we do
    have Myron Jackson representing him here.
        And as well, I want to welcome Ms. Lorelei Monsanto, the
    St. John tour operator. I understand there will be a
    representative of that group testifying.
        We hope that Mr. Penn will be able to join us as well, Ms.
    Joseph, Ms. Alicia Wells, and Mr. Kessler, and anyone else who
    is going to testify this morning.
        Mr. Chairman, as I noted, there are a number of issues
    relating to the Virgin Islands National Park that the residents
    of St. John have been wrestling with for quite some time. You
    will hear from our testifiers this morning some of the issues
    around fees, the concern of the impact on our local fishing
    community of a possible monument, difficulties of access to
    private inholdings, and just the everyday hassles of living
    with the National Park that takes up so much of this island.
        So I'm not going to address them now because they will be
    addressed by those who will be testifying. I just want to
    mention a couple other issues that are also important.
        Chief among those issues is the need for the Park and the
    Government of the Virgin Islands to agree on an exchange of
    land so that the residents of St. John could build a school to
    accommodate the students from K through 12.
        Enrollment in the public schools on St. John, or of
    students who will attend school from St. John, has grown
    considerably since the 1970's, and the local Government has no
    more land on which to expand either of the two current St. John
    public schools.
        We have been dealing with this issue for several years, and
    I think it's time that we sit down and resolve this issue so
    that the residents and the students of St. John could get the
    kind of school that they deserve on their island.
        I also want to mention that the Park could do a better job
    of managing the impact of cruise ship traffic on the residents
    of St. John. We're always grateful for the economic benefit the
    cruise ship visitors bring to the Territory. However, St. John
    and the Cruz Bay area is very small, as you've seen, and we
    must be mindful of this as we welcome the visitors to our
    shores.
        Finally, let me say that I truly hoped that we would have
    had the legal opinion on the ownership of the submerged lands
    from the General Accounting Office released in advance of this
    hearing, and while some of the testimony both here and in St.
    Croix will relate to issues around that monument when it's
    completed, I wanted to say to the people of the Territory that
    I will come back, and we will have discussions among ourselves
    about that decision, however it comes out, and how we will
    proceed from there.
        In closing, let me just say that as best as my staff and I
    can determine, this is the first time that the Subcommittee
    with direct authority over our National Park has held an
    official public hearing in the Territory.
        So, once again, I want to thank Chairman Radanovich and
    Congresswoman McCollum for being here, the Chairman for
    agreeing to hold these hearings here because it's very
    difficult for people in the Virgin Islands to get to Washington
    to testify there.
        I want to thank everyone, once again, Director Mainella,
    all of the other people who are going to testify this morning,
    and everyone who is here in our audience for taking the time on
    a Saturday morning to come out.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, I end my opening
    statement.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mrs. Christensen.
        Mr. Radanovich. And we are, as you know, also pleased to
    have with us Congresswoman Betty McCollum from the State of
    Minnesota.
        Betty.
        Ms. McCollum. I'll be brief. In looking at the information
    that was given to me by the Park Service and others in
    preparing for this hearing, and the people whom I have had an
    opportunity to meet over the last couple of days, and then
    listening to the focus of this hearing, I just want to share
    with you that all politics is local, and it's surprisingly the
    same.
        In Lake Superior there is much controversy over who owns
    the submerged land in Lake Superior. So submerged land issues
    are happening all over our country.
        Fishing rights. Fishing rights is something that we hear a
    lot about throughout the country, and it's very important to
    come here and hear about your unique experience to give me a
    better understanding of what importance the fishing rights are.
        Private holdings. Private holdings in Voyagers National
    Park and in the boundary waters, canoe area, where I was just a
    couple of weeks ago, is an issue that we are addressing there.
        So even though this is my first visit to the Virgin
    Islands, and even though your experiences and what you need to
    have happen, to work in order to make this a community for your
    families to grow and prosper in the coming years, we share a
    common bond.
        And then, providing an opportunity with land exchanges for
    children to be educated, I can think of nothing more important
    that we can work on together cooperatively.
        So even though we usually talk about snowshoes and not
    snorkels, it is a real pleasure to be here. I'm very honored to
    be in the presence of so many people who care so passionately
    about our environment and our Government, where they would take
    time out on a beautiful day to be here.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Ms. McCollum. And as I
    mentioned, I represent Yosemite. There's not a lot that's
    submerged there but--you know, and understanding is--that's a
    good reason why we're here.
        OK. With that we'll move to our first panel, and we're
    honored to have with us Ms. Fran Mainella, who is the Director
    of the National Park Service.
        Many people know that--or don't know Fran was a former
    Director of State Parks in the State of Florida before being
    asked to come on board and to be the Director of all of our
    nation's National Parks. And this is the Director's first trip
    into the Virgin Islands.
        And so, Fran, welcome. And we're looking forward to your
    testimony. And, again, what we might do in this case, since
    you're the only person on this first panel, would be to start
    with your statement, and then we'll ask questions and clarify
    as we go along.

      STATEMENT OF FRAN MAINELLA, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
    (NPS), ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN KING, SUPERINTENDENT, NATIONAL PARK,
       ST. JOHN; JERRY BELSON, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NPS, SOUTHEAST
     REGION; PAT HOOKS, DEPUTY, NPS, SOUTHEAST REGION; AND DANIEL
                               SMITH, NPS

        Ms. Mainella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Committee Members. I'm so pleased to be able to be here today.
        Can everyone hear me back there? All right. Thumbs up. Yes.
        Again, it is a great opportunity for me to be able to
    appear here in front of this Subcommittee, and this
    Subcommittee does address so much of the issues that are so
    important to our National Park.
        And being able to be out here in a field hearing, and for
    the Virgin Islands National Park and Virgin Islands Coral Reef
    National Monument is, again, an extra treat.
        I do have with me today our Superintendent John King who
    has been here about a year and a half.
        And, John, we're very pleased to have you joining with us.
        Also with me is Jerry Belson, our Regional Director for the
    whole Southeast.
        And, Jerry, appreciate your being here.
        And his Deputy, Pat Hooks, is with us, behind us. And,
    also, my assistant, who assists with Congressional appearances
    in Washington, is Dan Smith, and he's with us, also, as well as
    many key staff who really make all these things work well
    together.
        As we go forth one of the things that I want to make sure
    is clear is that we--as the Director of the National Park
    Service, I keep telling the President I got the best job in the
    Federal Government. And it is something that's a great treat to
    be able to work with all our national parks.
        But one of the key areas--and I hope that as you hear my
    testimony and answer questions--one of the things is that when
    we work together, we work together as partners, the public, the
    citizens, and our national parks. If the national parks don't
    do well, then the community that surrounds it doesn't do well.
    If the community around is not doing well, then the national
    parks suffer as well.
        We are a team and we are a partnership. So I just want to
    make sure that's a tone that is clear throughout all of my
    testimony.
        Again, we appreciate being here, and to look at many of the
    issues that lie up front here for us in the Virgin Islands. But
    in particular I'm going to focus a bit on the Virgin Islands
    Coral Reef National Monument and an update on some of those
    particular issues.
        As you know, the Virgin Islands Coral Reef National
    Monument was established on January 17th, 2001 by proclamation
    of President Clinton under the Antiquities Act, consisting of
    12,708 acres of submerged lands off the Island of St. John. The
    monument contains all of the elements of a Caribbean tropical
    marine ecosystem.
        The designation also enhances the protection of fragile
    resources, including the Virgin Islands National Park, which
    Congress established in 1956, and then again expanded in 1962.
    The establishment of the monument roughly doubled the amount of
    acreage in and around St. John that is now under the
    jurisdiction of the National Park.
        Since the designation of the Virgin Islands Coral Reef
    monument last year, representatives of the Virgin Islands
    Government raised numerous questions and concerns. In fact, on
    April 9th of 2001 the Legislature of the Virgin Islands passed
    a resolution--I believe it's Number 1609--expressing concern
    over the lack of adequate public participation in the expansion
    of the monument, ownership of the submerged lands, the size of
    the monument, and potential impacts on the fishing and marine
    industries.
        I'd like to comment a little bit on those concerns, and I
    know with follow-up questions we may be able to address a few
    more.
        While we share concerns about the way in which these
    monuments were created, our job now is to ensure that we
    develop management plans in an open, inclusive and
    comprehensive way; again, a partnership approach.
        As stated by Secretary Norton, who is head of the
    Department of Interior, on numerous occasions, the planning for
    the future management of these monuments will be a model, not
    may be, but will be a model of what we call the four C's.
    That's consultation, cooperation, and communication, all in the
    service of conservation.
        The Department of Interior is committed to management and
    protection of the monuments, consistent with the four C's and
    the purposes established in the proclamations.
        In response to this commitment the Department of Interior
    published a notice in the Federal Register on April 24th, '02,
    initiating a formal scoping period, seeking public comment to
    identify issues to consider and analyze regarding management at
    the monument designations, and these were in the western
    states.
        The Department is currently reviewing those public
    comments. After reviewing all the comments on each monument, I
    believe most of the issues can be addressed out west through
    the management planning process which also included
    comprehensive public input.
        With regard to these, the monuments here in the Virgin
    Islands we are discussing, we will anticipate a similar public
    review process as soon as the issue of the submerged land
    ownership is resolved.
        Being at this hearing today, again, will help me learn more
    about some of the management issues that we will have at--
    through transcript be able to help feed into that review
    process as we go forward.
        We agree that Federal ownership or control, as Congressman
    Radanovich has indicated earlier, of land is necessary for an
    area to be designated as a national monument under the
    Antiquities Act. The General Accounting Office, as Delegate
    Christensen mentioned, is right now reviewing--and at her
    request has reviewed--the question of Federal ownership of, and
    control of these submerged lands.
        I do want to here, also, compliment Delegate Christensen
    for all that she has done.
        Now, she's got us hopping in a number of different ways in
    addressing many of the issues that you're going to bring forth
    today but I want to thank her for having--giving us the focus,
    and having me get here so that I could actually take a look at
    these issues, and not do it from sitting in Washington and
    understanding it from there.
        So I just want to thank you for allowing me to have this
    opportunity, and also to get our attention on these issues.
        Again, we hope that the GAO report will be out shortly so
    we can move forward again with more public input and
    involvement so we can better analyze how we go forward.
        As to the size of the Virgin Islands Coral Reef Monument,
    the Clinton administration determined the 12,708 acres was the
    smallest area needed to ensure the proper care and management
    of the resources being protected and their long-term
    sustainability. It is a large enough area to provide a
    fisheries nursery, and, in theory, should assure that fishing
    remains viable as an industry and a recreation activity here.
        I know one of the issues is the loss of fishing territory
    and what kind of impact it will have on the industry but also I
    think that many are aware that as we go forth we want to look
    at how do we regenerate stocks of fish so that in the long view
    we are able to have fishing for now and future generations,
    what we call ``fishing forever.''
        Like many coral reef environments throughout the world--and
    I know. I worked in many of them in Florida--the Virgin Islands
    tropical marina ecosystem is under stress.
        Damage has been caused over the years from a variety of
    natural forces, obviously, such as hurricanes and human
    activities. The marine ecosystem has been harmed by hurricanes,
    diseases of various kinds and coral predators.
        Activities that continue to the degradation of these marine
    resources include sediment runoff from incompatible land uses,
    development practices, nutrient input from sewage. Poaching,
    overfishing and improper fishing, and diving and boating
    activities can contribute.
        Mr. Radanovich. Excuse me.
        Ms. Mainella. Yes.
        Mr. Radanovich. Fran, you'll do a sum-up--
        Ms. Mainella. I will. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Radanovich. --and then we'll catch the rest in
    questions.
        Ms. Mainella. Let me just kind of come to a conclusion on
    the sense that what I want to just be able to say is that
    tourism is an important part of all that we do, and know that
    we're going to play an important role in tourism.
        And the fact is, most areas in the Nation fight to have a
    National Park come in their area because of the value it brings
    because of tourism.
        We're here to work with you. We are part of a team, and
    want to make sure you know that we are here to make sure that
    happens.
        John King and others will be ready and willing to work for
    and with you, and we're ready to assist you in whatever we can.
        Also, Delegate Christensen asked me about what can we do,
    when I met with her in Washington, about more promotions. We do
    have a video that will be ready, and we'll be ready to have
    that available to go on Cable TV or others, whatever way would
    better help this community to promote the Virgin Islands and
    our parks.
        Thank you so much.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Fran.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Mainella follows:]

        Statement of Fran P. Mainella, Director, National Park Service,
                        U.S. Department of the Interior

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
    Subcommittee at this oversight field hearing on the Virgin Islands
    National Park and the Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument. I am
    accompanied by John King, Superintendent of Virgin Islands National
    Park, who also has management responsibility for the newly established
    Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument.
        We appreciate the opportunity that this hearing and visit is
    providing for all of us to increase our understanding of the Virgin
    Islands its people and its resources and to discuss the particular
    opportunities and challenges the National Park Service faces in
    managing the units here that are under our jurisdiction. My statement
    will focus on the establishment of the Virgin Islands Coral Reef
    National Monument, and an update on the planning process that will set
    forth future management goals.
        As you know, the Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument was
    established on January 17, 2001, by proclamation of President Clinton
    under the Antiquities Act. Consisting of 12,708 acres of submerged
    lands off the island of St. John, the monument contains all the
    elements of a Caribbean tropical marine ecosystem. The designation also
    enhances the protection of fragile resources included in the Virgin
    Islands National Park, which Congress established in 1956 and expanded
    in 1962. Establishment of the monument roughly doubled the amount of
    acreage in and around St. John that is now under the jurisdiction of
    the National Park Service.
        Since the designation of the Virgin Islands Coral Reef Monument
    last year, representatives of the Virgin Islands government raised
    numerous questions and concerns. In fact, on April 9, 2001, the
    Legislature of the Virgin Islands passed a resolution (No. 1609),
    expressing concern over the lack of adequate public participation in
    expansion of the monument, ownership of the submerged lands, the size
    of the monument, and potential impacts on the fishing and marine
    industries. I would like to briefly address those concerns.
        While we share concerns about the way in which these monuments were
    created, our job now is to ensure that we develop management plans in
    an open, inclusive, and comprehensive way. As stated by Secretary
    Norton on numerous occasions, the planning for the future management of
    these monuments will be a model of what we call the four C's:
    Consultation, Cooperation, and Communication, all in the service of
    Conservation. The Department of the Interior is committed to management
    and protection of the monuments consistent with the four C's and the
    purposes established in the proclamations. In response to this
    commitment, we published a notice in the Federal Register on April 24,
    2002, initiating a formal scoping period seeking public comment to
    identify issues to consider and analyze regarding management at the
    monument designations in the western states. The Department is
    currently reviewing the public comments. After reviewing all the
    comments on each monument, I believe most of the issues can be
    addressed through the management planning process, which will also
    include comprehensive public input. With regard to the monuments we are
    discussing today, we anticipate a similar public review process as soon
    as the issue of submerged lands ownership is resolved.
        We agree that Federal ownership or control of the land is necessary
    for an area to be designated as a national monument under the
    Antiquities Act. The General Accounting Office (GAO), at the request of
    Delegate Christian-Christensen, has reviewed the question of Federal
    ownership or control of the submerged lands in the expansion of Buck
    Island Reef National Monument. We understand that GAO will issue its
    opinion shortly.
        As to the size of the Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument,
    the Clinton Administration determined that 12,708 acres was the
    smallest area needed to ensure the proper care and management of the
    resources to be protected and their long-term sustainability. It is
    large enough to provide a fish nursery and, in theory, should help
    assure that fishing remains viable as an industry and a recreational
    activity here.
        Although the loss of fishing territory could have an impact on the
    industry, we believe that it should be offset by the regeneration of
    stocks of fish that should occur from the enhancement of the fish
    nurseries made possible by the designation. Like many coral reef
    environments throughout the world, the Virgin Islands tropical marine
    ecosystem is under stress. Damage has been caused over the years from a
    variety of both natural forces and human activities. The marine
    ecosystem has been harmed by hurricanes, diseases of various kinds, and
    coral predators. Activities that contribute to the degradation of these
    marine resources include sediment runoff from incompatible land-use and
    development practices, nutrient input from sewage, poaching,
    overfishing, and improper fishing, boating, and diving practices.
        Research over a long period of time has provided evidence that fish
    are not only smaller than in the past, but also that there has been a
    serial depletion of certain species, including the commercial
    extinction of the Nassau Grouper and Goliath Grouper. In addition,
    twenty years of data collection within and around Virgin Islands
    National Park show a marked decrease in the amount of sea grass beds,
    mangroves, and live coral. Research has also shown little to no
    recovery on damaged coral reefs. These conditions, and the prediction
    of continued decline, are what led to the establishment of the
    monument.
        Another critical factor in the decision to designate the Virgin
    Islands Coral Reef National Monument, as well as expand the Buck Island
    Reef National Monument, was their potential to improve the Virgin
    Islands economy. Tourism is the mainstay of the economy here, and the
    national park units on both St. John and St. Croix contribute
    significantly to the tourism revenues generated on those islands. By
    enhancing and providing more long-term protection for the spectacular
    resources managed by the National Park Service that lure tourists to
    the Virgin Islands, the monument designations were seen by the Clinton
    Administration as an important way to help improve and sustain the
    Virgin Islands' economy.
        In summary, the designation of the Virgin Islands Coral Reef
    National Monument should provide for a recovery of coral reefs and
    associated habitats, facilitate an increase in the abundance of reef
    fish, sustain traditional cultural fishing practices in surrounding
    waters, enhance the quality of the visitor experience to the Virgin
    Islands, and contribute to economic growth from tourism. As stated
    earlier, the National Park Service has been preparing to undertake the
    planning process that will set forth the future management and use of
    this area, and we look forward to working collaboratively with the
    territorial government, our gateway communities, and other interested
    stakeholders in this endeavor.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. Superintendent King and I
    will be happy to answer any questions you or your colleagues may have.
                                     ______

        Mr. Radanovich. I'm going to turn my time to Donna to begin
    the questioning.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. I do have a few questions,
    Director. And welcome, Regional Director Mr. Belson, and Deputy
    Hooks and, of course, our own Superintendent King.
        Most of your testimony revolved around the issue of the
    Monument, and as we await the GAO opinion on who--the ownership
    of the submerged lands, should it happen that the opinion were
    to state that these were Federal lands, and that the monument
    designation is legal, can you assure me today that there will
    not be an immediate no-take imposed on the waters, the
    submerged land?
        Ms. Mainella. Delegate, one of the things that--our whole
    style, again, is a partnership approach. What we will be doing,
    just as the Secretary is doing now under the monuments that are
    already established in the western states, we will be looking
    for public input, and again, we'll do a transition team to help
    us kick this into gear.
        One that works well, is the most as we can do within the
    law that's been given to us, and I would ask for your help in
    helping us establish that transition team as we move forward.
        Mrs. Christensen. And as a follow-up to that, do you
    believe that the issue of fishing rights can be resolved
    through the management plans in the V.I. Monuments?
        Ms. Mainella. I believe the management plans are what are
    key to being able to deal with fishing issues.
        But I think there are some things that are set in law. If
    the Monument does prevail, that we won't have as much
    flexibility but I hope, again, through other approaches, that
    we can be able to better address, so that fishing not only
    exists but continues to grow in a way that is appropriate, and
    appropriate with the Monument status, if that's what does
    prevail.
        Mrs. Christensen. You've been in the Park system for a long
    time?
        Ms. Mainella. A long time.
        Mrs. Christensen. Can you tell us a little about your
    experience where, in areas where there might have been
    overfishing and also where monuments or some kind of marine
    reserve has been put in place?
        Ms. Mainella. Yes. As Director of Florida State Parks for
    the last 12 years before I came here, as Congressman Radanovich
    had indicated, I worked with a number of marine environments.
    In particular, many would know John Pennecamp Coral Reef State
    Park which abuts right up to Biscayne National Park, and that
    is very well known for its coral reefs.
        One of the things that we did have to do in there, we did
    have to go in, and go into an area where we put fishing
    restrictions, either going into no-take in some parks in the
    area, or going into catch and release, but definitely
    eliminating a lot of the anchoring and putting a lot of mooring
    buoys out there to be able to tie up to.
        In doing that we actually watched the growth and increase.
    Like the lobsters that used to be in there got very small. Now
    they're coming back and being much, much larger. And those are
    things that can happen, in other words.
        But together we have to find a way to work together, and it
    needs to be the fishing industry along with the Park, with our
    scientists, working together to understand the big picture.
        And we have to constantly look what is the big picture for
    the Virgin Islands in our parks. How we're going to make sure
    that prevails in the long way. And I've seen success there.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
        We have been also talking about fees, the issue of fees to
    the Park, and we're going to talk a little later about
    concession fees but I want to talk about entrance fees because
    in the enabling legislation it was clearly stated that there
    should be no barriers to people of the Virgin Islands using the
    National Parks, and fees are a barrier.
        And I know we've talked about this, and I'd like you, for
    the record, to respond to where we are.
        Where is the National Park Service with regard to our
    request that the fees be waived?
        Ms. Mainella. Thank you so much.
        As you know, our agents worked on this issue. Jerry Belson
    and others have worked aggressively trying to find some
    answers, and one was maybe discounts or something like that.
        Since the time I've already been here--and, again, I
    haven't even had a chance to really get out. I just arrived
    yesterday. But we talked to people even around the island
    already, and having a chance, even people coming in, and to
    talk about the fee aspect.
        I would like to ask that we look at a committee that you
    and I together, and others that are appropriate, you would
    suggest look at the fees as a whole. Fees in our National Park
    system have actually been a big success. In all honesty I think
    all of us want to see the structures, the improvements that
    John and others are making take place, but we also need to make
    sure that all that we do, again, is a fair and equitable
    situation, and abiding by all of the laws.
        So I'd like us to go back. It doesn't mean that we'll end
    up with major changes but it could be. And I would like us to
    go back and look at that so we have a clarity regarding--this
    is particularly dealing with the Virgin Islands and their
    residents as--on that, particularly, with the enabling
    legislation.
        So, if you would agree to help me in a committee to look at
    that, I would appreciate that kind of review at this time.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, my initial 5 minutes are up.
        Mr. Radanovich. No. We'll go--I'll allow 5 minutes. We will
    certainly do a second round.
        Mrs. McCollum, any questions?
        Ms. McCollum. I just have--it's more of a general question
    for your management plan. I know the National Park Service has
    struggled for years to get the management plans done and on
    time. I know it's been a concern, not only on my part, of the
    United States, but in--since having been appointed to this
    Committee, many other parties.
        Can you tell me what we need to do, as Congress, to
    facilitate your being able to get, after the rulings come out
    and you have your public hearings, and you get to manage--how
    we get the management plan processed, jump start it so that
    people in the Virgin Islands are not waiting for a long time
    for that to happen for the Monument?
        And, also, how, in reading some of the material that I had,
    updating the management plan to identify many of the concerns
    that Delegate Christensen brought up with cruise ship travel
    and other things?
        What can we do to make those processes which are
    independent but at the same time very complementary happen
    quickly for the people here in the Virgin Islands?
        Ms. Mainella. Well, I want to thank you all, first of all,
    because you did put some money in our budget, and I'm going to
    ask John to help me in a moment to give me even further detail,
    that we do have money in our budget for '02--that's the year
    we're in now--to begin our management planning process for the
    Park as a whole, and it certainly can tie right together with
    the Monument once we have a determination from GAO on the
    status of that.
        John, could you give us a further update how we're going
    forward?
        And is there other--I mean, you know, as the President
    asked me one time, do you--``Do parks always have all the money
    they need? Did you get all the money in your budget?''.
        I said, ``Mr. President, considering all we've gone through
    since September 11th, you've taken good care of us. The parks
    always need more money. But exactly how we've done well here in
    our budget, I thank all of you for your leadership.''
        John, could you give us an update, please, sir?
        Mr. King. Yes. Yes, Director. Can you hear me?
        Mr. Radanovich. No. You need to speak more directly. Or
    it's not on.
        Mr. King. Can you hear me?
        Mr. Radanovich. No.
        Mr. King. Can you hear me now?
        Mr. Radanovich. No. There you go.
        Mr. King. Well, I'd like to just say for the record that
    the Virgin Islands National Park does not have all of the
    funding that it would require, and anything that you might be
    able to do to help us in that regard would be greatly
    appreciated.
        As to the general management plans, we did receive funding
    in Fiscal 2002 to update the Virgin Islands National Park
    management plan and also to initiate the planning process for
    the Coral Reef National Monument, and that depending upon the
    outcome of the GAO in dealing with the question of the
    ownership of the submerged lands.
        Given the fact that we are getting so close to the end of
    the fiscal year, we've been told by our planning office that
    we're going to have to defer the starts of the award of the
    contracts to begin the GMP's in total of three.
        That the money is still available. That we have not lost
    our place in line as it were, and so we're hoping that as soon
    as the issue of the ownership of the submerged lands is
    resolved that we'll be able to commence the planning effort
    hopefully early in Fiscal 2003.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Mainella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Radanovich. You're welcome.
        Fran, a couple questions. We have mentioned that GAO
    started just looking into the legality of the Monument.
    Although I think it's very good to have the study, the GAO is
    not the final arbiter of whether this is--
        Ms. Mainella. That's correct.
        Mr. Radanovich. --right or not, or legal or not.
        Ms. Mainella. Right. That's correct.
        Mr. Radanovich. So what is, I mean, I think Donna described
    the context of what would happen if GAO came out and said yes,
    that the Monument is correct.
        But what if they don't, and how does that issue get
    resolved?
        Ms. Mainella. Again, this would go all the way to the
    Secretary level. So the only thing that I could say right now,
    immediately when that report comes out, the solicitors will
    take a look at it to understand what are the implications to us
    and to, you know, to the Park, to everyone involved. And I
    think that, again, we just have to look at it and get that
    public input.
        That's what I'm hoping these hearings--by you having these
    hearings, you're expediting all of the transactions that could
    take place following the GAO report.
        And I think the Secretary, we may come back after the
    hearing, and you and I may go back, and all of us recommend to
    the Secretary no matter whether the GAO report is out or not,
    we're planning to keep moving with the management plan and
    start the planning process. It just would be a lot clearer if
    we're doing it for a whole monument versus not.
        And so I guess, again, this will go all the way to the
    Secretary's level, and your involvement as well as mine, and
    the whole Committee certainly will help expedite a game plan on
    this.
        Mr. Radanovich. Can you answer for me, too--there's an
    issue of the health of the fisheries in the area. Is there
    evidence to suggest that the area is--that the stock is down,
    that the area has been overfished or is--
        Ms. Mainella. Yes, actually, a part of it. I didn't get a
    chance to, and I'll ask John to help me on that.
        I know that there is quite a bit of research that has shown
    that there is a drop-off in many different areas.
        John, could you follow up on that, or do you have that
    detail? I have my notes, and I'll put my glasses on to find it
    real quick.
        Mr. King. Certainly, the information that we have been
    given--
        Mrs. Christensen. You need to speak a little louder.
        Mr. King. Certainly the information that we have been given
    by the scientists, both with the National Park Service and with
    the USGS Biological Resource Division, is that the fishery in
    the Virgin Islands is in a significantly depleted state.
        As a matter of fact, we have heard references to the
    fishery in the Virgin Islands being compared to fisheries off
    the coasts of Haiti and Jamaica, both of which are considered
    to be collapsed fisheries. So there is a serious problem here.
        I mean, we are, quite frankly, very excited about the
    possibility of improvements that can be realized through the
    establishment of a marine-protected area. And something that we
    are planning to do during the planning process for the Monument
    is to bring fishermen from other communities that have had
    marine management areas where marine reserves are established,
    so they can share what the positive results of those have been.
        As a matter of fact--and I think Delegate Christensen might
    have seen this video but if not we could certainly make it
    available. But we obtained a video that was taken of fishermen
    on St. Lucia who were--several years ago a marine management
    area was established--and who complained vociferously about it,
    fought it vigorously, and then several years later came back
    and said it was probably the best thing that ever happened to
    the fishery there, that the fish were abundant, they were
    larger, and their traditional life ways were continued as a
    result of the additional protections that were afforded.
        Mr. Radanovich. Mr. King, could you provide the
    Subcommittee with the information that you have of the science
    that would lead to the description, the status of the
    fisheries?
        Mr. King. We'll provide it to you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Radanovich. I'd appreciate that.
        Betty?
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a
    question that came to mind.
        We have the British Islands. Are the British--do they have
    parks?
        Do they have a fish protection habitat?
        Because the fish are swimming around, and if they're not
    doing anything to protect the fish, that puts more pressure on
    just us to do it, and I know we have to work with Canada on our
    border lakes about, you know, what catch needs, commercial fish
    nets.
        Are we in dialog with what's going on in the other islands
    or are we going to be taking on the sole responsibility of
    trying to protect the habitat?
        Mr. King. Well, there is a national park system in the
    British Virgin Islands. Now, the degree to which collaboration
    by marine biologists and other scientists has been made between
    the U.S. Virgin Islands and the British Virgin Islands and
    other Caribbean islands, I'm not sure, but we can certainly
    find that out and provide that for the record.
        Mr. Radanovich. Yes, thank you. And just one quick question
    before I move on with Donna.
        But can you tell me, Mr. King, or Fran, the word was
    mentioned that this was a marine-protected area. Officially, I
    don't think it is. Or can--
        Ms. Mainella. I--
        Mr. Radanovich. You want to speak to that?
        Mr. King. No, it's not officially a marine-protected area.
    Right. I guess I used that term in that additional protections
    would be afforded to the fishery, and so it would operate
    essentially as a marine management area, a marine-protected
    area.
        But, it's the thinking of the Coral Reef National Monument,
    there are fishing prohibitions with two exceptions, and those
    two exceptions are bait fishing, and Hurricane Hole, which is
    an area that, by permit, and blue runner or hardnose fishing on
    the South Shore of St. John, also by permit, but other than
    that, that all extractive uses would be eliminated.
        Mr. Radanovich. OK, thank you.
        Donna?
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. I have a couple of follow-up
    questions on something the Chairman asked.
        And just for clarification, now, when I asked--when I asked
    my first question, that was assuming that the lands were
    Federal.
        Ms. Mainella. Right.
        Mrs. Christensen. Assuming that the lands are--the opinion
    is--
        Ms. Mainella. Right.
        Mrs. Christensen. --that, as they looked at how the
    determination of ownership was done, it was done incorrectly,
    and--
        Ms. Mainella. Right.
        Mrs. Christensen. --the lands are really the property of
    the people of the Virgin Islands.
        We would not anticipate any contest from the Department on
    that. That would--the whole issue would disappear, correct?
        Ms. Mainella. I would expect, again, that the Secretary
    would review it, but I think you have to have control. If a
    determination is concurred that we don't have control of these
    lands, I don't know how you'd designate something as a
    monument.
        Mrs. Christensen. Right, because if--
        Ms. Mainella. And I mean, I can't speak--it would be a
    Secretarial determination but my recommendation would be that,
    you know, you have to follow the law. And we need to make sure
    that we do.
        Mrs. Christensen. Right. And a follow-up, also, if I could
    ask Mr. King this question.
        You talked about bringing examples where a reserve or a no-
    take area worked. Are you aware of some that don't work?
        When we do this, I'd like to have a balanced approach so
    that we can hear pros and cons. Are we going to do that? Are we
    going to take a balanced approach?
        I mean, are you aware of anywhere that no-take zones, for
    example, where this was imposed and it didn't work, and the
    people were still unhappy?
        Mr. King. Not to my knowledge, Ms. Christensen. That could
    very well have happened and I just am not aware of it. But we
    certainly want to take a balanced approach to the planning
    effort, and ensure that all of those who have a valid and
    vested interest in the outcome of this planning opportunity
    have a chance to participate actively and substantively.
        Ms. Mainella. One of the things, if I may follow up, is
    that, one, we will search if there are any things that are in
    those--you know, where we've gone into a no-take, and things
    have not been--it hasn't been helpful.
        I know there's a period of time that takes place for that
    to replenish. But we have just brought on, because of the
    issues of Virgin Islands and a lot of other areas throughout
    this nation, we now are going to have a specialist who's going
    to help us more in the marine side of our efforts, and we
    haven't had that before.
        We've just brought him on, and that will be part, also,
    linked to our natural resource channel, that you'll help us
    with. And so you'll see that.
        And also, again, we'll continue to work with our partners
    who are beyond, you know, both state, Federal, and others who
    work in this area, to make sure that we're not doing this in
    isolation.
        One of the things we do not want the Park Service to do is
    function in isolation. We have to function in partnership.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
        And two other brief questions. The number of questions--
    this is a different subject regarding the ownership of roads in
    the National Park, and you're going to hear about in a little
    while.
        Ms. Mainella. Right.
        Mrs. Christensen. Can you tell me, do you have knowledge of
    other parks that also have, within those parks, roads that are
    not owned by the Park?
        And how does that impact management?
        Does it have an impact on management at all?
        Ms. Mainella. Usually, again, you know, having been on for
    a year now, you know, I know we have some roads that we don't
    own, but we will usually work in partnership. Again, it's
    usually to the best interests of the community or whatever, who
    may or may not have--who may have ownership or whatever, to
    work in conjunction with the Park.
        Because, again, if the Park is not being successful--where
    we used to see a lot of people were injured on those roads and
    things of that nature, because they forgot--they were in a
    Park, or maybe not, you know, in--or people walking across
    streets thinking they're in a Park, and not paying attention to
    the fact that this is a major highway.
        We've worked in conjunction with the local governments, and
    they helped us enforce and make sure that things were done
    appropriately for the well-being of the visitors. Because
    without the well-being of the visitors being taken care of, our
    whole economy suffers, both locally and for the well-being of
    the National Park system as a whole.
        Mrs. Christensen. But if the Park--if the roads do not
    belong to the Park,--
        Ms. Mainella. Uhm-hmm?
        Mrs. Christensen. --can the Park still manage the entire
    Park, including those roads?
        Ms. Mainella. I think it's more challenging if--you know, a
    lot of places, you know, roads have been, you know, given
    through an MOU for us to manage, even if they belong to a
    county or whatever, because it wasn't as effective.
        It's better when we jointly, you know, when things are
    clear, and not get into contradictory positioning.
        But I don't know all of that. I can do more homework for
    you and get you a more detailed answer if you'd like.
        Mrs. Christensen. When some of the people, the panels that
    follow, those issues will be brought up and they can--
        Ms. Mainella. Thank you.
        Mrs. Christensen. --give us some more information on which
    to continue those discussions.
        One last question. What's the Department's position, to
    your knowledge, on access to inholders' property? You're going
    to also hear it, and I'm asking you before the--
        Ms. Mainella. Right.
        Mrs. Christensen. --testimony is actually given. But I'd
    like to at least hear what's the Department's position on it.
        Many of my constituents are complaining that they're being
    denied access to their property by the Park, and as Director of
    all of our Parks, and your experience with the Park, if there
    is a response that you might have at this point to some of
    those concerns?
        Ms. Mainella. Access is a critical issue for everyone, to
    come into a Park and to get to their inholding, and we do work
    with individuals to make sure they are getting access to their
    property.
        Now, going beyond, we try to work in partnership with them
    so that that access is an environmentally friendly access. We
    do get into--we don't normally physically provide the roads, in
    other words, or whatever, but we work with the individuals for
    access. But it has to be done as an individual.
        Where you get into a little more challenge--and I would
    need legal help on this one--is when it gets into a lot of
    development purposes where it's going to bring more than just
    the individual having access.
        And that's something that has to continue to be worked on
    with, beyond my level, which I'm deferring to our legal counsel
    on that.
        Thank you.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
        And we'll hear from our panel on that issue, and get some
    more information on which we can continue this discussion later
    on.
        Mr. Radanovich. Yes. Thank you, Mrs. Christensen.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
        Mr. Radanovich. Any other questions?
        Mrs. Christensen. No, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Radanovich. Any other questions? Did you want another 5
    minutes, Donna?
        Mrs. Christensen. No. I would like to hear from--
        Ms. Mainella. We'll be sitting back here.
        Mrs. Christensen. I get a chance to talk to Fran all the
    time.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Fran, Mr. Belson, Mr. King.
    Appreciate it.
        Ms. Mainella. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Radanovich. Oh, and, Fran, we do have some other
    questions but we'll be submitting them to you, and would
    request that you respond by writing.
        Ms. Mainella. And thank you for allowing me to be here
    today. I appreciate it.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you for being here today.
        Ms. Mainella. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Radanovich. OK, I will now introduce our next panel
    which includes the Honorable Almando ``Rocky'' Liburd. Oh,
    please forgive me if I--
        Mrs. Christensen. Liburd.
        Mr. Radanovich. Liburd. Thank you. My name's Radanovich.
        24th Legislature of the Virgin Islands; the Honorable
    Donald ``Ducks'' Cole, Chairman of the Planning and
    Environmental Protection Committee; and Mr. Myron Jackson,
    Department of Natural Resources.
        Good morning, gentlemen. Welcome to the Committee, and I
    appreciate your testimony that you're about to give, and also
    to make yourselves available for questions.
        We'll begin with the Honorable Almando ``Rocky'' Liburd,
    President of the 24th Legislature. Rocky, welcome to the
    Committee.
        And we are under the 5-minute rule, please. If you can keep
    it up, that would be great but we'll have lots of opportunities
    for you to speak. So please begin.

      STATEMENT OF HON. ALMANDO ``ROCKY'' LIBURD, PRESIDENT, 24TH
                   LEGISLATURE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

        Mr. Liburd. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman George
    Radanovich; and to Congresswomen Christensen and McCollum; and
    two of my colleagues who are here, my colleague Senator Cole,
    who's the Chair of the Planning and Environmental Protection
    Committee; Mr. Myron Jackson, representing the Commissioner of
    DPNR; to all of the testifiers; fellow St. Johnians; fellow
    Virgin Islanders, welcome.
        Let me just say before I begin my testimony, that you are
    the first--this is the first Committee to sit in this setting.
    You know, we have upgraded our whole entire Senate, and you are
    the first one to Chair a Committee here, and by the way, let me
    also say that you're carried live on radio. We are on radio. We
    are live Territory-wide.
        Mr. Radanovich. We're christening the hearing room.
        Mr. Liburd. Yes, you're christening the hearing room. My
    colleagues certainly will thank you.
        Mr. Radanovich. It's very much an honor.
        Mr. Liburd. Thank you.
        All right. Good morning. My name is Almando ``Rocky''
    Liburd. I'm the President of the Senate. I'm also the Senator
    at Large, and I'm also an indigenous St. Johnian, born and
    raised here, live here.
        And so I want to thank you, and thank you, Congresswoman
    Christensen, for inviting the Subcommittee here.
        I've submitted a statement on the record but I want to just
    expound on it as we go forward. Let me begin first by saying
    that the National Park, as I've always said, has been a good
    addition to the Island of St. John.
        You know, if it hadn't been for the National Park, as a
    matter of fact, we probably would have seen all of our beaches
    with hotels and resorts, you name it.
        And so I must say that they've done an excellent job in
    maintaining--and right behind you is a picture of one of those
    sites. And it's there as part of this institution. So I say
    that the Park has been good in that respect.
        But you know, like in families, we have some little
    disagreements, and certainly there are a couple of things that
    come to mind.
        As a youngster growing up here in the Park, I recall at the
    inception the Park was to be part of our people. In other
    words, it wasn't supposed to be the Park and then us.
        And such, what happens is that we have seen from time to
    time that separation that has occurred. And how has this
    occurred?
        It has occurred due to the fact that roads that were within
    the Park that were passable, that provide access from one end
    of the island to the other end of the island, have been closed
    off. Case in point. Right here in Cruz Bay there are about two
    or three ways to get to the other end of the island, which is
    Coral Bay, but right now they are blocked off.
        In particular, two of them, one at the--what we call Steven
    Mandahl or Fish Bay area. There is another road over by the
    Leinster Bay area that goes right into Emmaus Moravian Church
    in Coral Bay. We call it Johnny Home. These are names that have
    been given over the years.
        The Legislature, in its wisdom, back in 1962, passed an
    act, Act 806, that transferred the roads to the National Park.
    As a matter of fact the Act indicated--and it is part of the
    submission that I sent--in it it states that the National Park
    Service has informed the Government of the Virgin Islands by a
    letter dated October 26, 1961 that it would improve and
    maintain the following public roads in St. John.
        And we have North Shore Road. We have the Cruz
    Intersection, Centerline, Annaberg, Mirror Point, Kingshill
    Road, Bordeaux, Lameshur, East End, et cetera. All of these
    roads have been outlined in this Act.
        But today many of those roads haven't been maintained
    according to the Act.
        Secondly, there are a number of residents who, upon the
    purchase, or when the property was turned over to the National
    Park, they had properties or inholdings within the Park. They
    were able to access these properties, but once the Park came
    in, their access has been slowly denied. That is wrong. I
    believe that we have a right to access our property.
        I don't believe nowhere in America it should be that
    persons under the American flag are denied access to their own
    property. And I believe that your Committee, and as the Chair
    of the Park here, the Director of the Park can do something
    about that.
        Because, you know, the problem we have is that we're a
    small community. We don't have a lot of resources, but we need
    some friends. And the friends we see here in you, Mr. George,
    Chairman; McCollum; Donna Christensen and your Committee, and
    along with-- I just met the Director. I'm sure she's going to
    work with us, also, that we can bring some relief to some of
    these situations.
        In Coral Bay in particular, if there is a disaster, or, God
    forbid, one of our hurricanes, as we experience them from time
    to time, and there's a section of the road, Centerline Road,
    that's blocked off called Kingshill, there's no exit.
        We have an entire population that are at the mercy, no exit
    for any kind of service at all, and that should not be. For
    years we've been trying to ask for at least an access.
        There are three of them. We are asking for at least one,
    one that can provide that, in the event of something to happen.
        That has not happened. And I don't believe it's too much to
    ask for. I think that we as a people deserve that, and
    certainly the St. Johnians deserve that.
        I know this because I was born and raised in that area. I
    know the area, and many residents in here you will see, as they
    come forward to speak about it, the area.
        The issue about the school. You know, because St. John is
    so small, and the National Park takes up the majority of it, we
    have finite property, and because of that, there is a great
    need for us to work out some--either an exchange or some type
    of a support because I think that the whole concept of the Park
    was to work with the community, not against the community. And
    that issue of the school has been brought about but I must say
    in the Park's defense that letters have been written to them,
    and I think they have not said they are not going to do it.
        So, to some degree I think part of it is the blame of the
    Government. We haven't done as much as we should do, and I'm
    speaking about the executive branch because we put it into law.
    So I just want to make sure because I know the record that is
    there, and we can show that.
        So today's hearing, it is my hope that you can bring some
    relief to a longstanding problem, over 40-plus years, of
    residents coming and going. Many residents have to sell their
    land because they can't afford to get to it, so they certainly
    don't want to pay for it.
        As a matter of fact, the Legislature, we passed an Act that
    said that they should not pay taxes for their property if they
    can't access it. And so that's in the law right now. So they
    don't have to pay any taxes for those properties that are
    within the holding of the Park.
        And I heard the Director spoke a while ago about roads
    through the Park. This is not unique. It's happened throughout
    the world.
        And so I'm saying that just like how it happens other
    places, we are Americans, deserve the same, and I'm saying that
    I don't believe that we want to have some of the most laborious
    or--we don't want to be unfriendly to the environment but I
    believe that we can coexist.
        But remember, we're talking about human beings who live
    here, who have no place else to go, who can't afford to get
    attorneys to fight any cases, so--and so we hope that your
    oversight and the fact that you're here would certainly bring
    some closure to this issue.
        And certainly we want to thank you for this opportunity,
    and I remain available for any questions. Thank you.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Liburd. Appreciate
    that.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Liburd follows:]

        Statement of The Honorable Almando ``Rocky'' Liburd, President,
                     24th Legislature, U.S. Virgin Islands

        Good morning to our Honorable Delegate to Congress Donna Christian-
    Christensen, the Honorable Members of the United States House of
    Representatives' Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public
    Lands and fellow St. Johnians.
        I thank you for the opportunity to address you on behalf of the
    residents of St. John, in the United States Virgin Islands; who for the
    last forty-four years have been denied access to their property within
    the boundaries of the Virgin Islands National Park. I come before you
    today to ask for your assistance through positive actions, to guarantee
    the residents on the island of St. John and the Virgin Islands as a
    whole, that they have the right to own and possess their property like
    every other citizen of the United States.
        Before the United States bought the Virgin Islands from Denmark in
    1917, many families lived within the areas now designated as the
    boundaries of the VI National Park. However, because they were denied
    access to their own properties by the National Park Service, they were
    forced to move to other sections of the island. This is contrary to the
    agreement between the United States and Denmark regarding the private
    property rights and public roads of St. John residents.
        A September 17, 2001 legal opinion, written by VI Attorney General
    Iver A--Stridiron to Department of Public Works Commissioner Wayne
    Callwood, states, ``'All property which may have been acquired by the
    United States from Denmark in the Virgin Islands under the convention
    entered into August 4, 1916, not reserved by the United States for
    public purposes prior to June 22, 1937, is placed under the control of
    the Government of the Virgin Islands.''
        Please find attached ``EXHIBIT I''
        In addition, Act 806 of the Virgin Islands Code, approved January
    24, 1962 clearly states, ``the National Park Service has informed the
    Governor of the Virgin Islands, by letter dated October 26, 1961, that
    it will improve and maintain the following public roads in St. John:
    (1) The North Shore Road from the park boundary at Cruz Bay to the
    intersection of said road with the Center Line Road at King Hill; (2)
    the spur road to Annaberg and Mary Point; (3) the Bordeaux Road; (4)
    the Lamedhur Road from Park boundary to Lameshur, and (5) the East End
    Road from Park boundary at Coral Bay eastward to the East Boundary of
    the Park; and to cooperate fully to the end that all private properties
    have passable road access, wherever necessary, to the aforesaid public
    roads...
        Please find attached ``EXHIBIT II''
        Our residents have suffered for many years due to the National
    Parks refusal to acknowledge these laws. To the contrary, National Park
    rangers started instructing residents on lands still private, that they
    could no longer fish, chop wood, or other needful things for their
    survival. Because the roads are not maintained, exits are blocked in
    times of emergencies such as fires and illness.
        In conclusion, the frustration of landowners and residents would
    increase unless a time frame is in place when all in holdings would
    have ``passable roads.'' 1 wish to recommend that this Subcommittee
    utilize all of its authority to bring a resolution immediately!
        Since all parties involved determined forty (40) years ago that the
    private landowners have a right to access their properties unhindered,
    all that's required is the practical will to do it. We as United States
    citizens, under the United States Constitution, have the right to free
    access to our properties just as any other American citizen. We request
    and demand this right because we are no less citizens than any other
    within any other state, territory or jurisdiction under the control of
    the United States of America.
        Thank you
        [NOTE: Attachments to Mr. Liburd's statement have been retained in
    the Committee's official files.]
                                     ______

        Mr. Radanovich. So, next is the Honorable Donald ``Ducks''
    Cole, Chair of the Planning and Environmental Protection
    Committee.
        Mr. Cole, welcome to the Committee, and, again, please
    begin your testimony.

           STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD ``DUCKS'' COLE, SENATOR,
                 24TH LEGISLATURE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

        Mr. Cole. Good morning, the Honorable George Radanovich,
    our own Donna Christian Christensen, and Congress Lady
    McCollum.
        Mr. Chair, I'm happy that you're here in the Territory. I'm
    happy that you're addressing the situation. I must commend
    Delegate Christensen for having you here.
        The issues before us today are clear. In my written
    statement to you we have outlined the legal issues as I believe
    that the Office is going to be looking at.
        We believe that, as it pertains to the Monument, that the
    lands, the submerged lands that were taken were taken
    illegally, based on the law, in the President's forward
    proclamation.
        We believe that these things should be repealed, and it is
    in your power. Once this comes out, I believe that the people
    of the Virgin Islands--if it comes back that we are not the
    owners of those lands, I believe we need to take this as far as
    the Supreme Court because I tend to believe that the people of
    the Virgin Islands are United States citizens.
        The Federal Government oversees us here, should not trample
    on the rights which were given to us. So I believe that should
    be done.
        The issues with the inholdings in the Park I can liken to a
    situation where, Mr. Chair, you were just given the keys to a
    brand new Cadillac, and that Cadillac is brought in and it's
    placed in your garage. You have the keys, and you have the
    ability to move that Cadillac, but because of the restrictions
    that are placed on you, all you can do is go in your garage and
    wash and buff and look at your Cadillac.
        And you want to be able to take that Cadillac out and drive
    it and pick up your wife or your children, and take a tour, and
    that can't happen because guess what--it is so restrictive that
    you can't come out.
        And that is how I see, and the people see, the inholdings
    here in the National Park. They have the land, and some of the
    most expensive land in the Territory, deeded to them by their
    parents.
        And as you know, Mr. Chair, that the Virgin Islands heirs,
    specifically in St. John, the landholders, we came through a
    situation of slavery here in the Territory, and our ancestors--
        Mr. Radanovich. Yes. Can you hold that? Hold that thought
    just 1 second. Because I see people waiting for seats, and I
    want to ask if maybe Mr. King and some folks might want to take
    these seats up here, so that it'll free up some seats for other
    people back there, Ducks, because--I'm sorry for interrupting.
        Mr. Cole. No problem, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Radanovich. If you could, that'd be great, and--
        Yes, Mr.--there you go.
        OK, Ducks, go for it. And, again, excuse me for
    interrupting.
        Mr. Cole. Mr. Chair, I appreciate it. The fact that they--
    and I believe the people want to come and the people want to
    see. It's an historic occasion here in the Territory wherein
    the Subcommittee has come here to hear the concerns of the
    people of the Virgin Islands, specifically this beautiful
    island.
        And I was speaking in terms of landownership and the
    passage of land from individuals who were in servitude. You can
    see how that has become a serious problem here.
        And the fact remains, I believe that the citizens who own
    these lands, if not given access, basically under the U.S.
    Government, you know, we would be able to move to some
    concerns, and we don't really want to go there.
        My colleague Senator Liburd spoke to the fact that he grew
    up here in the Territory, here in St. John, roamed the island
    over there, and that is it.
        So through your powers we are asking you to go back to the
    U.S. Congress, let them know what happened here.
        I hope you will be able to have a tour where these
    inholdings are. And the road situation, as you traverse and you
    go to the East End, one of the most beautiful places on earth,
    you can see the problems that we have here.
        As it pertains to--and, Ladies and Gentlemen, the reason
    I'm not reading from my written statement, it becomes a little
    redundant because a lot of the issues have been pointed out,
    have been clear as to what we're seeking.
        The school right next to where we're seated right now is
    the Julius Sprauve School, located in the heart of industrial--
    well, commercial areas. Big trucks and everything go by there.
        And the Legislature had petitioned the Governor asking him
    to sit down and negotiate with the National Park for some
    property within the National Park to place the schools so we
    can remove these children from this area and get them in a more
    conducive environment. And I believe that is supposed to
    happen.
        The fact remains, the Park System, the taxes that should be
    paid as in the national government in Washington, D.C., taxes
    are not paid. And I believe that the Federal Government should,
    on behalf of the National Park, build that school, fund that
    school, furnish that school as a quid pro quo for the taxes
    that are not collected on the lands that are owned by the
    Federal Government.
        That is one of the major concerns that my colleagues and
    myself have as it pertains to the education of our children.
    And I'm asking that something like that be done, and let the
    executive branch sit down and make sure that is done.
        As it pertains to the taxi drivers, and they're going to
    come up, and they'll be able to represent themselves, who make
    a living going throughout the Parks.
        And the access. And the good Congresswoman Christensen
    spoke to that fact, prohibiting them from going through.
        And the roads, as they are, they should be maintained.
        These are the issues that we hope that you will be able to
    clear up and take back because one of the problems I have,
    witnesses far removed from the Territory. We are here. You are
    there.
        A lot of the things that you deliberate on up there, you
    don't have that visual knowledge. And you will be able to take
    it back.
        I must say Congresswoman McCollum, as she mentioned the
    British Virgin Islands, we here are located between Puerto
    Rico, which has almost 4 million people, a vast amount of land,
    and between the British Virgin Islands that is a British
    dependency. The rules and regulations that are so stringently
    enforced against us here are limiting our economic development.
        I have a serious joke as it pertains to the turtles that
    are protected by the Federal Government. The turtles are
    populating now. They're getting so smart because they know
    right next door in the British Virgin Islands they can be taken
    and killed, so what they do, they swim over here and they party
    and laugh at those other turtles and those other people over
    there that are swimming.
        And these turtles and our fishes, they're getting smart
    because they're recognizing that they're being caught over
    there without any restrictions, and once they come over here
    they can cool out.
        And I understand why the Monument was set up, and I am for
    conservation and preservation and for future use, but the fact
    remains, I believe, and I believe that the Court would rule,
    that those lands were taken illegally.
        I see my time is up, and I'd like to thank you for coming
    here. And those issues that are dear to the people of the
    Virgin Islands, we ask you to look upon them, and in your
    deliberative process with the treaties with the Federal
    Government and the British, the British Empire, as it pertains
    to conservation in the British Virgin Islands, yes, they do
    have some laws but the line of demarcation is so small that
    what happens over there affects us over here.
        So if you can utilize your authority and power in those
    treaty processes to make sure that what is done over there
    basically coincides with what we do over here.
        And the question was well taken, Madam McCollum, because
    what happens over there affects us over here.
        I would like to thank you for coming, and I'm available for
    any questions.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Cole.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cole follows:]

              Statement of The Honorable Donald G. Cole, Senator,
                  24th Legislature of the U.S. Virgin Islands

        My name is Senator Donald G. Cole, Liaison to the United States
    Congress, Chairman of the Committee on Planning and Environmental
    Protection and member of the 24th Legislature of the United States
    Virgin Islands. It is an honor to have the opportunity to testify today
    before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands.
        I stand before you today, honoring an invitation to testify from
    George Radanovich, Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks,
    Recreation and Public Lands. The said invitation has asked me to
    contribute in this July 20, 2002 Subcommittee oversight hearing on the
    Virgin Islands National Park and the Virgin Islands Coral Reef National
    Monument.
        As important as these two issues are to the people of the Virgin
    Islands today and those who have prepared the path, I will attempt to
    express my sincere concerns as it pertains to these two issues of
    historical importance. I present the following testimony.
    National Park
        It has been several years now since my colleagues and I have
    received numerous calls concerning access to properties in and
    surrounding the national park by landowners of that community. The
    debate and questions point back to, ``Who are the owners of the
    roads?''
        According to an analysis done by Attorney General, Iver Stridiron
    on August 4, 1916, all property in the Virgin Islands was ceded to the
    United States Government from Denmark. This property included all the
    Danish Roads. He went on to state that in 1936, the Organic Act Section
    4, 49 Stat 1806, 48 USCA 1405 (a), was enacted which states that:
    Virgin Islands under the convention entered into August 4, 1916, not
    reserved by the United States for public purposes prior to June 22,
    1937, is placed under the control of the Government o the Virgin
    Islands.
        There is still some uncertainty as to who owns these roads. Then
    there is still the debate as to if these roads are ``public'' or
    ``private''. One thing is clear, the Federal Government and the
    National Park has control of the access roads as we stand here today.
    In 1962, the Territorial and Federal Government entered into a
    Memorandum of Understanding, which codified by the Legislature of the
    Virgin Islands as Act No. 806. This legislation transferred
    responsibility for, and authorized the National Park Service to
    maintain certain public roads within the National Park. Since the
    Territorial Government gave up the Federal Government the right to
    maintain these roads, any attempt today by the Territorial Government
    to maintain these roads without he consent of the Federal Government
    would violate the Memorandum of Understanding and Act. No. 806.
        Now that it is clear that the Federal Government has control of
    access to these roads within the National Park it has created and still
    is creating a major problem. Property owners within the National Park
    surrounding areas are denied access. For the past 40 years, no progress
    has been made despite all of the entered agreements and laws that are
    on the books. For example, as far back as 1961 in and October 26th
    letter, the National Park agreed that it would cooperate fully to the
    end that all private properties have passable road access, whenever
    necessary, to the major public roads within the National Park.
        Even if roads within the National Park are not a ``public road'',
    individuals with inholdings on Federal lands must be provided access to
    their property. Courts have maintained that landowners with inholdings
    in the National Parks have a legal right to access their property.
        Inholders also may have common law access rights via easements and
    otherwise. These rights exist regardless of any National Park policies
    that would restrict and deny access. It is clear that the landowners
    cannot be prevented from accessing their property.
    Such landowners are:
        Timothy Rasmus: Gerda Marsh & Others: Emeleo Jeppesen & Others:
    Ernest Marsh & Others: Everton Lewis: George Beretta & Others: Caines,
    Felicia & Roberts: William Roberts: John Testamark: George Thomas:
    Alphonse Jacob: Dalmida, Walter & Others: Mathias, M & Others: Mary
    Anthony: Samuel, Gloria & Others: Testamark, H.M. & Julius: Mathia,
    Thomas, Petersen: Luke Petrus: Lorentz Bryan: Christian Bryan: Rich,
    Jr. William & Jerome: George Bryan: Mary Donatry: Henry Brown: Thomas,
    Alice & E: Prince, Ralph & Rosalind: Janet S. Waden: and Thomas,
    Susanna & Others.
        In the chronology of events as it relates to the National Park, it
    is clear what the intent of the National Park was not in consideration
    of the many landowners that will be affected in that community. In 1916
    there was a Convention between the United States and Denmark. In 1932
    the United States Government conducted a survey of St. John for Parks.
    Then a major event took place.
        In 1956 Laurence S. Rockefeller donated 5,000 acres of his
    privately owned land to the National Park Service. At this point, it
    was the intent of Mr. Rockefeller to make St John the amusement capital
    of the world. He referred to the park as the new Virgin Islands
    National Park that will serve as a focal point of many opportunities.
    It is bound to bring new attention to the recreational advantages of
    the islands. This vision was developed without consideration of the
    landowners within the National Park.
        In 1958, the National Park Service rangers told landowners that
    they were not permitted to cut wood, fish or other such activities that
    were usual methods for survival and then a standard of living. It was
    apparent that the National Park Service was developing a strategy to
    persuade landowners to sell and give up their land so that the park
    could fulfill the vision of Laurence Rockefeller and all those who had
    no consideration for the people of the Virgin Islands.
        With this plan coming to light, in 1962 the Legislature of the
    Virgin Islands passed Bill No. 1562 to assure that Virgin Islands
    residents would have access to their properties. As a counter that same
    year, the House of Representatives attempted to authorize the National
    Park Service to acquire additional acreage through condemnation. From
    the actions to the date of the Federal Government it is unclear as to
    what definition of the word applied to the people of the Virgin
    Islands. Did they want to appropriate (property) for the public use or
    did they want to acquire the land by declaring it unfit for use?
        It has been 40 years, and the people of the Virgin Islands need
    access to their property. It is unfair for the Federal Government to
    deny access property. It is unfair for the Federal Government to deny
    access by not maintaining and not developing proper passage for the
    people of the Virgin Islands. All of the homeowners within the National
    Park should have an input. They are affected and should be informed
    about any and all developments as it pertains to the National Park. The
    people have been denied. Just put yourself in the same position as the
    people of the Virgin Islands. Please follow along with me. The year is
    1962 and you just bought a Cadillac. You have it fully loaded and the
    keys in hand. You have paid in full. The dealer delivers it to your
    garage and closes the door and locks it. Yu have no way of getting to
    your Cadillac. Can you enjoy and reap the benefits? No! It's the same
    feeling that the landowners have as it relates to the National Park.
    National Monument
        Over the past, I have written correspondence to the Honorable Donna
    M. Christian-Christiansen, U.S. Congresswoman, United States Virgin
    Islands; the Honorable Frank Murkowski, Chairman, Committee on Energy
    and Natural Resources and the Honorable Gail A. Norton, secretary of
    Interior, United States Department of Interior asking for introduction
    of the legislation to repeal the monument designation of the Virgin
    Islands Coral Reef Monument.
        This area covers 12,000 acres of water around St. John, and the
    expansion of St. Croix's Buck Island National Reef Monument, which
    covers from 900 acres to approximately 18,000 acres.
        On January 17, 2001, President Clinton signed Proclamation Nos.
    7392and 7399 designating these areas as national Monuments. The former
    is entitled ``Boundary Enlargement and Modifications of the Buck Island
    Reef National Monument'' near St. Croix and 7399, ``Establishment of
    the Virgin Islands coral Reef National Monument'' off St. John.
        The issue here is whether or not the Department of Interior has the
    right and title to the submerged lands over which they have exercised
    this authority under Section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat.
    225, 16 U.S.C. 431). The Department of Interior, under the Clinton
    Administration, was overzealous in its efforts to have these sites
    designated as ``National Monument'' and spent very little time
    discussing its plans with the people of the Virgin Islands especially
    the fishermen who will be directly impacted by this Federal action.
        There are two reasons why the above Proclamations should be
    repealed. First, as mentioned, the land designation was NOT Federal
    submerged lands and the Department of Interior has had neither
    ownership nor control over them since midnight February 2, 1975.
    Secondly the impact on local fishing rights will severely impact our
    marine fishing industry and our failing economy.
        The history of ownership is clear. On October 5, 1974, Public Law
    93-435 took affect and transferred all submerged lands in the Virgin
    Islands, Guam, and American Samoa to the respective territorial
    governments. It provided for the retention of certain lands and mineral
    rights by the United States Government and also clearly stated the
    President, by proclamation, would have one hundred and twenty (120)
    days after October 5, 1974, to reserve those submerged lands that he
    proclaims will be exempted from transfer to the territorial
    governments. Title 48, Section 1705 (b) states in pertinent part:
        There are exceptions from the transfer made by subsection (a)
    hereof:
         LAll deposits of oil, gas and other minerals, but the term
    ``minerals'' should not include coral, sand and grave.
         LAll submerged lands designated by the President within
    one hundred and twenty days after October 5, 1972 (These 120 days ended
    on February 2, 1975)
         LAll submerged lands designated within the Virgin Islands
    National Park established by sections 398(c) and 398(d) of Title 16:
    and
         LAll submerged lands within thee Buck Islands Reed
    National Monument as described in Presidential Proclamation 3448 dated
    December 28, 1961.
        There were only two proclamation issued under this section of PL
    93-435 affecting the Virgin Islands. They are Proclamation NO. 4346,
    which added thirty (30) acres of submerged lands to the Buck Island
    Reed National Monument and Proclamation No. 4347, which reserved
    certain submerged lands off the west coast from St. Croix for use by
    the United States Navy.
        President Gerald Fox signed these proclamations on February 1,
    1975, just one (1) day prior to the expiration of the one hundred and
    twenty day period. There transfers were the only exceptions made to PL
    93-435. Thereafter, all other submerged lands were transferred from the
    Department of Interior to the Government of the Virgin Islands. These
    30,843 acres of submerged lands, which the Department of Interior,
    through presidential proclamation, has declared national monuments, are
    not Federal lands, but the property of the Government of the Virgin
    Islands.
        Of great concern, is the impact on the marine fishing industry that
    is substantial. Numerous individuals from the fishing and boating
    communities have opposed these designations. The amount of acreage
    designated over compensated for the protection needed on the natural
    reefs in and around the existing national monument. Fishing experts
    have stated that the size of the areas will adversely impact the
    traditional use of those areas for alternating their fishing patterns.
    These are essential patterns that allow fishermen to fish in certain
    areas, while fish are breeding in other areas.
        In conclusion, it is clear that we need to consult and get the
    important testimony from the V.I. Department of Natural Resources,
    local researchers and environmentalists of the marine industry on the
    economic impact these designations will have on the Virgin Islands.
        In the past, meetings and hearings were held and many citizens of
    the Virgin Islands opposed these same designations. The Governor and
    Congresswoman publicly opposed the designation. At the meetings, the
    vast majority of the testifiers opposed, but yet the designation was
    still passed.
        It is my wish that the people of the Virgin Island who will
    ultimately be affected be heard. Not only just to be heard, but take
    into consideration the recommendations and concerns of the people of
    the Virgin Islands. God Bless America, God Bless the Virgin Islands and
    God Bless us all.
                                     ______

        Mr. Radanovich. We will now hear from Mr. Myron Jackson
    from the Department of Natural Resources before we open up the
    panel for questions. Mr. Jackson is speaking for the Honorable
    Dean Plaskett who's the Commissioner of the Department of
    Planning and Natural Resources, who will, as I understand,
    articulate or read Mr. Plaskett's statements, and Mr. Plaskett
    will be asked questions over on St. Croix at Monday morning's
    hearing.

                      STATEMENT OF MYRON JACKSON,
                    DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

        Mr. Jackson. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Radanovich. Sure, Mr. Jackson.
        Mr. Jackson. Good morning, Honorable Representatives of
    Congress, and to all present or otherwise listening. My name is
    Myron Jackson. I am here on behalf of Commissioner Dean C.
    Plaskett, State Historic Preservation Officer from the
    Department of Planning and Natural Resources.
        I've been invited here today to render testimony on behalf
    of the Government of the Virgin Islands with regard to the
    former President's creation of a national monument here in the
    United States Virgin Islands.
        Pursuant to the Antiquities Act, the President of the
    United States has the authority to designate national monuments
    on land owned or controlled by the Government of the United
    States. However, because the Virgin Islands owns virtually all
    of the submerged lands that President Clinton designated as
    national monument lands, he did not have the authority to make
    such designations under the Antiquities Act.
        Furthermore, President Clinton's proclamation regarding the
    Buck Island Reef National Monument breaches the contract
    between the Virgin Islands and the United States entered into
    in 1961.
        In addition, the Department of Planning and Natural
    Resources, known as DPNR, and the Territory as a whole believe
    that President Clinton's proclamation also violated several
    other Federal statutes and the Constitution.
        Time does not permit me to outline all of the key points as
    entered into the remarks by Commissioner Plaskett. However, I
    would like to bullet some of his key points.
        A) President Clinton acted beyond the authority conferred
    by the Antiquities Act. Since June 8th, 1906 the Antiquities
    Act has authorized the President of the United States to
    declare by public proclamation objects of historic or
    scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or
    controlled by the Government of the United States to be
    national monuments.
        Thus, because the U.S. Government did not own the lands
    designated by President Clinton as national monument lands,
    President Clinton did not have the authority to designate such
    lands and such designation.
        In 1974 Congress passed, and the President signed, the
    Territorial Submerged Land Act, TSLA, which provides, subject
    to valid, existing rights, all right, title and interest of the
    United States in lands permanently or periodically covered by
    tidal waters up to, but not above, the line of high tide, and
    seaward to a line three geographical miles distant from the
    coastlines of the territories of Guam, the Virgin Islands, and
    American Samoa are hereby conveyed to the Governments of Guam,
    the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa, as the case may be, to
    be administered in trust for the benefit of the people thereof.
        Commissioner Plaskett also outlines in his paper:
        Item B) President Clinton's expansion of Buck Island Reef
    National Monument breached the contract between the United
    States and the Territory, and constituted takings.
        In 1936, the United States gave the Virgin Islands control,
    but not title, to Buck Island. He makes reference to 28 USCA,
    Subchapter 1405(c).
        In 1961 the Governor of the Virgin Islands, as authorized
    by the Legislature of the Virgin Islands in an Act of December
    5th, 1961, relinquished its control over Buck Island to
    facilitate the establishment and management of the Buck Island
    Reef National Monument.
        In exchange for this relinquishment of control by the
    Virgin Islands, however, the United States agreed not to adopt
    any regulations restricting the existing fishing and
    recreational privileges of Virgin Islands inhabitants in and
    around Buck Island.
        Moreover, when President Clinton designated the Virgin
    Islands Coral Reef National Monument and expanded the Buck
    Island Reef National Monument in January of 2001, he
    effectuated a taking of the fishing and boating rights of the
    residents of the Virgin Islands without just compensation.
        Furthermore, to the extent that the President designated
    territorial, as opposed to Federal, lands as monument lands,
    the Territory views this as takings as well.
        The Commissioner then goes on to outline procedural
    requirements for the Territory.
        And for the foregoing reasons, DPNR and the Territory
    believe that President Clinton's proclamations designating the
    Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument and expanding the
    Buck Island Reef National Monument are invalid.
        He then goes on to outline issues relating to the St. Croix
    East End Marine Management Plan and the key points of that and
    the Department's position in reference to the conservation and
    management of those cultural resources.
        Commissioner Plaskett regrets that he was unable to be here
    this morning due to illness, and he hopes that he will have the
    opportunity to interact with you during hearings on St. Croix.
        We thank you for the opportunity to offer these brief
    remarks.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Jackson. Yes,
    indeed, we'll hear from Mr. Plaskett on Monday morning, and it
    will be in St. Croix.
        Mr. Radanovich. I now, for questioning, turn my time over
    to Mrs. Christensen.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be
    looking forward to asking Commissioner Plaskett some questions.
        I just wanted to say for the record, that as we looked at
    and were briefed on how the determination of this ownership of
    the submerged lands was made by the previous administration, I,
    too, felt, and in consultation with the Congressional Research
    Service that there was adequate question about the ownership of
    those lands, and in my submission, in my request for the
    opinion from GAO--and we have to remember that GAO is not a
    final arbiter. They are looking at the facts, and they're just
    giving their opinion based on their looking at the issue.
        But we also stated that we felt that the case had not been
    made that those were Federal lands in our request for their
    opinion.
        I guess I would turn my first question to Senator Liburd.
    Again, thanks for doing us the honor of allowing us to use this
    facility even before you had a chance to use it. That's a real
    honor, and we appreciate it very much.
        Have any of the inholdings been resolved in any instance?
        Mr. Liburd. To the best of my knowledge, there have been
    some discussions with a couple of them, but you know what
    happens, is that after many years of trying and not getting
    anywhere, some of the folks, some of them pass away. They move
    on from generation to generation, and it became-- ``So wait a
    minute. Well, what's going to happen? I'm not going to get
    anything done anyhow.'' So some people even gave up.
        And that's the unfortunate thing that happened, that we
    have, as a government, as a people, allowed our people to be
    placed in that position.
        And so, you know, what happens now is that some of the
    properties have gone from generation to generation, and their
    heirs, some of them were forced to go away. Some were forced to
    try to sell their property, et cetera, and that's the status of
    where we are.
        But there has been some contact. I don't know exactly how
    far it has been but you know that the beating that they have
    taken over the years really has placed a burden on them.
        And because they feel like we have meetings over and over.
    The Senate has--we don't have the authority to really make
    changes, and those who have the authority haven't done so.
        Mrs. Christensen. Senator Cole, you have a list of
    landowners here. Is that a full list of all of the landowners,
    to the best of your knowledge, or is this just a sample? As I
    count them, there's somewhere in the area of 25 of them.
        Mr. Cole. Madam Congresswoman, yes, those are the ones that
    we were able to research, and the documentation here provides
    that these are the ones who were affected. And a lot of them
    don't have the resources to fight big brother, per se, but
    these are the--
        Mrs. Christensen. So we have to work it out on their
    behalf?
        Mr. Cole. Definitely.
        Mrs. Christensen. Right. My staff was just reminding me
    that in our correspondence and our discussions with the Park
    Service this is one of the issues that we want to work with you
    to resolve as well. We've indicated that to them, and we've
    started some discussions with the Superintendent already.
        Are the closed roads, Senator Liburd, that you refer to,
    are they usable now? Are they in usable condition, if they are
    open?
        Mr. Liburd. They are not. As a matter of fact, let me just
    say, Congresswoman Christensen, that the roads were closed for
    some time now, and recently, because of the storms and
    hurricane, they even got worse. If you go to the list of--the
    area, and that's over by Annaberg, you can't pass there
    anymore.
        But prior to that, the place called Johnny Home which is by
    the Emmaus Moravian Church, there were some boulders placed in
    the middle of the road that no one could pass, and when you ask
    who put them there, well, nobody ever really knew, you know,
    but they just happened to just roll there and stay there for a
    while, you know, and this is the situation that we're facing.
        Mrs. Christensen. So if they had an--have you been in
    discussions with the Park Service--let me just follow up on the
    same question--asked about the sort of a compromise that you
    have suggested, one that you may have suggested, that--
        Mr. Liburd. Well,--
        Mrs. Christensen. --in the case of emergency,--
        Mr. Liburd. --yes.
        Mrs. Christensen. --if those roads would be open, they
    still would not be passable?
        Mr. Liburd. Well, to me, personally, and I want to say
    this, that, you know, we look at the environmental issues. And
    I, personally, I was one as a youngster growing up here,
    knowing that we could go out and fish and go all over the
    place. And I recall my father and I would set fish traps, and
    we would put them out in the morning like 6 o'clock and by 12
    o'clock we can go and bring them back up full of fish.
        You put them out now six o'clock, you probably have to go
    back six o'clock the next day to see if you find something, and
    you may find something.
        I'm saying that that happened then. And so when the
    discussion came about protecting our environment and setting up
    these areas of concern for Fish & Wildlife, I agreed with that.
    I believe it's something that's appropriate that we should do.
        In that vein I looked at our roads, and I said, you know,
    we can't have everything, but at least we need to have at least
    an access that can take us out from the Coral Bay area in the
    event of emergency because, like I said, if you are blocked off
    from over by Kingshill, and that area is blocked off to go to
    the North Shore, you cannot get out.
        The Bordeaux Road which is a road that's very steep-- as a
    matter of fact, Bordeaux Road is one of our worst roads that we
    have here on the island. And that area you can't pass, and so
    my suggestion to the Park, and I've discussed it with Mr. King
    and with other superintendents.
        Mrs. Christensen. Previous superintendents?
        Mr. Liburd. Oh, yeah, hundreds of them, I mean, you know.
    But, you know, I think it's beyond the Superintendent, you
    know, and that's why I see my good friend there shaking her
    head, the Director. We're going to work something out here.
        But I'm saying that I think that what would be appropriate,
    if we can look at one of those roads, whichever one that's
    feasible that's not going to create that much environmental
    harm to the property, and open it up.
        And I look at the Steven Mandahl area going to Fish Bay but
    not only it would open up for access, it would also provide an
    opportunity to see our parks. You know, that's another tour, a
    part of a tour that our taxi drivers can take.
        They can go around the island, come around the other way,
    and so it's another part of an area of our tourism that they
    don't see, and they would not be able to see because they're
    all blocked off. And that's my compromise.
        Mrs. Christensen. I'll come back again but my time--my
    initial time is up.
        Mr. Radanovich. OK. Well, we'll make sure all of the
    questions are asked.
        Ms. McCollum.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a follow-up on
    the roads.
        Interesting point that you bring up, sir, that if we had
    more roads that were accessible, more people could get around
    the Park. Who pays for maintaining the roads?
        To get you to your private property, who pays? You know,
    let's say we get them opened up.
        Mr. Liburd. Yes.
        Ms. McCollum. Who's going to pay for the maintenance?
        Mr. Liburd. Based on the Legislature's Act, it's a joint
    effort between the Government of the Virgin Islands and the
    National Park. While the roads are through the Park, the
    Government of the Virgin Islands will maintain, along with the
    joint agreement with the National Park.
        So, it's not that the person or the private owner has to
    maintain the road.
        The Government maintains those roads but the problem is
    that those were the same roads that were used to access the
    property of these private inholdings, and if they are not open
    they cannot access them.
        Ms. McCollum. OK. Thank you for answering my question.
        So your vision, if these roads are opened up, is that it
    would be the Virgin Islands and the Federal Government who
    would jointly pay for maintaining the roads?
        Mr. Liburd. Exactly.
        Ms. McCollum. It just wouldn't be the Park Service in and
    of itself?
        Mr. Liburd. Right. Just like, right now, Honorable Betty
    McCollum, is that there are roads right through the Park right
    now as we speak, and it's a joint maintenance effort between
    the Park--in some place the Park takes a certain portion, and
    if the local Government works with them, then there's--there
    can be collaboration between us.
        As a matter of fact, I have always said we can get along.
        Ms. McCollum. Oh, I'm certainly feeling that in this room.
    I feel great optimism and hope in this room.
        Mr. Liburd. Very well. Thank you.
        Ms. McCollum. As I'm reading through the testimony that is
    here today from the Commissioner, I'm going to go back and do a
    little more history here. Some of this dispute actually
    happened in 1975 when President Ford did some interpretation.
        I have some letters here which are totally public and a
    copy of the statute about extending the protection of the land
    because it's adjacent to Federal land.
        Do you--and maybe--and if this is an unfair question to you
    because of your length of service, I wish to--I don't--you
    know, I understand.
        In 1975 did the Virgin Islands, when President Ford first
    started talking about his vision of making sure that the
    adjacent land--in fact, it was like, more like a buffer zone
    around some of the Federal lands--did the Virgin Islands at
    that time contact the National Park Service and say, whoa, wait
    a minute; we need to talk about this?
        Has this been going on since 1975? Or has this just been
    brought to attention since President Clinton made his
    proclamation?
        Mr. Jackson. Honorable Betty McCollum, I reserve the right
    to allow those questions to be directed specifically to
    Commissioner Plaskett during the hearing on St. Croix.
        However, I do think that Senate President Rocky Liburd can
    answer that question.
        Ms. McCollum. You're on. Educate me. Mr. Liburd.
        Mr. Liburd. I was just listening to-- Please just repeat
    again.
        Ms. McCollum. In 1975 President Ford wanted to--he told the
    Park Service that they needed to extend out the boundaries, and
    so in 1975 the Federal Government started saying, you know, we
    are responsible out a little farther here because of some of
    the public laws that had been passed in 1994, which said ``All
    submerged lands adjacent to property owned by the U.S.
    Government.''
        And then we have letters from the Department of Interior
    dated 1975 saying the Park Service would continue to have
    administration and responsibility for submerged lands adjacent
    to the Park land.
        My question was--this is my first time in the Virgin
    Islands. I've only been in Congress for a year--
        Have you been--since 1975 has the Virgin Islands been on
    top, being aggressive about this issue, or did it just recently
    come to light when President Clinton went forward?
        Mr. Liburd. Well, let me just say that the Virgin Islands
    over the years--and we have some advocates. One is in the back,
    former Senator Browne, who has been an advocate of submerged
    lands, and he has been in the forefront of this issue.
        But in all honesty, a lot of the attention was brought
    about recently with the enactment of President Clinton.
        But I want to--just to elaborate some more, and someone
    who's done much more extensive study than I have on it, refer
    to the Chairman of the Environmental Committee, Senator Cole.
        Mr. Cole. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President.
        A lot of the research is there, and it's in my written
    presentation to you. And Senator Browne, who has much more
    knowledge and understanding even than I have, will be
    testifying in St. Croix.
        But as it pertains to that, the fact remains, the issue
    that we believe we're going to have to take to the courts, and
    I'm behind it 100 percent, is that every place in the Virgin
    Islands is next to Federal land.
        Every place that's here in St. John, every other property
    is next to the land. So is this how the Federal Government is
    going to be utilizing this tool and its language to come back
    and say we want to protect everything that is next to the
    Federal land, and that is why we are definitely in a position,
    utilizing that logic and that thing in the law that if it's
    next to the land, we can come in and take it.
        These lands were turned over to the Federal--to the local
    Government for operation. The Department of Planning and
    Natural Resources has put in place provisions. The Virgin
    Islands Legislature has passed laws to protect these lands, and
    we believe they were taken illegally.
        And I don't adhere to the fact because they're next to that
    you have the right to do it. Not you, yourself, but the
    President, under the Antiquities Act, has the right to do that.
        We have the authority to do it, and we are able to do it,
    and the whole entire Virgin Islands is next to Federal lands.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much.
        I have a brief question. What happens when a hurricane
    hits? Do you go to high ground or do you leave the islands?
        Mr. Cole. We pray.
        Mr. Radanovich. Say what?
        Mr. Cole. We pray.
        Mr. Radanovich. You pray?
        Mr. Cole. And you hide and, you know, it's really a--
        Mr. Radanovich. Do you actually go to high ground? On
    occasion you would have to.
        Mr. Liburd. Well, you--there are a number of shelters.
    There's a number of shelters around, and you try to find
    probably one of the most suitable areas but with a hurricane
    there's really no suitable area. You know, you never know.
        And as Senator Cole just mentioned, you pray, and sometimes
    you go and hide, and, you know, it's a very traumatic
    experience.
        Mr. Radanovich. But at the same time you do need roads to
    get around?
        Mr. Liburd. Oh, definitely. As a matter of fact, that's
    why, Mr. Chairman, I spoke about this road in Coral Bay.
    Because so often whenever there's a storm--well, it doesn't
    even have to be a hurricane. A strong rain, and a whole bunch
    of stuff washes in the road and blocks off the roads, you know,
    because of the terrain it is.
        And so during a hurricane it's even worse than that. And
    like I said, folks over on that end, and it's a fast developing
    area, will be blocked off. You know, there's no if's, and's, or
    but's, and don't talk about going around in boats. You can't
    get around in the water.
        Mr. Radanovich. I guess that doesn't work.
        Mr. Liburd. No, it doesn't work. So that's the concern I
    have, and I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we can come to a
    compromise. It's not a big deal to me if we are serious about
    our people, and if we want to do what is right on their behalf.
        [Senator Lorraine Berry now present.]
        Mr. Liburd. And I ask you, again, on behalf of all of--as a
    matter of fact, let me just welcome you on behalf of all of our
    members of the Legislature, and just Senator Berry, who is one
    of our colleagues who just joined us here, along with Senator
    Cole.
        And I say that, from time to time we want to be able to
    have a much better relationship with your Committee as it
    pertains to these issues.
        And like Congresswoman McCollum said, she's feeling the
    vibes already. I just want the vibes to translate into some
    relief. Then we'd be all right.
        Mr. Radanovich. Well, I think Mrs. Christensen's getting us
    here is a real--
        Mr. Liburd. That's a beginning. It's a good start.
        Mrs. Christensen. A start.
        Mr. Radanovich. Before I turn my time over to Mrs.
    Christensen I want to recognize Senator Lorraine Berry who has
    joined us as well. Welcome, Senator. We're happy to have you
    here.
        Donna?
        Mrs. Christensen. Well, thanks.
        Welcome, Senator Berry.
        Two short questions. The first one I would ask to Senator
    Cole, because you did mention the issue of the taxi drivers,
    and we're going to get to that, again, hopefully in the next
    panel.
        What would you like to see happen with regard to the taxi
    drivers who do business in terms of tours within the Park? I'm
    not talking about the taxi drivers who do pickups and drop-
    offs, who have no fee, and for whom some lookout points have
    been offered without a fee.
        But for those who are doing actual business, a concession
    business within the Park, what would you like to see the
    outcome be?
        Mr. Cole. I would basically want to see that the taxi
    drivers, those who make a living doing it, that at a minimum,
    whatever fee is charged has to be minuscule because they have
    other expenses that they have to take care of. They have
    insurance for their vehicles. They have to maintain those
    vehicles, and they're engaging in business.
        Whatever impact is placed upon the Park itself, that
    anything that is minuscule, but not something that is
    overbearing that is going to cut into the revenues that they
    are going to get from this because the people who come in here,
    they come here basically to see the Park. The land tours are
    set up to do that, and I believe that anything minuscule to
    take care of whatever they're going to do in the Park should be
    done, but not overburden them.
        Mrs. Christensen. So you understand that if they're picking
    up and dropping off there's no fee?
        Mr. Cole. Definitely.
        Mrs. Christensen. Not that there is--
        Mr. Cole. There shouldn't be any fee for picking up and
    dropping off.
        Mrs. Christensen. There is none.
        Mr. Cole. Right. And none should be imposed. There
    shouldn't be any fee for them going in, going doing that. None
    should be imposed. They are conducting a business, and the Park
    takes care of that.
        Mrs. Christensen. Right.
        And, Senator Liburd, one last question for you. From your
    knowledge, having grown up here, lived here, and your knowledge
    of where this proposed monument is supposed to be, is that an
    area that is heavily utilized or well utilized by commercial
    fishermen?
        Mr. Liburd. Oh, yes. Let me say this, that that places the
    fishermen in a precarious position. Because what has happened
    is that all of the areas, the majority of the areas where they
    are accustomed to using, are now going to be placed under this
    jurisdiction.
        You have to remember that St. John and the Territory is a
    very small area. The range, the three-mile range is just right
    around--you know, it's just right out there, and it falls
    within a lot of the major stomping grounds for our fishermen.
        And that's one of the concerns that they have, and I don't
    think that was even taken into consideration.
        And so I agree that we ought to look at how we're going to
    develop a plan, and I believe that the fishermen are ready to
    work with that plan but there has to be some give and take. It
    can't be all one way and forget about them, and that's the
    concern that I see has been happening.
        And just to piggyback, Congresswoman, on the taxi
    situation, you know one of the big issues around here that has
    been like a mind-boggling situation for us is that we grew up
    going to Trunk Bay and going to all of the beaches free.
        Mrs. Christensen. Absolutely.
        Mr. Liburd. You could just go there anytime. You didn't
    have to pay a dollar, and so when the changes came forward
    where there was a fee charged for it, it created some kind of
    feeling that you just don't experience until you have lived it.
    You know, and it's difficult.
        As a matter of fact, sometimes a lot of our local folks
    don't even go there, and I personally believe that we shouldn't
    be paying.
        Mrs. Christensen. Right.
        Mr. Liburd. I understand how, with the situation and what
    has happened with the Park. But I believe that you're here, and
    the free beach actually wipes it out as far as I'm concerned
    because of the charging of a fee.
        Mrs. Christensen. Absolutely.
        Mr. Liburd. And I think that maybe you guys need to revisit
    that sometime.
        Mrs. Christensen. That's why I asked the question to
    Director Mainella because we are trying to address it. We've
    been addressing it, and we started with the Superintendent. We
    went to the Regional Director. We're now at her level.
        Mr. Liburd. Good. Because--and if it comes out that--you
    know, I know that everything has a cost to it, but if it comes
    out that we have to pay, then some of that should go back to
    try to help this community develop this infrastructure because
    it's part of here.
        Yes, the Park has some but I believe that there should be
    some compromise where a portion of that should be coming
    directly to this community for some development, infrastructure
    or something here, and so that there wouldn't be that great
    concern about it because at least we're helping out each other.
        And I think that somewhere along the line we're going to
    have to look at that issue in that respect because it's
    difficult to know as a youngster you could just drive to the
    beach, and then tomorrow you go, hey, you got to take out some
    money and pay.
        I mean, you know, hey, that was one of the things that we
    were noted for, our beautiful beaches free.
        And they use it against us to campaign, those in
    advertisement. The Virgin Islands, you got to pay to go to the
    beach. Come to our island. It's free. You know what I'm saying?
        So it's a large repercussion beyond just what we see here.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much. Any further questions?
        Mrs. Christensen. I think that that clarifies a lot for me.
    Yes, it does.
        Mr. Radanovich. OK, great. Thank you very much, Gentlemen.
        Senators Liburd and Cole, please join us. There are chairs
    that are available right here.
        And, again, Mr. Jackson, thank you.
        And we'll move on to our third panel. Mr. James Penn, St.
    John, independent taxi driver; Ms. Lorelei Monsanto, landowner;
    and Ms. Alicia Wells, landowner as well.
        Mrs. Christensen. Does Mr. Randolph Thomas belong to the
    other panel?
        Mr. Radanovich. Is Mr. Randolph Thomas here?
        Mr. Thomas. Yes, I'm here but I'm not going to testify.
        Mrs. Christensen. I would say to you, though, Mr. Chair,
    that even though Ms. Monsanto is going to testify primarily on
    the landowner issue, she's very familiar with the taxi issue,
    and you could probably ask her, if she would be willing to--
        Ms. Monsanto. I would also like to ask that the attorney
    for the Taxi Division, Mr. Vincent Colianni, if he could join
    me at the table.
        Mrs. Christensen. What is the response?
        Mr. Radanovich. If there is room. Is there a Mr. James Penn
    or a Ms. Alicia Wells here today?
        Mrs. Christensen. No.
        Mr. Radanovich. OK. Then I'm going to go ahead and call the
    members of the panel forward as well. Mr. Joe Kessler,
    President of the Friends of Virgin Islands National Park; Ms.
    Carla Joseph, President of St. Thomas-St. John Environmental
    Association; and Mr. Dave Berry, as the fisherman.
        Mrs. Christensen. Mr. Berry is here. He may have stepped
    out for a minute so--
        Mr. Radanovich. OK.
        Mrs. Christensen. --when he comes in we'll bring him up
    here.
        Mr. Radanovich. How about Carla Joseph? Is she here today?
        Mrs. Christensen. No.
        Is there a chair for Mr. Colianni?
        Ms. Monsanto. Yes.
        Mr. Colianni. Thank you.
        Mr. Radanovich. Sure.
        Good morning. Thank you very much for being here.
        Ms. Monsanto, if you would begin, please, we'd appreciate
    it, and, again, everybody is aware that we're in the 5-minute
    rule. We'll hear from every member of the panel, and then open
    it up for questions from members here.
        Welcome to the Committee.

                    STATEMENT OF LORELEI MONSANTO,
                         ST. JOHN TOUR OPERATOR

        Ms. Monsanto. Thank you. Good day. Good day to the
    Congressional Committee, Delegate to Congress, and
    distinguished guests.
        I would like to begin with the acknowledgment that I am pro
    the National Park Service. However, St. John needs to be
    managed by the Park effectively. Through the Regional Office,
    not various outside forces, namely the Friends of the National
    Park.
        Presently the Friends of the National Park appears to be
    the major force behind the Virgin Islands National Park Service
    operations.
        The Friends of the National Park, along with former
    Superintendent Russ Berry, developed a commercial service plan
    as it pertains to the Virgin Islands. The planner, a gentleman
    by the name of Jim Owen, was on the Friends' payroll and on the
    National Park's payroll. This appears to be a conflict of
    interest.
        Does the National Park not have plans of its own?
        The degree of apparent power or control with which the
    Friends of the Park operate, has left the community of St. John
    at a loss. The popular opinion is that the Friends manages the
    National Park System with their own special interests.
        The NPS of the Virgin Islands is unlike any other park
    system under the United States flag. We have an Organic Act
    which grants us certain rights. It would have been
    appreciated--
        Mr. Radanovich. I hate to interrupt you but you have to
    pretend like you're going to eat that thing in order for people
    to hear you up there, unfortunately.
        Ms. Monsanto. It would have been appreciated if the local
    law of the Organic Act was intertwined within the commercial
    service plan. The commercial service plan is premised with the
    terminology of a user fee, not an entrance fee. However, the
    program would support an entrance fee.
        Recently the NPS website has been updated to request that a
    holder of a Golden Age membership card can enter the Virgin
    Islands National Park for half price. Why is a fee of half
    price given if it's not an entrance fee?
        Many Golden Age members were told previously that his or
    her card was not accepted in the Virgin Islands. I am sure that
    several of these members have voiced their outrage to Members
    of Congress.
        Since the inception of this temporary commercial program in
    the Virgin Islands, monies have accumulated from this venture.
        Have any audits been conducted on the appropriation of
    these funds?
        The National Park boasts that it welcomed a million plus
    visitors into our system. So in my calculation of $4 a person,
    that figure should reflect $4 million.
        Please note the current National Park website states that
    approximately 700,000 visitors came into the Park for the Year
    2001. That figure reflects a $2 million-plus intake.
        The current Superintendent states only 750,000 has been
    collected since the program's installation.
        It is my understanding that revenues are collected--that
    monies collected are to be used for maintenance. Are the
    revenues from this program used for maintenance in the Virgin
    Islands or elsewhere?
        These figures reflect a huge profit margin. I have several
    issues as it pertains to the U.S. Virgin Islands and the United
    States--and the National Park Service: Roads, land, employment,
    profitability, culture, quality of life, and the water
    Monument, just to name a few.
        It has been said the pen is mightier than the sword. I
    wrote the Secretary of Interior in November of 2001, expressing
    then, and still expressing, that this pot is filling, till they
    look to the policy they themselves agreed to. It is quite
    apparent that nothing happens in this Territory unless the
    natives get restless.
        I am also an indigenous person to these islands. They are
    the only home I know, and I vow to fight and protect my home.
        To date, the National Park Service of the Virgin Islands
    has commandeered roads, landlocked individuals, and has
    blatantly disrespected residents of the Virgin Islands. The NPS
    has erected gates which keep the residents from fully accessing
    their land.
        They have gone as far as to invoke a so-called user fee on
    public roadways. However, this issue will be addressed in
    Federal court in August.
        In the 40 years since the National Park Service took over
    management, they have failed to train the local populace for
    management positions within the NPS system. It is highly
    inconceivable that no one has the education or promise for
    upward mobility.
        According to the National Park mandate, Title 16,
    Subsection B, the Secretary is authorized and directed, to the
    maximum extent feasible, to employ and train residents of the
    Virgin Islands to develop, maintain, and administer the Virgin
    Islands National Park.
        When will this happen?
        The Department of Interior, as well as the residents of the
    Virgin Islands, has not made the National Park accountable. As
    we all know, there are several concerns and major issues that
    surround us in the National Park system of the V.I.
        However, I would like to offer some solutions to the
    Committee to consider. One, the NPS needs to demonstrate to
    Congress and residents alike where their true boundaries are.
    This would eliminate what has been misconstrued as thievery of
    residents' lands.
        The NPS needs to immediately train their local workforce
    for upward mobility. The constant influx of outside management
    negates the importance of the community surrounding them.
        They also need to promote a friendly environment with
    residents. Currently it is hostile.
        Meetings should be held in strategic locations. Example:
    The Legislature Building that we're currently in, for issues
    that deal about St. John.
        Also, a percentage of local residents' participation should
    be required before change is implemented, ``local'' meaning one
    who is domiciled in the Virgin Islands.
        The National Park needs to itself become part of the
    solution. They isolate themselves from the community, and more
    interaction is needed.
        The Virgin Islands also has to shoulder some of this
    responsibility. We, the people, demand accountability by our
    Delegate to Congress, and Congress, to implement change.
        In conclusion, it may be time for a change of management.
    There might be another agency that could manage this area. In
    the 40 years the National Park system has failed, so let's
    consider other alternatives, or let's work to get the National
    Park system back on track for the betterment of all of us.
        I welcome any of your questions. Thank you.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Ms. Monsanto.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Monsanto follows:]

                   Statement of Lorelei Monsanto, Landowner,
                              U.S. Virgin Islands

        Good Day to the Congressional Committee, Delegate to Congress and
    distinguished guest. I would like to begin with the acknowledgment than
    I am pro National Park Service however St. John needs to be managed by
    the park effectively through the Regional Office not various outside
    forces, namely the Friends of the National Park. Presently the Friends
    of the National park appear to be the major force behind the Virgin
    Islands National Park Service's operations.
        The Friends of the National Park, along with the former
    Superintendent Russ Berry, developed the Commercial Service plan as it
    pertains to the Virgin Islands. The Planner a gentleman by the name of
    Jim Owen, was on the Friends payroll and not the National Park's
    payroll. This appears to be a conflict of interest. Does the National
    Park not have planners of its own? The degree of apparent power/control
    with which the Friends of the Park operate has left the Community of
    St. John at a lost. The popular opinion is that the Friends Manage the
    NPS with there own special interests.
        The National Park of the Virgin Islands is unlike any other park
    system under the United States Flag. We have an Organic Act, which
    grants us certain rights. It would have been appreciated if local law
    (Organic Act) were intertwined with this new Commercial Service Plan.
        The Commercial Service Plan is premised with a terminology of a
    usage fee not an entrance fee. However the verbiage supports an
    entrance fee. Recently the NPS web site has been updated to reflect
    that a holder of the Golden Age Membership card can enter the Virgin
    Islands National Park for + price. Why is a fee of + price given if it
    is not an entrance fee? Many Golden Age members were told previously
    that his/her card was not accepted in the Virgin Islands. I am sure
    that several on these members have voiced their outrage to member of
    Congress.
        Since the inception of this temporary commercial program in the
    Virgin Islands monies have accumulated from this venture. Has any
    audits been conducted on the appropriation of these funds. The National
    Park boasts they welcome a million plus visitors into our system, so at
    four ($4.00) dollars per person the figures should reflect about Four
    Million Dollars. Please note that the current NPS web page states that
    approximately Seven Hundred thousand visitors came into the park for
    the year 2001. That figure reflects an approximate fee intake of Two
    Million Dollars Plus. The Current Superintendent states only
    $750,000.00 has been collected each year since the program's
    installation. It is my understanding the revenues collected are to be
    used for maintenance. Are the revenues from this program used for
    maintenance in the Virgin Islands or elsewhere? These figures reflect a
    huge profit margin.
        I have several issues as it pertains to the United States Virgin
    Islands and the National Park Service Roads, Lands, Employment,
    Profitability, Culture, Quality of Life, the Water Monument just to
    name a few.
        As had been said, ``the pen is mightier than the sword,'' I wrote
    the Secretary of Interior in November of 2001 expressing then, and
    still expressing that this park is failing to live up to the policy
    they themselves agreed to (exhibit Title 16-Conservation page 220-223).
    It is quite apparent that nothing happens in this territory unless the
    natives get restless. I am an indigenous person to these islands. They
    are the only home I know and I vow to fight and protect my home.
        To date the National Park Service of the Virgin Islands has
    commandeered roads, land locked individuals and has blatantly
    disrespected residents of the Virgin Islands. The NPS has erected gates
    (laesperance exhibit picture), which keeps the residents from freely
    accessing their land. They have gone as far as to evoke a so-called
    user fee on public roadways however this issue will be addressed in the
    Federal Court in August.
        In the forty plus years, since the National Park took over
    management they have failed to the train the local populous for
    management positions within the NPS system. It is highly inconceivable
    that no one has the education or promise for upward mobility. According
    to the National Park's mandate Title 16 subsection b ``The Secretary is
    authorized and directed to the maximum extent feasible to employ and
    train residents of the Virgin Islands to Develop, Maintain and
    Administer the Virgin Islands National Park''. When will this happen?
    The Dept of Interior as well as the residents of the Virgin Islands has
    not made the National Park accountable.
        As we all know there are several concerns and major issues that
    surround us in the National Park System of the Virgin Islands. However,
    I would like to offer some solutions for this Committee to consider.
        1. The NPS needs to demonstrate to Congress and Residents alike
    where their true boundaries are. This would eliminate what has been
    misconstrued as thievery of residents' land.
        2. The NPS needs to immediately train their local work force for
    upward mobility. The constant influx of outside Management negates the
    importance of the community surrounding them.
        3. Promote a friendly environment with the residents. Currently it
    is quite hostile. Meeting should be held in strategic location (e.g.
    Legislature Bldg.), for issues that deal about St. John. Also, a
    percentage of local resident participation should be required before
    change is implemented. (Local mean one who is domiciled in the Virgin
    Islands.)
        4. The NPS needs to sincerely become part of the solution. They
    isolate themselves from the Community and more interaction is needed.
        5. The Virgin Islands also has to shoulder some of the responsibly.
    We the people demand accountability by our Delegate to Congress and
    Congress to implement change.
        In conclusion it maybe time for a change of management. There may
    be another agency that can manage this area. In forty years the NPS has
    failed, so lets consider other alternative or work to get the NPS back
    on track for the betterment of us all.
        I welcome any questions that the Committee may like to address at
    this time.
                                     ______

        Mr. Radanovich. Next is Mr. Joe Kessler, who's President of
    the Friends of Virgin Islands National Park.
        Joe, welcome to the Committee.
        Mr. Kessler. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Radanovich. Please begin your testimony. And you really
    have to speak into that mike.
        Mr. Kessler. I'll try my best.
        Mr. Radanovich. There you go.

                STATEMENT OF JOSEPH KESSLER, PRESIDENT,
                FRIENDS OF VIRGIN ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK

        Mr. Kessler. The Friends of Virgin Islands National Park
    welcome the Honorable Members of this Subcommittee--
        Mr. Radanovich. You need to get closer.
        Mr. Kessler. --Subcommittee to St. John. Your visit honors
    our islands and it honors our Park.
        As President of the Friends of Virgin Islands National
    Park, I'm before you representing 3,121 members of this
    organization. About 20 percent of our members are from the
    Virgin Islands, and we are proud to have members hailing from
    all 50 states plus ten foreign countries.
        Members of the Friends are bound together by our love for
    Virgin Islands National Park, our commitment to the
    preservation and protection of the cultural and natural
    resources of the Park, and our appreciation for what the Park
    means to St. John and the Virgin Islands.
        Our appreciation is based on the conviction--
        Mr. Radanovich. Excuse me, Joe, but--can you hear in the
    back?
        Audience. No.
        Mr. Radanovich. You really--Joe, it's almost like you have
    to eat it.
        Mr. Kessler. Is that better?
        Mr. Radanovich. There you go. But you have to stay there.
        Mr. Kessler. Members of the Friends are bound together by
    our love for Virgin Islands National Park, our commitment to
    the preservation and protection of the cultural and natural
    resources of the Park, and our appreciation of what the Park
    means to St. John and the Virgin Islands.
        Our appreciation is based on the conviction that it's
    because of the Virgin Islands National Park that St. John is a
    world-class tourist destination, that St. John is a unique and
    safe place to live, and that St. John enjoys considerable
    prosperity.
        St. John is prosperous in the context of the Virgin Islands
    and prosperous in the context of the Caribbean. St. John has
    one of the highest per capita incomes in the Caribbean, one of
    the highest rates of private homeownership in the Caribbean,
    and just about anyone on St. John who wants a job can find one.
    And we could witness hundreds of people who arrive every
    morning from St. Thomas to work here.
        However, is everything perfect and is everyone happy about
    the Park? We've heard lots of testimony and lots of comments
    that that's clearly not the case.
        There are, using a local euphemism, issues that need to be
    addressed, and you heard about many of them, the issues of
    inholding, commercial services, a new educational complex,
    provisions related to the Coral Reef National Monument, and in
    a more general sense, the Park's relationship with the
    community with which it is so inextricably entwined.
        We see some of these issues date back to when the Park was
    created, and some are of much more recent vintage. The Friends
    strongly commend Virgin Islands National Park leadership for
    their willingness to address these issues and for the
    professionalism and openness with which they have entered into
    discussions and sought to find solutions.
        We believe that instead of our differences that it should
    be the strengths and opportunities of Virgin Islands National
    Park that form the basis for searching for solutions. We urge
    all parties, the Park, the Territorial Government, and the
    groups or individuals with grievances to be creative and
    flexible in finding solutions to these problems.
        The Friends stand ready to assist in any way that we can.
    However, we must all be cognizant of the fact that the National
    Park Service is legally mandated to preserve unimpaired the
    natural and cultural resources and values of the National Park
    system, in this case, the Virgin Islands National Park and
    Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument, for the enjoyment,
    education and inspiration of this and future generations.
        This will be, as it rightly should, the foundation upon
    which the Park will stand in discussions.
        The Friends would also like to take this opportunity to
    express our strong support for the immediate implementation of
    the provisions of the Presidential proclamation that
    established Coral Reef National Monument. The monument, as
    we've heard, was proclaimed more than a year and a half ago yet
    its implementation and protection has languished.
        The Friends has been and continues to be an ardent
    supporter of the Monument. We are convinced that the effective
    management of the Monument is the best solution to stop the
    decline in the marine ecosystems around St. John. These are
    precious resources that are deteriorating at alarming rates.
        The need for protection and management is urgent. With the
    marine reserve in place and enforced, the underwater resources
    will be given a chance to restore themselves and then flourish.
        Research in other marine reserves is overwhelmingly
    conclusive, and demonstrating that fish size, diversity, and
    overall population will increase within the protected area, and
    then spread to adjoining waters.
        Virgin Islands residents will reap the substantial long-
    term benefits, not the least of which will be economic, of a
    fully functional V.I. Tropical marine system.
        To put the Monument in context, the submerged lands of the
    Monument represent only 2 percent of the entire submerged lands
    in the Virgin Islands. And so it is a very small area.
        And we believe that there should be no further delay by the
    National Park Service. At a minimum, internal regulations
    should be published and implemented as soon as possible.
        We need this Monument protected and managed now to be sure
    that resources will be there for the future. Otherwise, we will
    witness increasingly barren reefs and increasingly empty fish
    pots.
        As noted above, the Friends is a staunch supporter of the
    Monument. However, we do recognize that implementation of no-
    anchoring and no-take provisions will create certain hardships
    for traditional users of monument waters.
        In partnership with the Park the Friends is implementing
    several mooring projects that will help mitigate some of these
    hardships. We called on the Federal Government and the
    Territorial Government to recognize what other hardships there
    are and consider measures to alleviate them.
        We believe that the need to implement the fully protected
    marine reserve in the Monument is an issue of national
    importance. In March hundreds of our members and members of the
    St. John business community wrote to Director Mainella, urging
    immediate action.
        I invite the members of this Subcommittee to join our
    members and use your good offices to encourage Secretary Norton
    and Director Mainella to begin the protection and management of
    this unique Monument now.
        I thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
    today. On behalf of the members of the Friends of the Virgin
    Islands National Park, we greatly appreciate your commitment to
    Virgin Islands National Park and the Coral Reef National
    Monument.
        Your visit to the Virgin Islands and holding these hearings
    onsite is a clear demonstration of this commitment, one that is
    shared by all Friends of Virgin Islands National Parks.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Kessler.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kessler follows:]

                     Statement of Joe Kessler, President,
                    Friends of Virgin Islands National Park

        The Friends of Virgin Islands National Park welcomes the honorable
    members of the United States House of Representatives Subcommittee on
    National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands to St. John. We are greatly
    encouraged by your visit and the importance that these oversight
    hearings convey on Virgin Islands National Park and Virgin Islands
    Coral Reef National Monument.
        As President of the Friends of Virgin Islands National Park I stand
    before you representing the 3,121 members of this organization. About
    20% of our members are from the Virgin Islands and we are also proud to
    have members hailing from all 50 states, as well as ten foreign
    countries. Members of the Friends are bound together by our love for
    Virgin Islands National Park, our commitment to the preservation and
    protection of the natural and cultural resources of the Park and our
    appreciation of what the Park means for St. John and all of the Virgin
    Islands.
        Our appreciation is based on the conviction that it is because of
    VI National Park that St. John is a world class tourist destination,
    that St. John is a unique and safe place to live, and that St. John
    enjoys considerable prosperity. St. John is a prosperous little island.
    Prosperous in the context of the Virgin Islands and prosperous in the
    context of the Caribbean:
         LSt. John has one of the highest per capita incomes in the
    Caribbean;
         LSt. John has probably the highest rate of private home
    ownership in the Caribbean; and,
         LJust about anyone on St. John who wants a job can find
    one particularly in the hospitality industry, with retail businesses or
    in the building trades. Just witness the hundreds of people who arrive
    every morning from St. Thomas to work here.
        We really have the Park to thank for this it is what makes St. John
    so special!
        However, is everything perfect, and is everyone happy about the
    Park? Of course not; there are, to use the local euphemism, ``issues''
    that need to be addressed. There are issues concerning:
         LPrivate in-holdings within Park boundaries
         LRegulation of commercial services in the Park
         LControl of feral animals and invasive species
         LPublic nudity on Park beaches
         LA site for a new education complex
         LThe no-anchoring and no-take provisions within the Coral
    Reef National Monument
         LAnd, in a more general sense, the Park's relationship
    with the community with which it is so inextricably entwined
        Some of these ``issues'' date back to when the Park was created and
    some are of more recent vintage.
        The Friends strongly commend VI National Park leadership for their
    willingness to address these issues and for the professionalism and
    openness with which they have entered into discussions and sought to
    find solutions.
        We believe that instead of our differences, that it should be the
    strengths and opportunities of VI National Park that form the basis for
    searching for solutions. We urge all parties: the Park, the Territorial
    Government, and the groups or individuals with grievances to be
    creative and flexible in finding solutions to these issues. The Friends
    stand ready to assist in any way that we can.
        However, we all must all be cognizant of the fact that that the NPS
    is legally mandated to: ``preserve unimpaired the natural and cultural
    resources and values of the national park system [in this case, Virgin
    Islands National Park and Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument]
    for the enjoyment, education and inspiration of this and future
    generations''. This will be, as it rightly should, the foundation upon
    which the Park will stand in discussions.
        The Friends would also like to take this opportunity to express our
    strong support for the immediate implementation of the provisions of
    the Presidential Proclamation that established the Virgin Islands Coral
    Reef National Monument. The Monument was proclaimed more than a year
    and a half ago, yet its implementation and protection has languished.
        The Friends has been, and continues to be, an ardent supporter of
    the Monument. We are convinced that the effective management of the
    Monument is the best solution to stop the decline of the marine
    ecosystems around St. John. We have tropical marine ecosystems that are
    some of the most diverse and biologically complex on earth. These
    precious resources are deteriorating at alarming rates the need for
    protection and management is urgent.
        With a marine reserve in place and enforced, the underwater
    resources will be given a chance to restore themselves and then
    flourish. Research in other marine reserves is overwhelmingly
    conclusive in demonstrating that fish size, diversity and overall
    population will increase within the protected area and then spread to
    adjoining waters. Virgin Islands residents will reap the substantial
    long-term benefits, not the least of which will be economic, of a fully
    functional VI tropical marine ecosystem.
        We believe that there should be no further delay by the National
    Park Service. At a minimum, interim regulations should be published and
    implemented as soon as possible. We need this Monument protected and
    managed now to be sure the resources will be here for the future.
    Otherwise we will witness increasingly barren reefs and increasingly
    empty fish pots.
        As noted above, the Friends is a staunch supporter of the Monument.
    However, we do recognize that the implementation of the no-anchoring
    and no-take provisions will create certain hardships for traditional
    users of the Monument's waters. In partnership with the Park, the
    Friends is implementing several mooring projects that will help
    mitigate some of these hardships. Specifically we will be installing a
    storm mooring system in Hurricane Hole that will allow the continued
    use of these bays as a storm refuge while respecting these provisions.
    In addition we will be installing moorings to facilitate fishing for
    blue runner and moorings at popular dive sites. Again, these will allow
    traditional uses to continue while respecting the provisions of the
    monument. We call on the Federal Government and the territorial
    government to recognize the other hardships and consider measures to
    alleviate them.
        We believe that the need to implement the fully protected marine
    reserves in the Monument is an issue of national importance. In March,
    hundreds of our members and members of the St. John business community
    wrote to Director Mainella urging immediate action. I invite the
    members of this Subcommittee to join with our members and use your good
    offices to encourage Secretary Norton and Director Mainella to begin
    the protection and management of this unique Monument NOW.
        Lastly, the Friends of Virgin Islands National Park has joined a
    coalition of more than a hundred other environmental, community,
    business and trade organizations representing millions of Americans,
    called Americans for National Parks. This coalition is working to
    encourage Congress and the Administration to address the full needs of
    the National Park System. I am sure that you are well aware of this
    campaign and I trust that you are strong supporters.
        The impact of the significant shortfall in funding of operations
    for VI National Park is representative of the threat to national parks
    nationwide. Based on data from the business plan developed for VI
    National Park last year, the Park has a 31% budget shortfall in basic
    operations. This is the overall shortage and the situation for certain
    critical areas is much worse. For example, ``Resource Protection'' has
    a shortfall of 46%, and ``Visitor Experience and Enjoyment'' has a
    shortfall of 37%.
        I encourage you to take the opportunity of your visit to discuss
    this issue with VI National Park staff to fully understand the
    implications of this shortfall for the Park and for the million plus
    Americans that visit this Park annually. Hopefully this on-the-ground
    experience will further strengthen your support of this campaign and
    provide you with first-hand knowledge and examples to help you convince
    your colleagues to provide VI National Park, and all national parks,
    with the funding they desperately need.
        I thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. On
    behalf of the members of the Friends we greatly appreciate your
    commitment to Virgin Islands National Park and Virgin Islands Coral
    Reef National Monument. Your visit to the Virgin Islands and holding
    these oversight hearings on-site is a clear demonstration of this
    commitment one that is shared by all Friends of Virgin Islands National
    Park.
                                     ______

        Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Dave Berry, welcome to the Committee,
    and, again, I really need you to keep--stay close to that mike,
    because--and, again, if somebody can't hear in the back, if you
    just raise your hand I'll make sure that you do. That way we'll
    make sure that you'll be able to hear everything that goes on.
        So, Mr. Berry, welcome. I may interrupt you to tell you to
    speak louder or more directly into the mike but other than
    that, the time is all yours.

                  STATEMENT OF DAVID BERRY, FISHERMAN

        Mr. Berry. Thank you very much, Representatives, Committee
    on Resources, the Congress Lady, Senators, and the general
    public.
        I have one little correction to make in my paper. In the
    section where it says ``charter boat'' it was supposed to be
    saying ``longline fishing boats.'' My apologies for the
    mistake.
        Good morning. The closure of the Coral Reef Monument and
    the Buck Island Monument was not only sudden, but it did not
    take into consideration the impact closing would have on the
    people who use the area. I feel that the decision to take--
    excuse me--
        Mr. Radanovich. Dave, would you rather just speak because
    you don't have to read--you don't have to do your--you know,
    that's already part of the record, so if you just want to tell
    us your story, and don't worry about that, you're welcome to do
    that but it's your choice.
        Mr. Berry. OK. Please. I have a bad eye problem especially
    with--
        Mr. Radanovich. Sure.
        Mr. Berry. Anyhow, by coming and just closing the area
    suddenly, it has a drastic effect on us.
        It happened before in the British Virgin Islands where they
    draft up a treaty between longliners and the United States and
    Great Britain, and when they closed it we find ourselves in the
    British Virgin Islands water, fishing, and end up being taken
    to prison.
        It wasn't a good feeling to find yourself in jail caught
    between a treaty between two countries and no negotiation
    between our islands, which is the British Virgin Islands and
    the Virgin Islands share very close ties.
        It took us a year and a half to get out of that system in
    the British Virgin Islands. We ended up pleading guilty and
    setting a precedent for the treaty against us, the fishermen in
    the Virgin Islands.
        So when the National Park comes here and--came here and
    decided not--the Presidential Coral Reef Monument came here and
    decided they're closing off X amount of waters, it drastically
    has an impact on us socially, physically, mentally, everything.
    Because we end up being thrown aside again.
        The area, this is a fishery.
        The biggest problem in the fishery in all of the
    regulations is that they're using juvenile fish as the breeding
    stock. And I'm going to give you a good example. There is no
    livestock farmers worldwide using juvenile animals as a
    breeding stock.
        So here it is we use all juvenile fish as a breeding stock,
    depleting the fishery. And going around and saying the
    fishermen deplete the fishery. They are right they deplete the
    fishery but we follow regulations, and the regulations call for
    leaving juveniles as a breeding stock.
        And if you have to go to the wild, to the Great Plains of
    Africa and the tundra in Canada, you will see the big herds of
    animals really is a big herd of adults, not juveniles.
        Just think about what would happen if it was all juveniles
    in those big herds going to livestock farmers. All those big
    herds are all adults, not juveniles.
        So here we are managing a fishery with all juveniles, and
    I'm seeing a lot of national fisheries groups coming out
    against fishing, and closing and banning and everything, and
    the problem is not fishing and fishery. It's the regulations,
    the regulation calling for juvenile fish to be the breeding
    stock.
        If the National Park really want to cooperate with the
    Virgin Islands fishermen, they would have called meetings with
    the fishermen and cooperate.
        What I mean by cooperating, they'd have asked us to be part
    of the system of restocking the closed areas. What restocking
    closed areas would have do, automatically it would not take 50
    years or 70 years to build back a stock. It wouldn't have
    take--it would have take within 3 years, and then they would
    have had the fishermen feeling proud that we know there's a
    stock of groupers, snappers, lobsters out there that's building
    up, and eventually will be coming out in the area that we fish.
        The main point is that there is like five other agencies
    trying to close out areas in St. Thomas. There's Planning and
    Natural Resources, Caribbean Fishery, Fish & Wildlife--there's
    a number of agencies, and all of them are closing, and using
    the term depletion of fisheries, and they throw the fishermen
    out.
        The world ban prohibits the use for commercial fishing all
    around. Example: As in St. Croix they're going to close off the
    whole eastern end of St. Croix but they're not telling you the
    tip that--they're not showing a reef further outside the three
    miles is already closed by Caribbean Fishery.
        Would it be too hard to cooperate with the fishermen to
    restock areas out there with fish, and say within 5 years' time
    the areas we're fishing now would be functional and more fish
    to harvest?
        Food is one of the most important weapons or strength of a
    country. We already have a severe problem with agriculture and
    fishing here that we don't provide any type of infrastructure
    to support fishing or farming.
        Example about fishing. For us to anchor a fishing boat in a
    marina for 20 years--most fishermen own the boats--it would
    cost approximately a hundred thousand dollars, or $30,000 to
    fish. If you have 20 boats anchored at the marina, just figure
    how many fish you have to catch just to pay the marina bill.
    There's no support for infrastructure.
        Right now in the Caribbean the Japanese are dominating five
    main Caribbean islands, securing the harvesting of fish
    worldwide.
        Not to be mean, but the United States also allowed the
    Japanese to train off the coast of Hawaii, the U.S. Hawaiian
    Islands. There was an accident with a submarine and the large
    training vessels.
        The Japanese right now have power to harvest whales using
    Caribbean boats against sanctuary for whales and everything
    dealing with the whales. And they're setting up an
    infrastructure in all of the Caribbean islands.
        And here we sit under the United States, and we have no
    infrastructure. And I think we need super support for the
    industry called farming and fishing in the Virgin Islands
    because there's a budget. And money is being spent directly to
    these agencies and departments involved in farming and fishing.
        And that's all I do for a living. I have a wife and four
    kids. I'm a descendant of four generations from the Virgin
    Islands and the Caribbean, and I believe in supplying my
    country with food.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Berry.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Berry follows:]

                      Statement of David Berry, Fisherman

        The closing of the Coral Reef Monument and the Buck Island Reef
    Monument was not only sudden, but it did not take into consideration
    the impact the closing would have on the people who use these areas. I
    feel that when a decision like this is made, the people who are most
    affected should be made well aware of what is to take place, given
    adequate time to prepare for that change, and even compensated for
    their losses. This is a perfect example of what happens when people
    make decisions about things they know little about.
        I was a victim of this kind of policy making before. I grew up
    fishing around these islands, including Little Tobago, Big Tobago, and
    Jose Van Dyke. The B.V.I. fishermen used to sell their fish on our
    waterfront. We found out that there was a treaty only allowing charter
    fishing boats, not local fishermen, in the B.V.I. waters. We learned
    about this treaty while we were in the B.V.I. prison. If we had been
    aware of such a treaty, we would not have been fishing in the B.V.I.
    waters. In this case you can see where not only the people most
    affected were not aware of the policy, they were never even represented
    when the treaty was being written. We were never helped by any U.S.
    representatives either.
        The closing of these monuments without sufficient warning to the
    parties most effected puts the National Park at odds with those
    parties. I feel that these two parties should be working together for
    the betterment of both sides. There are also a number of other
    government agencies that are closing some areas around these islands.
    Fishing and farming are extremely important industries for a nations
    independence. Especially here in these islands, where we are so far
    away from the mainland, food production should be promoted and
    supported by the government. In my experience, the government has been
    unsupportive and at times hostile. There are many laws and regulations,
    but no incentives or even support.
        At the present time, our fishing and farming industries are
    suffering from extreme mismanagement. There is a Bill 3330 that was
    suppose to establish shipping lanes as well as fishing lanes, but it
    was never put into effect. The present regulations of restocking the
    fishery using juvenile fish as the breeding stock is only going to
    destroy the fisheries. Again we have people who are in charge who have
    limited knowledge of what they are doing.
                                     ______

        Mr. Radanovich. And thank you all for your statements.
        I now turn my time over to Mrs. Christensen.
        Mrs. Christensen. A lot of questions. Maybe I'll just start
    with Mr. Berry since he was the last.
        Thanks for your testimony, and I just wanted to reiterate
    that both your written statement and your oral statement are
    both in the record.
        You've been fishing a long time. How many years? All of
    your life?
        Mr. Berry. All my life. Yes.
        Mrs. Christensen. Do you see any difference yourself in the
    size of the fish, the amount of fish?
        Do you see from your own personal experience that there is
    a depletion of the fish stock?
        Mr. Berry. I would have to say yes, and one of the reasons
    why is because when you put regulations on seasons, you create
    hyper fishing, and that means everybody runs out to fish as
    fast as you can, as quick as you can, and running the size
    limit to the max.
        And I'll give you an example. If you have a herd of sheep,
    and you have only lambs out there, what kind of stress is the
    harvest level on the lambs?
        And the same thing goes to chicken farms. If you are
    running out of chickens are you going to close down the farms?
    I don't think so. You need to develop the stocks. And that's
    the same thing happening to the fishery right now.
        Mrs. Christensen. There are different ways to manage and to
    conserve the fisheries. Two other ways might be to have a fixed
    number of licenses for commercial fishermen or one might be
    rolling closures.
        What would you think about those as possible management
    tools?
        Mr. Berry. I won't get into the licensing too much because
    if you limit the man to what his intent, it hurts a lot because
    you're the one who is supposed to eat.
        I would say this. Eight years ago I went to a non source
    point pollution meeting, Caribbean Fishery meeting, proposing
    four closed areas in St. Thomas, St. Croix and St. John,
    approximately three square miles in each, including National
    Park waters, to form closed areas and restocking areas, to
    eventually form a developing stock of fish to supply us, and
    nothing ever came through with that. And I felt like I waste a
    lot of time.
        Mrs. Christensen. You think we should look at what came out
    of that meeting again?
        Mr. Berry. I think we need to get all of the parties
    involved in closing areas and developing fisheries to get
    together with the intention of developing a fishery to sustain
    and feed the country.
        Mrs. Christensen. There were two exclusions that
    Superintendent King talked about. He talked about two kinds of
    fish, hardnose and some other kind of fish that I don't
    remember what it was--
        Mr. Berry. Bait fish.
        Mrs. Christensen. --that could be fished. Does that help at
    all, or is that just a negligible, of negligible worth to you?
        Mr. Berry. It's good because the hardnose and the bait fish
    are migratory fish, and exactly the hardnose fishing grounds
    that we know, as example, is one of the main fishing grounds
    for hardnose right here in the southeast of St. John or south
    of St. John.
        But we have over 60 different species of fish, and I'm in
    favor of closing areas but I think they should be smaller, and
    we should be part of restocking because, example, for whelks,
    conch, lobster, if we only develop a stock of each of those,
    the eggs would automatically--not using juveniles. We're
    talking of using adults. Automatically going from first year
    on, the eggs get in the water column and start going up and
    down the water column into all the other islands and stuff, and
    automatically we have new stocks coming all over.
        Mrs. Christensen. I have a question for Mr. Kessler
    before--and this would be my last question in this round.
        Well, I was not aware that the Friends of the Park had such
    a large membership or that your members were from other states
    and even other countries, and your membership almost equals the
    population of St. John?
        Mr. Kessler. Yes, it does.
        Mrs. Christensen. Does everybody in that organization vote
    on positions that the Friends take?
        Mr. Kessler. No, they don't. It's the Board of Directors
    that would vote on positions.
        Mrs. Christensen. Are they all residents of St. John?
        Mr. Kessler. They're all residents of St. John at least for
    the majority of the year.
        Mr. Radanovich. Joe, let me ask you a question.
        Mrs. Christensen. You could see why there's a problem with
    maybe some of the residents of St. John and the Friends, then,
    because they're people who don't live here who would be making
    the decisions that would impact the people who live here.
        Mr. Kessler. Allow me to clarify that. There are 13 board
    members. Only one of them--one of them resides here about 8
    months out of the year and is gone for about 4 months. All of
    the others reside here virtually year round.
        Mrs. Christensen. I'll probably come back to that later.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you.
        Ms. McCollum.
        Ms. McCollum. I want to thank you for the testimony, and
    it's wonderful to hear the diversity of opinion, and I really
    appreciate it but I'm going to take my limited time and ask Mr.
    Berry some questions.
        But I thank you all for your testimony. I'm just learning
    how international waters work.
        I served and do a lot of work with fisheries in Minnesota
    where you're restocking a lake and you're dealing with DNR and
    maybe with tribal councils, and it's pretty easy to get a grip
    and a handle on it because it's defined.
        Who currently is stocking the juveniles? Is it--because I
    kind of did a real quick question up here, and it is--to the
    best of our knowledge, it is not the National Marine Fisheries
    that's doing it.
        Is it--who is doing the current stocking?
        Mr. Berry. Well, the stocking is actually done by the
    fishermen. They're releasing the small fish and not catching
    them because the regulations call for certain size fish not to
    be caught.
        Ms. McCollum. So you're doing your own stocking on this?
    And--
        Mr. Berry. Excuse me. We're actually following the
    regulations.
        Ms. McCollum. Well, I wouldn't think that you would do
    anything otherwise from your testimony, seriously.
        Do the fishermen from--you talked about how there's a
    Caribbean zone, the British Islands zone, and the Virgin
    Islands zone.
        Is there a council where the different protected zones that
    impact fishermen such as yourself, where they get together and
    do any kind of round tabling and talk about how these
    patchworks are overlaying one another?
        Mr. Berry. Well, that's one of the main problems we have
    right now. There are so many different groups having meetings,
    it's hard for even the fishermen to follow because we actually
    keep going to meeting after meeting and repeating ourselves,
    and that becomes frustrating after a while because we're going
    to a new group of people all the time.
        And that's why I mentioned before that we need all of the
    parties involved in closing areas to come together with the
    fishermen and let us know their point, and we could have a plan
    to let them know what we need to help develop the stocks, and I
    myself have been going to an endless amount of Caribbean
    Fishery meetings, and it's extremely frustrating.
        Ms. McCollum. Well, Mr. Chair, what Mr. Berry has brought
    up is a significant problem, not only for the Virgin Islands,
    not only for the Atlantic States, Pacific States, but for the
    world in general.
        As more and more sophistication comes forward small family
    fishermen like Mr. Berry find themselves competing with huge
    corporations from around the world with sophisticated boats,
    with crews that travel and go out to sea for weeks on end, go
    wherever they can go, sometimes skirting around the law to
    catch what they want to catch.
        And the pressures that we're putting on our fisheries is
    just huge, and, in fact, this isn't the--this doesn't directly
    relate to the Virgin Islands, but I think it paints a picture
    in Somalia where people are starving to death. There are fisher
    people who can only take their boats in Somalia and get out so
    far to get the fish to feed their families.
        And they watch international vessels scoop the fish in
    international waters right away from them as they watch their
    families starve.
        So, thank you very much for sharing what is a worldwide
    situation, and I know that from the discussions that we've had
    in one Committee meeting that I was in last week it is
    something that Congress is taking very, very seriously, sir.
        And I thank you so much for coming and representing not
    only the fishermen and women of the Virgin Islands but of the
    United States.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Berry. Thank you.
        Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Kessler, I want to ask you a question
    about the--some of the comments that you made about the
    declining fish populations within the fisheries around these
    islands.
        Do you have scientific data that you can provide this
    Committee that would evidence that? Can you make that available
    to this Committee?
        Mr. Kessler. Yes. The Friends doesn't have that data
    themselves but the Park certainly has that data, and USGS which
    developed most of the plans for the monument would certainly
    have that data readily at hand.
        Mr. Radanovich. So your comments are relying on what the
    Park Service, the data that they have?
        Mr. Kessler. And reports and data that I read from other
    sources, correct.
        Mr. Radanovich. OK. Because we have asked the Park Service
    to provide that information, and, again, what we want is as
    much scientific data as possible. So if you can think of any
    other sources of information outside the Park Service to
    determine this or to show this, then if you would submit it to
    the Committee, I'd sure appreciate it.
        Mr. Kessler. I'll be very happy to.
        Mr. Radanovich. OK.
        Mrs. Christensen?
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
        Ms. Monsanto, we didn't forget about you. Coming back to
    you, I wanted to ask you if you would elaborate on maybe two
    areas, maybe starting with the St. John Taxi Association issue
    with the Park?
        What is the position of the Taxi Association?
        Ms. Monsanto. The National Park started a commercial
    service plan on the Island of St. John wherein they wanted to
    apply a user fee for transporting--
        Mr. Radanovich. Excuse me, Lorelei. Because I have hands in
    the back.
        Ms. Monsanto. Eat it. Eat it.
        Mr. Radanovich. I'm sorry. What is it?
        Ms. Monsanto. Eat it.
        Mr. Radanovich. Eat it?
        Ms. Monsanto. You said we should eat it.
        Mr. Radanovich. Oh, eat it. Yeah, eat it.
        Ms. Monsanto. The National Park developed a commercial
    service plan that stated that effective the beginning of the
    year they would charge a user fee to drive from Cruz Bay into
    the Park, going as far as Annaberg. The fee started out at 800-
    plus dollars. We met with them several times, and they dropped
    the fee in reference to so-called negotiations.
        We took the position that the roads are public roads, and
    we didn't feel it was fair that we were picking up customers to
    take to their beaches for them to collect all this revenue, and
    we get nothing. We get wear and tear on our vehicles. We get
    wear and tear on the land. We get--we just get wear and tear.
        So after much ado we have filed suit, and that is supposed
    to be heard in August.
        Mrs. Christensen. Now, to pick up and drop at the beach,
    there should not be a fee.
        Ms. Monsanto. There was and there still is. I guess they
    were trying to determine that, the Park's definition--
        Mrs. Christensen. Of what's a tour?
        Ms. Monsanto. --of a tour, correct.
        Mrs. Christensen. So that has not been clearly defined as
    to what a tour is?
        Ms. Monsanto. Not by the National Park. The local
    Government mandates what a tour is. The National Park has a
    different description.
        Mrs. Christensen. Is it your understanding that it's a user
    fee or a concession fee for doing business within the Park?
        Ms. Monsanto. It is a so-called user fee.
        Mrs. Christensen. I thought it was a concession.
        And you are also listed as a landowner?
        Ms. Monsanto. Correct. We have several people who are
    indigenous to St. John who have lands within the National Park.
    As you heard from prior testimony, there are several issues as
    it pertains to accessing your property.
        And in the order of time and being redundant, there are
    clear concerns. You have heard them.
        Mrs. Christensen. Could you give us a little bit of an
    example of what, either from your own experience or from
    another family's experience, so we get a little more personal--
        Ms. Monsanto. I submitted an additional testimony onto my
    testimony that I hope that you all have read in reference to a
    cousin, family of mine, who owns property at Maho Bay.
        I don't know if you've had the pleasure of driving around
    St. John since you've been here. Maho Bay is located on the
    North Shore of the island.
        They have had several issues with the National Park in
    reference to their estates. My great, great grandfather's son
    owns that estate, and there are several problems.
        They're in litigation right now. The Park has an interest
    in Maho Bay that has not been decided upon, which actually
    belongs to them.
        As a result, the remaining family members can't develop
    their lands, and do what they need to do in order to grow and
    pay their taxes, what have you.
        I did hear Ms. Mainella mention that there should be a
    degree of--they want to control. My interpretation when she
    said that was, control what I wanted to build or develop on my
    property. And I don't think the Park has the right to tell me
    what I can build, what I can grow, what I can do there, if it's
    legal.
        So, I do ask you to read that testimony because it's very
    in detail, and it's too much to read at this point.
        But the hardships that the Park--we all want to be friends
    with the Park. The Park has done good for St. John, as said
    before, but we need to learn to respect each other and discuss
    things with each other before we just say, OK, I'm big brother.
    I own this island. You're going to do as I say.
        It has been said to us before.
        Mr. Radanovich. Ms. McCollum?
        Ms. McCollum. No. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Radanovich. OK.
        Mrs. Christensen. If we could just--does everyone feel that
    they had a chance to cover the main points in the last panel?
    This is the last chance.
        Mr. Radanovich. Donna, you have to speak louder.
        Mrs. Christensen. This is the last panel because, as I
    understand it, several of the people who were to testify are
    not here.
        Did you feel that you were able to bring your major points
    forward?
        Ms. Monsanto. If you have concerns in reference to more
    issues in reference to the lands, if you don't mind, if it
    would be permissible, if I could have the--Mr. Kean, whose
    testimony I submitted with mine, if he can give you more
    pertinent information, more so than myself, in reference to the
    land.
        Mrs. Christensen. But it's submitted, isn't it?
        Ms. Monsanto. And it's in the record. Yes, it is.
        Mrs. Christensen. Then we'll accept it--
        Ms. Monsanto. OK.
        Mrs. Christensen. --for the record.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kean follows:]

      Statement of James Kean, Representing the Natural Heirs of H.M. and
      Grace Marsh, Owners of Maho Bay Estate: Alva Marsh, Jewel Moolenaar
     Marsh, Warren Marsh, Ernest O. Kean Jr., James Kew, Patricia Looney,
    Joseph Adler*, and the Heirs of Douglas Nelson, Deceased, Valentino and
         Nelinda Nelson (*Joseph Adler is missing, and may be deceased)

        1. The Park is wrongfully preventing the owners of 8/11ths of Maho
    Bay estate from using their property by obstructing a partition from
    the 3/11ths held by the Park, and is trying to acquire their property
    by an indecent and unacceptable strategy.
        2. The Park's strategy to acquire Maho Bay and its actions to
    frustrate the heirs' request for partition are improper, abusive,
    shameful, indefensible and find no basis in its legislative mandate.
    The Park will not openly admit that such is its strategy but this
    Committee has only to examine the Park's actions over the past four
    years to discover the truth.
        3. This strategy is simply to do any thing it can to obstruct and
    delay partition, discourage, wear down, and exhaust the heirs
    financially while waiting for the local government to seize and sell
    the heirs' interest for non payment of taxes, at which point the Park
    will be sure at last to have found a willing seller.
        4. Congress mandated the Park to preserve what it could acquire
    through purchase, not to immobilize what it cannot acquire by
    obstructing an owner's right to enjoy his property, not to take actions
    aimed at denying owners the possibility of paying property taxes so as
    to be able to buy their property at a tax sale.
        5. We, heirs of H.M. Marsh have an indisputable legal and moral
    right to partition from the Park. We have a right not to sell to the
    Park We will not allow this property to be seized for taxes, we will
    not sell it on the Park's terms or under pressure by the Park. We will
    not have the Park dictate to us what we may or may not do with it after
    partition.
        6. The National Park needs to understand that though it may have
    acquired some of Maho Bay by deceit, it will not acquire all of Maho
    Bay where the heirs' parents were all born, lived, and worked.
        7. It also needs to abandon the attitude that its objectives, that
    in its arrogance it somehow imagines more ``noble'' than those it
    imputes to the heirs, justify its wrongful opposition to the exercise
    of the rights of landowners in St. John.
    Request made to the Committee
        We ask the Committee to pose the following questions to Park
    Management.
        1. Is the Park opposed to a partition of Maho Bay Estate as
    requested by the heirs, if so, why, and on what principle or basis?
        2. Has the Park taken any actions or refused to take any action the
    purpose or the effect of which has been to delay or prevent partition?
    If so what are they, and why?
        3. Given the Park's knowledge of the tax situation, what are the
    foreseeable consequences for the owners if partition is delayed?
        4. Explain and justify the Park's actions, and explain how its
    actions in this matter are consistent with its legislative mandate.
        We also ask the Committee to bring the facts stated below to the
    attention of senior officials in the Interior Department so that local
    Park management can be directed to abandon its present strategy of
    obstruction and to enter into good faith discussions with the heirs
    leading to partition.
    Background
        W.H. Marsh and Lucretia Marsh nee Titley, acquired and operated a
    number of estates in St. John following economic decline and estate
    bankruptcies in the late 1800's. Their children, who inherited their
    properties, were among the last to carry out significant agricultural
    activity in St. John, in Estates Reef Bay, Carolina, and Maho Bay.
        W.H. Marsh acquired Maho Bay in 1900, comprising some 350 + acres
    deeding it to his youngest son H.M. Marsh (1870-1970) who continued
    agricultural production there (Cattle, sugar cane, fruit orchards,
    honey). His eight children two of whom survive, were born in Maho Bay
    between 1904 and 1920.
        All areas of Maho Bay usable for agriculture under techniques then
    available had been under cultivation and habitation for 150 years
    before 1900; in no sense therefore, is Maho Bay Estate, untouched or
    pristine land.
        In 1957 at age 87 H.M. Marsh deeded Maho Bay Estate to his eleven
    grandchildren, with a life interest to himself, his wife, and their
    children.
        When or shortly after the VI National Park was created, the Park
    planners for reasons best known to themselves, designated Maho Bay as a
    property to be acquired by the Park. The owners, H.M. Marsh's
    grandchildren, were not consulted in this designation.
        In 1969 or 1970, a land buyer for the National Park Foundation
    approached a number of H.M. Marsh's grandchildren, including three of
    them born and having lived exclusively in the mainland U.S. and offered
    to buy their remainder interest in Maho Bay, an interest that the three
    had never seen, and were even unaware of. He represented falsely to
    them that the National Park could in any event acquire the land by
    condemnation at a lower price than he was offering, and that by a sale
    they could avoid inheritance taxes due upon the death of their
    grandfather, that they would have no means to pay.
        Agreeing to the sale before getting a good understanding of the
    facts, they found the legal costs of extracting themselves from their
    agreement to be too high when they later tried to cancel the sale, and
    finally sold their remainder interest, 3/11ths of the total to the
    National Park Foundation.
    Problem facing the heirs of H.M. Marsh
        The other heirs, composed of the life tenants and the grandchildren
    were thus thrown into joint ownership of undivided land with the
    National Park. The undivided joint ownership has since effectively
    prevented the heirs from engaging in any business activity in Maho Bay,
    more particularly activity capable of providing funds to pay real
    estate taxes assessed on their 8/11ths interest.
        The National Park has perpetual existence; it has a legal mandate
    not to disturb nature as it finds it; it pays no taxes. The heirs are
    mortal; what they own in Maho Bay is subject to property taxes; they
    would naturally not like to lose their property for non payment of
    taxes, and would like to be able to use, enjoy, or dispose of what they
    own as they see fit without interference from the Park. They have
    objectives, irreconcilable with those of the Park.
        It is clear that the existence of joint ownership of undivided
    property with the National Park places the heirs in an untenable
    position.
        For a long time the expected cost and of a suit and partition and
    other complexities tied to deed granted by H.M. Marsh prevented the
    grandchildren from taking action to separate their property from that
    of the Park. Most lived on the Mainland, all had families to
    support.all or had other demands on their attention.
    Suit for Partition from the Park
        In 1998, however, the heirs, now aged for the most part in their
    60's and 70's, faced with an unendurable situation and an ominous
    property tax bill sued the National Park for partition of the property.
    This matter is now in 2002 still before the District Court of the
    Virgin Islands.
        In the 29 years elapsing between the purchase of 3/11ths interest,
    and the filing of the suit, the National Park (or anyone acting for the
    National Park) at no time offered to buy any of the remaining eight 1/
    11ths shares, or to partition the property, or to pay taxes on the 8/
    11ths owned by the heirs or in any way to mitigate the problems caused
    the heirs by the Park's ownership of an undivided interest. These
    problems did not escape the Park's notice. On the contrary, the Park
    expressed satisfaction that the purchase of 3/11ths ``tie up'' the
    entire property. i.e. make it impossible for the heirs to exercise any
    right of ownership.
        In answer to this suit for partition the Park has over the past
    four years: (listed not necessarily in chronological order):
         Lmade an offer to buy the heirs' interest (rejected by the
    heirs who would buy back the 3/11ths sold in 1970 at the price per
    interest offered)
         Lsuggested that the heirs could donate their property to
    the Park raised legal objections to the partition request,
         Lclaimed uncertainty as to the boundaries of the property
    to be partitioned,
         Largued that the Park Superintendent had retired and no
    action could be taken until his successor arrived. (no action was taken
    after his successor arrived)
         Lmade partition ``proposals'' unsupported by any
    rationale, the last of which would confer upon the Park a number of non
    contiguous parcels totaling far more than 3/11ths of the value and of
    the acreage of the property
         Ldemanded to know as a pre-condition to discussion of
    partition, what the heirs proposed to do with the property after
    partition
         Lrefused to enter a dialogue on partition, even on the
    principles to be used as a basis for partition
         Lcontinued and continues to this day to oppose partition
    and to engage in dilatory tactics in Court ( continuances, motions,
    appeals) to obstruct and delay and frustrate partition.
        The Park's strategy is simply to do any and everything to delay
    partition and wear down the heirs while waiting for the local
    government to seize and sell the heirs' interest for non payment of
    taxes, at which point the Park will be sure at last to have found a
    willing seller.
        In the meantime, the Park exercises negative control over the 8/
    11ths that it does not own.
        We do not know at what level in the Park this shameful strategy has
    been devised. We do know that it is being carried out at the local
    level by the present Park Superintendent and assistant U.S. attorneys
    in the U.S. attorney's office.
                                     ______

        Mrs. Christensen. And I would apologize because I stopped
    at your--the testimony that you read, and that there were some
    documents at the back but I did not look beyond those.
        Mr. Radanovich. All right. Any other questions of the
    panel? This being our last panel, I want to thank you very,
    very much for taking the time to be here.
        I hope that it's helpful in resolving some of the issues
    that the Park has with the National Park Service and with the
    community.
        So, again, I want to thank Mrs. Christensen for inviting us
    into the area and for setting up this hearing.
        I want to thank the community of this island for making
    this hearing room available, the Senators, and I think that
    this will go a long ways in beginning to address some of the
    problems in the area.
        So I want to thank you very much. And with that, this
    hearing is ended. That's it.
        [Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
        [A letter submitted for the record by The Honorable Donna
    M. Christensen from Craig Barshinger, St. John, U.S. Virgin
    Islands, follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0850.011

    OVERSIGHT HEARING ON CHRISTIANSTED NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, BUCK ISLAND
     REEF NATIONAL MONUMENT, AND THE SALT RIVER BAY NATIONAL HISTORIC PARK
                            AND ECOLOGICAL PRESERVE

                                  ----------

                             Monday, July 22, 2002

                         U.S. House of Representatives

          Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands

                             Committee on Resources

                    Frederiksted, St. Croix, Virgin Islands

                                  ----------

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., at the
    United States District Court, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands,
    Hon. George Radanovich [Chairman of the Subcommittee]
    presiding.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Radanovich. Good morning. Thank you for waiting. We
    needed to wait till 10 o'clock straight up to begin our
    hearing. We didn't want to start ahead of anybody coming in the
    door. So I want to welcome you again, and again, to let you
    know, my name is George Radanovich and I represent the 19th
    District of California, which includes Yosemite National Park
    and Kings and Sequoia National Parks in California.
        I'm also Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks,
    Recreation and Public Lands. And like St. John, St. Croix is a
    gorgeous island, and it--and it gives me very great pleasure to
    be here.
        Again, I want to thank Delegate Donna Christensen for
    inviting me down in order to conduct this hearing. And I wanted
    to thank Judge Raymond Finch for allowing us the use of the
    courtroom. It's just beautiful, and I understand the building
    is named after a pretty incredible man who's related
    (laughter), and it's a gorgeous, wonderful setting. So I
    appreciate the use of this courtroom, Judge. Thank you.
        Similar to the issue at St. John is--the most important
    issue for today's hearing is the legality of the former
    President Clinton's national monument designation of the Buck
    Island Reef National Monument. According to the Antiquities Act
    of 1906, all monument designations must be made on lands
    ``owned or controlled by the Government of the United States.''
    Furthermore, all the designations must be ``confined to the
    smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of
    objects to be protected.'' With the Buck Island expansion,
    Clinton seemingly violated both provisions of these laws. Of
    great importance is the question of who actually owns the
    submerged lands because the ownership of the lands were
    transferred to the Government of the Virgin Islands pursuant to
    the Territorial Submerged Lands Act of 1974. Because the
    submerged lands were claimed by the Federal Government per the
    Clinton Administration, we need to ask what is actually
    transferred to the Virgin Islands.
        Another issue particular to Buck Island concerns the
    legality of a sitting president making modifications to an
    earlier Presidential monument proclamation. It is unclear at
    this time whether any sitting president has the authority under
    the Antiquities Act to make these modifications. Such a
    situation developed specifically for the Buck Island Reef
    National Monument expansion when former President Clinton
    abolished the fishing rights that were granted to these
    residents of the Virgin Islands in the original proclamation
    made by President Kennedy. In fact, the original Buck Island
    destination was conditional on the continuation of the fishing
    rights, as the Government of the Virgin Islands relinquished
    this area to the Federal Government on the understanding that
    fishing rights would be retained. Former President Clinton, in
    his proclamation, simply superseded this conditional right. The
    legality of this is highly questionable, especially by the
    local resident fishermen who depended on these fishing grounds
    for their livelihoods.
        I want to thank the witnesses for being here; Director Fran
    Mainella, who is very, very much welcome. We also have with
    Fran is Mr. Joel Tutein, who's the Buck Island National Park's
    superintendent. Joel, welcome. And also Regional Director Jerry
    Belson here with us with his Deputy Director Sandy Hooks. Thank
    you very much for being here part of this hearing.
        And for the sake of the audience, if I can explain the way
    a hearing operates, generally members of the panel hear from
    witnesses. They're usually given about 5 minutes, although I'm
    not real super strict about it. If you go a minute beyond that
    we'll kind of tap, you know, we'll tap you on the head. But the
    purpose is to get the information into the record verbally, as
    well as written testimony that's submitted. And when this is
    done, then the panel will be opened up for questions from us up
    here.
        We like to make sure that the composition of those that
    give testimony represent all sides of the hearing or the issue,
    and I think that you'll find that with this slate of panelists
    we have before us.
        I also want to also recognize Betty McCollum, who will be
    here a little bit later and had to make a visit to the doctor
    this morning with an ear problem that seems to be affecting
    more than one of the people on this trip. So Betty is from
    Minnesota and will be joining us shortly.
        So with that, thank you again for being here, and Mrs.
    Christensen, thank you so much for the invitation to come to
    your beautiful islands, and I'm turning my time over to you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]

          Statement of The Honorable George P. Radanovich, Chairman,
          Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands

        Good morning everyone. At the risk of repeating myself from the
    hearing on St. John and for those who don't know, my name is George
    Radanovich, and I represent the 19th District of California. I am also
    the Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and
    Public Lands. Like St. John, St. Croix is a beautiful island and it
    gives me great pleasure to be here. Again, I want to thank Delegate
    Donna Christensen for inviting me down in order to conduct this field
    hearing.
        Similar to the issue at St. John, the most important issue for
    today's hearing is the legality of former President Clinton's nation
    monument designation of the Buck Island Reef National Monument.
    According to the Antiquities Act of 1906 all monument designations must
    be made on lands ``owned or controlled by the Government of the United
    States''.
        Furthermore, all the designations must be ``confined to the
    smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the
    objects to be protected''. With the Buck Island expansion, Clinton
    seemingly violated both these provisions of law. Of great importance is
    the question of who actually owns the submerged lands because ownership
    of these lands were transferred to the Government of the Virgin Islands
    pursuant to the Territorial Submerged Lands Act of 1974. Because the
    submerged lands were claimed by the Federal Government per the Clinton
    Administration, we need to ask what was actually transferred to the
    Virgin Islands.
        Another issue particular to Buck Island concerns the legality of a
    sitting President making modifications to an earlier Presidential
    monument proclamation. It is unclear at this time whether any sitting
    President has the authority under the Antiquities Act to make these
    modifications. Such a situation developed specifically for the Buck
    Island Reef National Monument expansion, when former President Clinton
    abolished the fishing rights that were granted to residents of the
    Virgin Islands in the original proclamation made by President Kennedy.
    In fact, the original Buck Island designation was conditional on the
    continuation of the fishing rights, as the Government of the Virgin
    Islands relinquished this area to the Federal Government on the
    understanding that the fishing rights would be retained. Former
    President Clinton, in his proclamation, simply superceded this
    conditional right. The legality of this is highly questionable,
    especially by the local resident fisherman who depended on these
    fishing grounds.
        I want to thank our witnesses for being here today to testify and
    will now turn the time over to Mrs. Christensen.
                                     ______

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we all
    had a very good hearing--and good morning to everyone. I think
    we had a very good hearing on St. John and I'm very happy and
    honored to welcome you to St. Croix, my home, and the larger of
    the three major islands of the Virgin Islands.
        As was the case in St. John, and I'm sure you've all
    experienced that already, you'll find that we Crucians, as well
    as all of the people of the Virgin Islands, are among the most
    hospitable people in the world. So I know you're enjoying
    yourselves.
        Let me again also express my appreciation to you, Mr.
    Chairman, for your willingness to come to the Virgin Islands to
    conduct 2 days of public hearings, and our colleague,
    Congresswoman McCollum, who will be joining us shortly. My
    constituents do not generally have the wherewithal to travel to
    Washington to make their views known to the Members of the
    Congress who make decisions about issues that affect their
    lives.
        And I also recognize that if you were not here you would be
    in your own respective districts tending to the needs of your
    own constituents, so we really are grateful to both of you for
    being here instead to listen to mine as it relates to the
    national park units and our own community. And I also want to
    thank the staff that's with us for the hard work in putting
    this trip together.
        Let me also welcome and thank all of the witnesses who are
    here to offer testimony this morning. I express my thanks to
    the Director of the National Park Service, Fran Mainella, for
    her willingness to join Chairman Radanovich and I at these
    hearings on St. John, but I want to repeat that again today.
        As someone in our government who has the responsibility
    over more land than many Governors of some of the fifty states,
    it's not often that our Subcommittee has the pleasure of having
    the Director appear before us either in Washington or here, and
    of course here. Not only are we grateful for the testimony
    we'll receive from you again today, Director Mainella, but also
    for your willingness to sit and listen to the testimony of all
    of the witnesses that will speak after you. You often won't
    have that privilege either, because in many instances the
    representatives of the Administration come, give their
    testimony, and leave. So we're very fortunate.
        And I want to thank and welcome our Regional Director
    Belson, the Deputy Regional Director Hooks, and of course our
    own Superintendent Joel Tutein. We look forward to working with
    you and your staff to see if we can bring to closure some of
    the issues that we have been wrestling with here on St. Croix.
        I want to now welcome our local witnesses as well. Please
    to welcome a panel of local government witnesses. I'm not sure
    if Senator Roosevelt David will be joining us, but Dean
    Plaskett, our Commissioner of Planning and Natural Resources,
    who was unable to be with us in St. John is here. I'm also
    pleased to welcome Mr. Bill Turner of the St. Croix
    Environmental Association and Attorney Max McIntosh of the Salt
    River National Historical Park Commission.
        And finally, and I'm not sure--oh, yes, they've arrived--
    let me welcome witnesses from our third panel, former Senator
    Virdin Brown, the Chair of the Caribbean Fisheries Council; Mr.
    Robert McAuliffe of the St. Croix Fishermen's Cooperative;
    Michelle Pugh, the owner of Dive Experience, a concessionaire
    within the Buck Island National Monument.
        Mr. Chairman, today's hearing will focus on the issues
    addressed in H.R. 5097 adjusting the boundaries of the Salt
    River Bay National Historic Park, as well as issues around the
    monument. And that's a park that Ms. McCollum's predecessor,
    Bruce Vento, had a lot to do with making sure that it happened.
    And we'll also, of course, talk around issues on the proposed
    expanded Buck Island Reef National Monument.
        I truly hoped that we would have had the legal opinion on
    the ownership of the submerged lands from the General
    Accounting Office for use in advance of this hearing. And to
    recap briefly, after my attempts to stop or amend the monument
    declaration, we wrote to the General Accounting Office stating
    our disagreement with the determination that the submerged
    lands in question were Federally owned, and also recounting
    that the enabling legislation specifically stated that fishing
    rights were not to be denied the people of the Virgin Islands.
        I did receive a promise from Director Mainella on Saturday
    that, should the opinion support that of the Clinton
    Administration, that there wouldn't be an immediate closure,
    but that a period of consultation on management would be the
    course to be taken.
        So let me again pledge today to my constituents that when
    the opinion is completed and released, I will come back,
    present it to you, and we can discuss then how we should
    proceed from there.
        And although it's not specifically before us, Mr. Chairman,
    I also want to remind you of H.R. 5096, which would authorize a
    study to determine the suitability of St. Croix for a National
    Heritage Area. I'm sure that as you travel around the island,
    you will become convinced that there is much here of national
    as well as local significance.
        In closing, as best as my staff and I could determine, this
    is the very first time that the Subcommittee with direct
    authority over our national parks has held public hearings in
    our Territory. So I once again thank you, Chairman Radanovich,
    for agreeing to hold these here, and I want to say thank you
    once again to everyone, to Congresswoman McCollum who will be
    joining us, to Director Mainella and her staff, to our
    testifiers, and those in the audience, as well, for taking the
    time to come out and be here this morning. Thanks.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Donna.
        We'll go ahead then and introduce our first panel, which is
    Ms. Fran Mainella, Director of the National Park Service.
    Again, welcome, Fran. Good morning to you.

    STATEMENT OF FRAN P. MAINELLA, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Ms. Mainella. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and good morning
    members of the Committee. I just want to say thank you for the
    opportunity to be here, and Delegate Christensen, thank you for
    opening up the arms of the Virgin Islands to us and making us
    feel so welcome. It's really an opportunity to better be able
    to understand the issues and meet so many wonderful people.
    I've had a chance to do so, and I think that gives us a much
    better opportunity than when we're sitting in Washington and
    always trying to understand those issues from afar. So thank
    you for this opportunity, and for the hospitality you've
    provided to all of us.
        I am here again appearing before you not only dealing with
    our monument issues, but dealing with we have three units here
    that are in St. Croix that are part of the national park
    system. You have the Christiansted National Historic Site,
    which I had a chance to visit yesterday, and what a wonderful
    site that is. If you've ever gone--yeah, I think some you had a
    chance also to hear Bill, our historic--our interpreter from
    the site, give us such a great story about the fort, and it's
    the original park in the Virgin Islands, as well as the new
    post office, or the old post office that has now been renovated
    and are being worked on, and the great opportunities that
    provides. And the story tells about black history, and it's
    such a great, great area.
        Also Buck Island Reef National Monument, which is probably
    a lot of the focus of comments that may come today, and again,
    having a chance to actually see some of the coral out there and
    some of the issues certainly was a great advantage for us in
    understanding, and seeing the brown pelicans flying, and all
    the issues that are of concern certainly is a great experience.
        Also we had a chance yesterday to visit Salt River Bay
    National Historic Park and Ecological Preserve. Again, that is
    a partnership park, and again hopefully one of the messages
    that I want to bring in my attendance here, the importance for
    all of us to work together in partnership. Doesn't mean that--
    in fact, I saw Rocky, the Senator, excuse me, I don't know if
    he's still back there--you know, it doesn't mean we can't--
    sometimes we may not always exactly agree, but we always need
    to be talking with each other and communicating. And that's the
    message I've heard loud and clear from all the folks I've met
    here, and I do think that is the message that Joel and others
    want to send, and through me, hopefully, we'll continue that
    message going forth.
        I do want to recognize, I have Daniel Smith with me, he's
    my congressional affairs person from Washington, and thank you,
    Dan, for being here with us today.
        Again, as we look at these different sites, and in
    particular the monument, which I know has been of probably most
    discussion, it is something, as Congressman Radanovich
    indicated, the monument was established by President Clinton's
    proclamation in January 17th, 2001--or at least the expanded, I
    know the monument has been here, Buck Island has been here, but
    has been expanded through this proclamation.
        One of the things that, since that designation, I think
    it's real clear, and I think all of us know that there is
    concerns that have been expressed, and I want to make sure that
    everyone in this room knows we are aware of those concerns, and
    that also the Virgin Islands Government has issued many
    questions about, and in fact passed a resolution, 1609,
    expressing concern over the lack of adequate public
    participation in the expansion of the monument, ownership of
    the submerged lands, the size of the monument, and potential
    impacts on fishing and marine industries.
        While we share concerns about the way in which this
    monument was created, our job though is to insure the
    development of management plans in an open, inclusive and
    comprehensive way. And again, this goes back to the partnership
    approach, and I think those of you who know Joel know that he
    has used that approach and will continue to further enhance
    that in his leadership here, as has the region under Jerry's
    leadership.
        But as Secretary Norton, our Secretary of the Interior, has
    said on many occasions, the planning that she expects us to
    follow in anything that we do should involve what she calls the
    Four Cs. And that's Consultation, Cooperation, Communications,
    and all in the service, though, of Conservation. The Department
    of the Interior is committed to management and protection of
    monuments consistent with the four Cs, and the purposes
    established in those proclamations.
        In response to these commitments, she has already published
    some notice to, through the Federal Register, to some of the
    monuments that are in the west. She will look to this more
    aggressively, as Delegate Christensen has indicated, if it is
    determined through the GAO and others that this is--the legal
    aspects of the submerged lands, and we're going forth with the
    monument, then that will be a time where we will again need
    more input. But these hearings help us in that endeavor, and
    we'll be looking for that input as we go forth to make sure
    that we do consider all factors as we go forth. Again, I think
    the GAO report, when that comes out, will give us more guidance
    and we will move forward from that area.
        With regard to the impact on fishing and marine industries,
    although there is a loss of fishing territory and it could have
    an impact on the industry, we are really going to be
    aggressively working to try to work with regeneration of stock
    of fish, and that we will hopefully enhance the fishing
    nurseries that makes possible the fishing industry at a better
    level than has been in the past, and what we'll be looking at
    is what we call ``fishing forever,'' in hopes to further
    enhance that industry in a way that will benefit everyone.
        Tourism I think we all know is a mainstay, and I know my
    light is on so I'll quickly come to a summary--
        Mr. Radanovich. Fran, go ahead, take a few minutes. You've
    got three separate issues to talk about. I'm giving you some
    more--
        Ms. Mainella. Thank you so much. I appreciate it.
        Tourism is a mainstay of the economy here, and it is
    something that we want to continue to move forward with. In
    fact I spoke with the commissioner on tourism last night and
    asked her involvement to make sure that not only here, in St.
    Croix, but also in St. John, that we all do more to work
    together in the tourism role. And we will be looking at the
    economic impact that our parks provide to this area as we do
    our management planning, and we do that management planning any
    time that we do parks, and of course we will be stressing
    public involvement in all that we do there. So I just want to
    make sure you know we will be moving forward in that area as
    best as we can.
        And again, we talked about Salt River Bay and National Park
    and Preserve, and again I want to just continue to reach out to
    the Territory and ask for our help, all our help to move
    forward. I mentioned I spoke to Dean this morning, and I asked
    that somehow we continue to further enhance our working
    relationships so that it is--because what we make clear is if
    the part doesn't succeed, then it's not a good success measure
    for the Virgin Islands. And if Virgin Islands doesn't succeed,
    it's certainly not a good reflection on the park. We must be
    together, working well together in order for these things to go
    forward.
        I think I know, again, I'm near the close of my comments,
    but again I appreciate the leadership that this Committee
    provides in looking at all our national parks, and the fact
    that we are an important part of the economy, and I know in
    most places everyone rushes to have a national park in their
    backyard because of the economic impacts, as well as the
    environmental benefits that come forth.
        But I do want to make sure everyone knows we are very
    aware, and we truly are here to listen and understand, so that
    we can better make determinations. And I know this is the
    process that the Secretary and our park staff wish to move
    forward with.
        Again, we also, I mentioned to you, Delegate Christensen,
    we also plan to have a video that might be able to help in
    different areas, and maybe we can do more. Again, back to the
    tourism and that aspect, I think the heritage area also is
    something, in our experience with heritage areas, that has been
    very positive to communities. It connects things together and I
    think has a real positive, both a tourism and economic impact.
        I'd like to close at this point, but I do want to be
    available for questions. And I do have a great staff around me,
    and I do want to recognize our staff in the back. I don't
    always get the chance to say, but it's wonderful cultural and
    natural resources that we have in our parks, but nothing more
    important than our staff, they being a resource, and all of our
    partners sitting in this room. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Mainella follows:]

        Statement of Fran P. Mainella, Director, National Park Service,
                        U.S. Department of the Interior

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your
    Subcommittee at this oversight field hearing on Christiansted National
    Historic Site, Buck Island Reef National Monument, and Salt River Bay
    National Historical Park and Ecological Preserve. I am accompanied by
    Joel A. Tutein, superintendent of these three units.
        We appreciate having the opportunity to learn more about the
    national park units here and to discuss the various issues associated
    with the St. Croix national park units, as we did two days ago with the
    St. John national park units. My statement will focus on the expansion
    of Buck Island Reef National Monument that occurred in 2001, the
    potential expansion of Salt River Bay National Historical Park and
    Ecological Preserve, and an update on the planning process that will
    set forth future management goals.
        Buck Island Reef National Monument was established by Presidential
    proclamation in 1961 to preserve one of the finest marine gardens in
    the Caribbean Sea. Located one and a half miles off of St. Croix, it
    has become the number one destination for visitors to St. Croix. The
    176-acre island and surrounding coral reef ecosystem support a large
    variety of native flora and fauna, and provide haven to several
    endangered and threatened species, including the hawksbill sea turtle
    and the brown pelican.
        Buck Island Reef National Monument was significantly expanded on
    January 17, 2001, by proclamation of President Clinton under the
    Antiquities Act. The proclamation added 18,135 acres of submerged lands
    to the monument, bringing the total acreage to just over 19,000 acres,
    all of which consist of submerged lands except for the 176-acre Buck
    Island. It eliminated all extractive uses, prohibited boat anchoring
    except by permit, and directed commencement of the planning process
    that will set forth the future management and use of the monument.
        Since the designation of the expanded Buck Island Reef National
    Monument last year representatives of the Virgin Islands government
    have raised numerous questions and concerns. In fact, on April 9, 2001,
    the Legislature of the Virgin Islands passed a resolution (No. 1609),
    expressing concern over the lack of adequate public participation in
    expansion of the monument, ownership of the submerged lands, the size
    of the monument, and potential impacts on the fishing and marine
    industries. I would like to briefly address those concerns.
        While we share concerns about the way in which these monuments were
    created, our job now is to ensure that we develop management plans in
    an open, inclusive, and comprehensive way. As stated by Secretary
    Norton on numerous occasions, the planning for the future management of
    these monuments will be a model of what we call the four C's:
    Consultation, Cooperation, and Communication, all in the service of
    Conservation. The Department of the Interior is committed to management
    and protection of the monuments consistent with the four C's and the
    purposes established in the proclamations. In response to this
    commitment, we published a notice in the Federal Register on April 24,
    2002, initiating a formal scoping period seeking public comment to
    identify issues to consider and analyze regarding management at the
    monument designations in the western states. The Department is
    currently reviewing the public comments. After reviewing all the
    comments on each monument, I believe most of the issues can be
    addressed through the management planning process, which will also
    include comprehensive public input. With regard to the monuments we are
    discussing today, we anticipate a similar public review process as soon
    as the issue of submerged lands ownership is resolved.
        We agree that Federal ownership or control of the l1and is
    necessary for an area to be designated as a national monument under the
    Antiquities Act. The General Accounting Office (GAO), at the request of
    Delegate Christian-Christensen, has reviewed the question of Federal
    ownership or control of the submerged lands in the expansion of Buck
    Island Reef National Monument. We understand that GAO will issue its
    opinion shortly.
        As to the size of Buck Island Reef National Monument, the Clinton
    Administration determined that an additional 18,135 acres was the
    smallest area needed to ensure the proper care and management of the
    resources to be protected and their long-term sustainability. The
    expansion area is large enough to provide a fish nursery that, in
    theory, should help assure that fishing will remain viable as an
    industry and a recreational activity here.
        With regard to the impact to the fishing and marine industries,
    although the loss of fishing territory could have an impact on the
    industry, we believe that it should be offset by the regeneration of
    stocks of fish that occur from the enhancement of the fish nurseries
    made possible by the expansion.
        The expanded Buck Island Reef National Monument should help provide
    for a recovery of coral reefs and associated habitats, facilitate an
    increase in the abundance of reef fish, sustain commercial and
    recreational fishing outside the monument, and enhance snorkeling and
    diving opportunities, which should contribute to economic growth from
    tourism. As with the Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument, the
    biological communities of the Buck Island Reef National Monument
    comprise a fragile, interdependent environment consisting of such
    habitats as coral reefs, sea grass beds, sand communities, algal plains
    and mangroves that are essential for sustaining and enhancing the
    tropical marine ecosystem.
        Just as the marine ecosystem around St. John is under chronic
    stress, so too is the ecosystem around Buck Island. Damage has been
    caused over the years from a variety of both natural forces and human
    activities. The ecosystem has been affected by hurricanes, diseases of
    various kinds, and coral predators. Years of coral diseases such as the
    White Band and Black Band disease, coral bleaching, and other coral
    predators have adversely affected the reef. Activities that contribute
    to the degradation of these marine resources include improper fishing,
    boating, and diving practices.
        Research over a long period of time has provided evidence that fish
    are not only smaller than in the past, but also that there has been a
    serial depletion of certain species, including the commercial
    extinction of the Red and Mutton Snappers, Nassau Grouper, Triggerfish
    (oldwife), and Rainbow and Midnight Parrotfish.
        Tourism is the mainstay of the economy here, and the national park
    units on both St. Croix and St. John contribute significantly to the
    tourism revenues generated on those islands. By implementing a
    collaborative approach to long-term management and protection for the
    spectacular resources managed by the National Park Service which lures
    tourists to the Virgin Islands, the monument designations provide an
    important way to help improve and sustain the Virgin Islands' economy.
    As stated earlier, the National Park Service has been preparing to
    undertake the planning process that will set forth the future
    management and use of the expanded monument, and we look forward to
    working collaboratively with the territorial government, our gateway
    communities, and other interested stakeholders in this endeavor.
        Mr. Chairman, I would now like to discuss Salt River Bay National
    Historical Park and Ecological Preserve. The park was established by
    Congress in 1992 to preserve and protect Salt River Bay's outstanding
    cultural and natural resources, to interpret the significance and value
    of those resources to the public, and to encourage scientific research.
    Consisting of 946 acres, the park contains some of the most important
    archaeological sites in the Virgin Islands, and has been designated a
    National Historic Landmark and National Natural Landmark.
        Since as early as 1880, Salt River Bay has been the focus of major
    archaeological investigations. The area was inhabited by the three
    major pre-Columbian pottery-making cultures in the Virgin Islands: the
    Igneri (AD 50-650), Taino (AD 650-1425), and Kalima or Carib (AD 1425-
    1590). During his second voyage to the New World, Columbus sent
    soldiers ashore at Salt River Bay to search for fresh water and to make
    contact with natives. Beginning in the mid-1600's, there were
    successive attempts to colonize the island by the Dutch, English,
    French, French chapter of the Knights of Malta, and Danes. The site
    includes Fort Sale, an earthwork fortification from the Dutch period of
    occupation.
        The enabling legislation calls for Salt River Bay to be managed
    jointly by the National Park Service and the Government of the Virgin
    Islands. Management Objectives (1994) and a Land Protection Plan (1995)
    were approved by both the Governor of the Virgin Islands and the
    National Park Service. Land purchases in the last three years have
    brought the total proportion of the area within the park boundary that
    is under government ownership to about 87 percent. However, despite
    success in acquiring property for the park, neither the Federal
    Government nor the territorial government has established an
    operational presence at Salt River Bay because we have not yet
    identified a suitable site for that purpose.
        The Land Protection Plan identifies the waterfront as the most
    suitable area for establishing visitor services and most of the park's
    operations. However, there is no waterfront property available for that
    purpose at this time. Because we believe it is essential for us to
    establish a presence at the park, we have begun looking at sites that
    would serve as an initial base of operations. Recently, we have become
    aware of a willing seller of a parcel that includes a house large
    enough to serve as an interim administrative facility for the park.
    However, the property is partially outside the boundary of the park.
    Its acquisition would require boundary adjustment legislation and, of
    course, the appropriation of sufficient funds to acquire it. We
    appreciate the efforts Delegate Christian-Christensen has made toward
    that end, and we look forward to working with her on this matter.
        Finally, I would like to say a few words about Christiansted
    National Historic Site, the third national park unit on St. Croix. This
    site, which was established in 1952, was the first unit of the National
    Park System in the Virgin Islands. Christiansted was the capital of the
    Danish West Indies during the 18th and 19th Centuries, the height of
    the sugar industry on St. Croix. The seven-acre site consists of the
    wharf area and related historic buildings as examples of the town's
    economy and way of life in Danish times. It contains the oldest and
    largest former slave-trading complex under the U.S. flag. The wharf and
    its connection with international trade provided the practical
    education of the young Alexander Hamilton. This unit is an important
    draw for tourists to the Virgin Islands, not only for its history but
    also because it is a centerpiece for historic preservation in the
    territory.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. Superintendent Tutein and
    I will be happy to answer any questions you or your colleagues may
    have.
                                     ______

        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Fran.
        I guess there's a number of issues, and I again, I think
    that the main one is regarding the legality of the designation
    of the monument. And we had an incredible opportunity yesterday
    to go out scuba diving, seeing the reef, and enjoying it
    firsthand and recognize obviously the need to preserve and
    protect a beautiful national treasure.
        However, one of the things I've experienced personally in
    my district with these monument designations, it seems that
    some of them have been made too large or there were other
    agendas that were involved in the defining of the lines of the
    monument, and I'm wondering if that might not be the case in
    this one. As I understand here, the monument designation goes
    beyond--if you, to me, the picture on the left is a--I looked
    at that and I thought, well, you know, everything that is
    bright and shiny around that island ought to be protected. But
    when I looked to the actual designation it goes far beyond that
    into some pretty deep water.
        And I, after seeing the resource and seeing the
    information, I do believe that the monument lines should be
    adjusted. I have some concern about why does it go out so far?
    What's the intent there? And the example that I would use would
    be in the Sequoia monument that--this was in my district in
    California--was designated to protect about sixteen thousand
    acres of Sequoia trees that were included in the Sequoia
    National Park when it was originally designed, and so they took
    340,000 acres to protect the 16,000 acres of growth.
        Well, even in that case, if you even counted the watershed,
    if you were going to look for the minimum number of area that
    it would take to preserve it, that would be 120,000 acres. And
    many people feel that the reason that it was 340,000 acres was
    to exclude multiple use basically out of the entire Sequoia
    National Forest and use it as a tool to do that, beyond what
    was necessary to protect the monument, but rather had the
    agenda of doing other things.
        And I'm wondering if that's the case and the design of this
    monument here, and I know that we had a GAO study going on. I
    know in the Virgin Islands there's a possibility of lawsuits
    that follow that, depending on how the Park Service responds to
    the GAO's report, depending on what it says.
        I'd like to get your feelings on that, Fran, and maybe with
    your staff as well as--I can justify going beyond the--I don't
    know--
        Ms. Mainella. The current boundaries? The current monument
    size? Maybe just--
        Mr. Radanovich. The current, yeah. Once it drops off in
    deep water, I think it takes a little--it's a little more
    difficult to justify. And I'd like to get your response.
        Ms. Mainella. Well, as you know, I was not present during
    the time of this proclamation coming forth, and I have also
    asked that question of staff of why did it go quite as far? And
    again, we had some involvement. A lot of that was done, though,
    as you heard my testimony, I don't know that everyone had the
    full knowledge of all the rationale behind it. But there is
    some--definitely some, certainly beyond the boundaries that we
    currently have--
        Could you show, Joel, our current boundaries are right in
    that area--OK. Right there.
        And as you said, where you look into where that shelf is
    at--
        Mr. Radanovich. Which is the gray boundary.
        Ms. Mainella. Gray area, which is beyond which goes, I
    don't know the distance beyond there, but that certainly is a
    very, as we saw yesterday, a very sensitive area for
    protection, and the need of the great coral that we saw and
    everything of that nature.
        I'm going to ask Joel, the larger area that goes all the
    way out almost a 3-mile area I believe, and I'm not sure if
    that's a 3-mile--
        Mr. Tutein. Yes.
        Ms. Mainella. Because we didn't get into those waters, and
    most of those waters are quite deep as I understand it, but
    there is some--there is some issues there as well that probably
    were taken into consideration.
        And I ask Joel, would you please speak to that as best as
    you know. But again, I know that you were not--you know, that
    was--a lot of that happened in Washington.

     STATEMENT OF JOEL A. TUTEIN, SUPERINTENDENT FOR CHRISTIANSTED
    NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, BUCK ISLAND REEF NATIONAL MONUMENT AND
       THE SALT RIVER BAY NATIONAL HISTORIC PARK AND ECOLOGICAL
                                PRESERVE

        Mr. Tutein. Good morning.
        Mr. Radanovich. Joel, state your name for the record.
        Mr. Tutein. Good morning. My name is Joel A. Tutein. I am
    the superintendent for Christiansted National Historic Site,
    Buck Island Reef National Monument and Salt River Bay
    Ecological Park.
        For the record, the question was asked, Why go out to the
    3-mile limit? I was part of the planning team that worked with
    the Department of Interior, and we felt at the time that's the
    smallest area to protect the migratory whales, migratory sea
    turtle that travel back and forth in that area. We know that
    there are pelagics that frequent that area because there are
    some fish-attracting device that's in there that has enhanced
    the pelagics coming to that area. There is no place on St.
    Croix currently where these animals are protected from taking.
    So it was the consensus that this area should be an area that
    was off limit to fishing to protect these migratory species
    from being caught.
        Mr. Radanovich. OK. Thank you, Joel.
        Ms. Mainella. So it's not the coral issue out there. It
    is--
        Mr. Tutein. Other species.
        Ms. Mainella. Other species.
        Mr. Radanovich. Other species.
        Mr. Tutein. Yes.
        Mr. Radanovich. And mainly the turtle I guess is what the--
    is it other than the turtle?
        Ms. Mainella. The whale I think is the big issue, as I
    understand it. Migratory whales.
        Mr. Radanovich. Migratory whale as well? OK, thank you.
        With that, Donna, I think I'm going to turn it over to you
    for questions. We'll go round and round.
        Mrs. Christensen. OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
    and that was actually my first question.
        The monument is to protect shoals, rocks undersea coral
    reef formations. So this actually goes beyond the actual
    proclamation.
        Fish-attracting device, could that be moved out of that
    area?
        Mr. Tutein. Again, as Director Mainella said, we would have
    to utilize the four Cs. Once the GAO report is out, we will
    then formulate a committee. It will take some time, but we will
    come to consensus as to what is done with those devices.
        Mrs. Christensen. I have a question that is more related to
    the Salt River area, because as I looked over some of the
    testimony of some of the other people who will be testifying, I
    saw that at least one person, in referring to the Salt River
    Historical Park and Ecological Reserve, said that little or no
    attention was being given to the concept of helping the Virgin
    Islands Government--and I'm reading it here--establish its
    Territorial park system administrative management and
    enforcement apparatus in a meaningful way in terms of training
    and so forth.
        And I wondered how you would respond to that.
        Mr. Tutein. Well, thank you.
        Mrs. Christensen. Because it's supposed to be a cooperative
    agreement. There are supposed to be cooperation and support.
        Mr. Tutein. Absolutely.
        Mrs. Christensen. And I'd like you to add to that while you
    have the mike.
        Mr. Tutein. The legislation back in 1992 that created Salt
    River spoke of joint management. As a matter of fact, the
    National Park Service is supposed to pay for 50 percent of the
    training. The Park Service has been very involved in Salt
    River. We've been very active in our land purchasing. We
    purchased approximately 87 percent of the acreage that needs to
    be purchased. We had a commission that expired I believe
    February 24th of this year. The commission had a life of 10
    years.
        We have written four separate Cooperative Agreements that
    we have submitted to the Government of the Virgin Islands in
    hope that this Cooperative Agreement would be the vehicle in
    which the Territory would identify the personnel that they want
    to train so that the National Park Service could then go ahead
    and enter into a partnership of training.
        The congressional legislation only talks about that the
    Park Service is responsible for 50 percent of the training. The
    Cooperative Agreement would be the vehicle that we would use to
    funnel the money to the Territory once the employees are
    identified for training.
        Mrs. Christensen. So you're saying that you've attempted to
    make that kind of training and support available, but it's
    depending on that signing of that MOU?
        Mr. Tutein. The signing of the Cooperative Agreement would
    be very beneficial because it's not the Park Service's
    responsibility to identify the employees in the Territorial
    Government for training. It is their responsibility to come to
    us and say, These are the employees that we want trained. And
    then it's our responsibility to fund 50 percent of that
    training.
        Mrs. Christensen. And the Commission is made up of--because
    now you have to have new nominees to the Commission--
        Mr. Tutein. I believe that the director and the secretary
    would have to take that under advisement since the Commission
    has expired, and an evaluation will probably be done. But if
    that was to be implemented again, what would happen is the
    Government would appoint four members and the Secretary of the
    Interior would appoint four.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. Let me go on to another
    question, back to Buck Island again. How, in your view, would
    the Buck Island Monument impact fishing and the fishermen on
    St. Croix? How would you respond to the fishermen who say--many
    of whom are in your family--
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Mainella. He's a fisherman himself.
        Mrs. Christensen. --who say it would harm their way of
    life, or kill their way of life?
        Mr. Tutein. Well, my father's here today, and my brother,
    sitting in the audience behind me, and I hope by the time I am
    finished with this response I will still be part of the family.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Tutein. You know, I'm 51 years old. I've been a part of
    the marine scene all my life, and my father has supported his
    family through fishing and through marine resources, and also
    through the Government of the Virgin Islands as a coxswain of
    the Virgin Islands Port Authority. We have seen the decline in
    fishing over the years; size of fish, species of fish. We need
    to have an area that would allow fish stock to regenerate.
    Currently in St. Croix there is no area to support a nursery
    for regeneration of fishing.
        It will impact the fishermen, yes, absolutely. But the
    long-term benefits I think will outweigh the short-term losses.
    And at some point, and I think we've reached to the point,
    where we have to bite the bullet. We cannot allow continued
    serial depletion of our fish stocks.
        Mrs. Christensen. Are there--just as follow-up--are there
    fishermen that only use that particular area? How many
    fishermen are affected, and do they fish solely in that area?
        Mr. Tutein. Based on my 25 years of experience with the
    National Park Service, I've patrolled for 19 years, I got to
    know firsthand the fishing community at Buck Island, and I can
    only speak to the 880 acres monument that still exists, and I
    would say perhaps about twelve families fish in that area. The
    expanded area, I couldn't answer that. I really don't know. But
    I can tell you that when the monument designation first came
    out, a lot of fishermen were upset because they thought that we
    were going out to Scotch Bank, which is to the east of--
        Ms. Mainella. I'll point. You showed me. I'll be your
    assistant today.
        Mr. Tutein. Right in there.
        The fishing community believed that we were going to take
    over Scotch Bank, which is the upper long bank, which is a very
    popular fishing area. But I think that once they found out that
    it was just this area--and you know, that area might look big,
    but it's only really 5 percent of the total fishable shelf in
    St. Croix. Five percent that we want to protect. And that 5
    percent will regenerate, we think, the fish stock for the
    entire St. Croix shelf.
        Mr. Radanovich. OK. It seems to make--the thing that
    concerns me is that, at least by my observation of what the
    Antiquities Act is supposed to be used for, is that it's
    supposed to be used to protect historic and scientific objects
    in the monument. Now, I can justify expanding the monument to
    protect the reefs. I mean that makes sense to me. But I'm not
    sure it's within the jurisdiction of a monument to be
    protecting species, unless somebody can further illuminate this
    for me.
        And then that does bring the issue about the Territorial
    Government of the Virgin Islands being responsible for the
    fishing off their own waters. Has there been what you would
    then conclude, is it that there's been a failure of the
    Territorial Government to protect the fish off its waters, and
    that's why it's necessary for the park to come in and do the
    job that they failed to do? Is that--
        Ms. Mainella. At this point I could not answer any of that
    aspect, you know, as far as even the legal determination on
    what can be in a monument as far as the purpose, and we can
    take that back to our legal--
        Mr. Radanovich. If you can give me an answer.
        Ms. Mainella. I will be glad.
        Danny, if you'll help me? Thank you so much.
        Again, we want to continue to work in wonderful partnership
    with the Virgin Islands to further enhance that partnership,
    and I don't know how all the fishing relationships worked in
    that regard.
        Mr. Radanovich. Right.
        Ms. Mainella. So again, that would be something I hope that
    we can all look into in the future.
        Mrs. Christensen. If the Chairman--
        Mr. Radanovich. Sure.
        Mrs. Christensen. You know, we're a relatively resource-
    poor government, so any failure would not be for lack of trying
    or applying the resources that we have. But we're very resource
    limited.
        Mr. Radanovich. Uh-huh.
        Mrs. Christensen. And probably the Commissioner will speak
    to that.
        Mr. Radanovich. OK. And I'm not casting blame on anybody.
    I'm just trying to understand this thing.
        Again, it's been my experience on monument designations is
    that sometimes they far overreach the idea of the monument that
    they're designed to protect. And I think perhaps, on
    maintaining fisheries, if there can be a relationship that the
    Park Service, I know, seeks in communities that are involved in
    every monument across the country, that perhaps what can be
    done on that--again, I don't understand fishing communities
    that well because I represent a land-locked district, but--and
    I understand that there's more than just the Territorial
    Government of the Virgin Islands fishing in these waters, so
    it's probably a little more complex than I know. But it seems
    to me that there ought to be perhaps a more--I hate applying
    the law in areas where it shouldn't be applied for other
    purposes, and that may be what's happening here.
        Ms. Mainella. Again, I think the best thing, one of the
    things that this trip is such a great opportunity, that we get
    to know people here, those of us in Washington in particular,
    and be able to go back and communicate and of course further
    enhance all our understanding of what everyone's role should be
    and can be, and how we can work better together.
        Mr. Radanovich. Very good. If I may, I'm going to ask one
    more question. I know--this is on Salt River, on the Salt River
    project, which we visited yesterday, and again a very beautiful
    site and a historic site.
        Is the purpose of the Salt River--what do you call it, the
    project or the monument?
        Ms. Mainella. Preserve.
        Mr. Radanovich. Historical--
        Mrs. Christensen. We are expanding the boundaries of that.
        Mr. Radanovich. Is it a monument or preserve?
        Ms. Mainella. It's a historical park and ecological
    preserve.
        Mr. Radanovich. OK. OK. Now, the historical part, of
    course, Christopher Columbus landed there in his second voyage
    to this part of the world, and that's the historic element. And
    the settlements that were there, was it the Carib Indians.
        Mr. Tutein. Carib.
        Ms. Mainella. All the different Indians, archeological
    history.
        Mrs. Christensen. If the Chairman would yield, I believe
    that just about every nation that came here had a settlement in
    that area.
        Mr. Radanovich. Oh, is that right? OK, so it's, in addition
    to Columbus, many more.
        What is the nature of the wildlife protection element of
    this project? Are there reefs that need to be protected out
    there as well, or is it--
        Ms. Mainella. My understanding, there's reefs and
    everything, but I want to turn it to Joel to--but I know that
    again, Bill that was here with us gave us some interpretation
    on the archeological aspects going back to 50 A.D., and I know
    that's a big impact. And I'll turn it to Joel on more than
    that.
        Mr. Tutein. Thank you, sir.
        The protection, we have one of the deepest reef formation
    right off the Salt River Bay. You can see it here on your map
    on the photograph that--
        Ms. Mainella. That one I can't point well to.
        Mr. Radanovich. That will be coral reef formation?
        Mr. Tutein. Yes, it's also coral reef formation. It's one
    of the oldest studied areas along with Buck Island for marine
    research. NOAA had a submarine canyon based where aquanauts
    performed experiments until 1989 when Hurricane Hugo came and
    destroyed the facility.
        So the natural resources are plentiful. You also have
    nesting of brown pelican. You have sea turtle nesting, as well,
    that takes place on the beach on both side, on the Judith's
    Fancy which is on the left side, and on the Salt River Bay
    side, which is on the right side.
        Mr. Radanovich. And the issue there really is not any land
    acquisition other than a bill regarding the building there that
    we visited yesterday.
        Mrs. Christensen. Yeah, it would expand the boundaries to
    provide the visitors center and management offices.
        Mr. Radanovich. Correct. And that building would be used as
    a visitors center, not just a residence? Because if it's going
    to be used as a residence, I want it to be my residence.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Mainella. We would, if that is able to move forward,
    with the help of the delegate and all of you, with boundary
    expansion so that could possibly be included, because it's just
    outside of our boundary right now, I believe, it would allow us
    to make that as an interpretive center, and also have a chance
    to--but again, we want input from the community before we make
    a final determination, but our goal was to help us better
    interpret an area, and that would be what we would be seeking.
    I don't think it's--
        Joel, it's not your home, is it? No. OK, I just wanted to
    check.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Radanovich. OK. Thank you very much. Any other
    questions?
        All right. Thank you very much. I think we're done, and
    we're going to move on to the next panel.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Radanovich. OK. Good morning. I want to welcome Mr.
    Maxwell McIntosh, the Salt River National Historic Park
    Commission; the Honorable Dean Plaskett, who's the Commissioner
    of the Department of Planning and Natural Resources.
        Mr. Plaskett, welcome. We appreciated your written
    testimony submitted the other day at St. John, and we're glad
    to have you here for questions. I understand that you need to
    be out of here by 11 o'clock, so I'm going to adjust the way we
    do things a little bit by allowing you to give your oral
    testimony now, and then we will question you and then move on
    to Mr. McIntosh, and that will give you the opportunity to
    leave when you need to.

     STATEMENT OF DEAN PLASKETT, COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
                     PLANNING AND NATURAL RESOURCES

        Mr. Plaskett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Good morning,
    honorable representatives to Congress and to all present or
    otherwise listening. My name is Dean Plaskett and I--
        Mr. Radanovich. Dean--
        Can people hear? And I need help with the audience. Raise
    your hand if you can't hear.
        Dean, if you'd speak more directly into that mike it would
    help.
        Mr. Plaskett. I'm sorry. I am Dean Plaskett, Commissioner
    of the Department of Planning and Natural Resources.
        I have been invited here today to render testimony on
    behalf of the Government of the Virgin Islands with regard to
    former President Clinton's creation of national monuments here
    in the United States Virgin Islands.
        Pursuant to the Antiquities Act, the President of the
    United States has the authority to designate national monuments
    on land ``owned or controlled by the Government of the United
    States.'' This is found in 16 U.S.C.A. Section 431. However,
    because the Virgin Islands owns virtually all of the submerged
    lands that President Clinton designated as national monument
    lands, he did not have the authority to make such designations
    under the Antiquities Act. Furthermore, President Clinton's
    proclamation regarding the Buck Island Reef National Monument
    breaches a contract between the Virgin Islands and the United
    States entered into in 1961. In addition, the Department of
    Planning and Natural Resources and the Territory as a whole
    believe that President Clinton's proclamation also violated
    several other Federal statutes and the Constitution.
        We feel President Clinton acted beyond the authority
    conferred by the Antiquities Act. Since June 8th, 1906 the
    Antiquities Act has authorized the President of the United
    States to declare by public proclamation ``objects of historic
    or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned
    or controlled by the Government of the United States to be
    national monuments.'' Thus because the U.S. Government did not
    own the land designated by President Clinton as national
    monument lands, President Clinton did not have the authority to
    designate such lands, and such designations should be void ab
    initio. As authority we refer to the United States v.
    California, 436 U.S. 32, page 35n.7, which holds that,
    ``because tidelands within the monument were not owned or
    controlled by the United States in 1938 or in 1949, Presidents
    Roosevelt and Truman could not have reserved them by simply
    issuing proclamations pursuant to the Antiquities Act.
        Of course this was another instance where national
    monuments had been created.
        In 1974 Congress passed, and the President signed the
    Territorial Submerged Lands Act which provides in part:
    ``Subject to valid existing rights, all right, title and
    interest of the United States and land permanently or
    periodically covered by tidal waters up to but not above the
    line of mean high tide and seaward to a line of three
    geographical miles distant from the coastlines of the
    territories of Guam, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa, are
    hereby conveyed to the governments of Guam, the Virgin Islands,
    and American Samoa, as the case may be, to be administered in
    trust for the benefit of the people thereof.''
        That is found at 48 U.S.C.A. Section 1705(a). Thus,
    pursuant to the Territorial Submerged Lands Act, the United
    States transferred certain submerged lands to the Virgin
    Islands. However, the Territory acknowledges that such transfer
    had its limitations:
        ``There are excepted from the transfer made by subsection
    (a) hereof: All submerged lands adjacent to property owned by
    the United States above the line of mean high tide; All
    submerged lands designated by the President within 120 days
    after October 5th, 1974; All submerged lands within the Virgin
    Islands National Park established by Section 398 to 398(b) of
    Title 16, including lands described in Sections 398(c) and
    398(b) of Title 16. All submerged lands within the Buck Island
    Reef National Monument as described in Presidential
    Proclamation 3448 dated December 28th, 1961.''
        This dispute over ownership of the submerged lands
    underlying the Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument and
    expanded Buck Island Reef National Monument rests in these
    exceptions.
        Specifically, the U.S. Government believes that it owns the
    newly designated submerged lands based upon the exception
    contained in 48 U.S.C.A. 1705(b)(ii). In a September 6th, 2000
    memo from the Department of Interior senior counsel Karen
    Kovacs to Secretary Babbitt, Ms. Kovacs wrote that, ``in 1974
    the Department of the Interior reserved 37,000 acres of
    submerged lands pursuant to the exception regarding adjacency
    of Federally owned upland.'' However, in our opinion, such
    reasoning is substantially flawed.
        On February 1st, 1975, President Ford signed Proclamation
    4346 which withheld from transfer to the Virgin Islands 30
    acres of submerged lands contiguous to the Buck Island Reef
    National Monument, thereby expanding the monument pursuant to
    the exception contained in 48 U.S.C.A. Section 1705(b)(vii). As
    set forth above, this exception allowed the President to
    withhold additional submerged lands from being transferred to
    the Virgin Islands if the President designated such lands
    within 120 days of October 5th, 1974. If submerged lands were
    excepted from transfer under one of the other paragraphs of
    Section 1705(b), there would be no need for President Ford to
    act pursuant to Section 1705(b)(vii) to withhold such lands.
        Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Plaskett, could I remind you that the
    red light is on. If you could sum up briefly. I don't know how
    many more pages you have there.
        Mr. Plaskett. Certainly. The concern that I have, Mr.
    Chairman, I respect your position here, but the legal case the
    Government has made has never been presented to the people of
    the Virgin Islands. This is the first opportunity that we're
    having to state on the record our full concern with regards to
    this particular issue. We have heard a number of issues being
    raised with regards to the position of the Government, and I
    thought that it would be important for us to detail
    specifically what our position is in this regard. However, I
    respect your position on this and we will--
        Mr. Radanovich. And your written testimony does, but I'm
    getting lost in all the bill title numbers.
        Mr. Plaskett. I understand. And again, you know, I think
    we're doing this for posterity. The record must reflect what
    our position is clearly. And, you know, I understand your
    position that you have my testimony in writing.
        The only thing I will add, because I think that the legal
    argument needs to be made in this regard, and the people need
    to understand what our position is. Our position is not one of
    emotion, or one just saying the land belongs to the people of
    the Virgin Islands, and that's that. We have done substantial
    research with regards to this, and we think that our position
    ought to get the airing that it deserves.
        With regards to our resources, I understand that there have
    been discussion with regards to the size of the monument, and I
    would only like to add that the Virgin Islands Government has
    made some substantial steps with regards to preserving our
    resources, the most important of which in my opinion is our
    creation of the Territorial Marine Park System, which in fact
    will provide for some of the protections that I heard you
    asking the Park Service about. And in fact--
        Mr. Radanovich. Territorial park system?
        Mr. Plaskett. Territorial Marine Park System. That's part
    of the presentation that we made. We've started out with the
    east end of St. Croix, and we have received some significant
    funding. As a matter of fact, we had some startup funding of
    close to $200,000, $225,000 from President Clinton's Coral Reef
    Task Force for the creation of this Territorial Marine Park
    System. And we are--our Coastal Zone Management Commission has
    just last week approved the plans that we have put in place for
    the Territorial Marine Park System.
        You also talked about management of our fisheries. I'm sure
    that some of the other speakers will be able to enlighten you
    more with regards to the efforts that the Territory has
    undertaken over many years with regards to the protection of
    our fisheries and our fish resources. And so there has been a
    significant local effort in that regard, and so I think that
    those issues ought to be considered.
        I'd like to thank you for coming to the Virgin Islands and
    taking the time out of your busy schedules to listen to our
    concerns. I hope that we would have the opportunity to present
    our entire case at some other point maybe. I think that, again,
    while there may be a lot of quotations on here, this matter
    transpired back in the late sixties. I think, if I recall
    correctly, the proclamation signed by President Ford was in
    1975. I'll admit at that time I was 10 years old, so, you know,
    the only way that we can put a face on what actually transpired
    is by going through this thing meticulously and explaining what
    we've been able to find.
        Mr. Radanovich. Can I ask you a question? I know you
    don't--you officially represent the Territory of the Virgin
    Islands, but there's more people involved in that as well, but
    if this doesn't work out and this boundary line holds, do you
    think that it would be the--do you think the Territory's going
    to sue the Federal Government over it?
        Mr. Plaskett. We would have to take a look at the opinion
    that is rendered by the GAO and consult with the Governor and
    all of the state codes to make a determination as to what our
    next step would be.
        I think that, you know, I feel personally that we have
    presented a very strong argument, and I think that that is one
    of the reasons that the GAO has now taken over a year to review
    this matter. If it was a clear-cut matter, it would have been--
    the decision would have been rendered some time ago. But the
    fact is this is a complicated matter. It goes over decades, and
    we had to do research in President Ford's library to come up
    with some of these things. We've got quotations and citations
    to letters from Antonin Scalia, who was the--I think he was
    solicitor at the time, or Assistant Attorney General or
    something at the time, regarding this very same matter.
        Mr. Radanovich. Is it your--do you object to any expansion
    of the monument whatsoever, or do you think that there's--you
    just don't think it should be as big as it is or--
        Mr. Plaskett. There's a baseline issue. If the land belongs
    to the government, the people of the Virgin Islands, then I
    object to any formation of a national monument. But if it's
    Federal lands, we would just ask that consideration be given to
    local fishermen and to the concerns that we have raised,
    particularly with the Territorial Marine Park System. We have
    prepared the park system, prepared both alternatives. That is,
    if it is determined that the land belongs to the people of the
    Virgin Islands, there is plans to include that as part of the
    Territorial Marine Park System. If not, we have come up with a
    mechanism to entertain the park with regards to what they're
    trying to accomplish and what we're trying to accomplish.
        Mr. Radanovich. Donna?
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
        Just a few questions, because the Chairman did ask some of
    the questions that I had also wanted to ask you. But shortly
    after assuming office, Secretary Norton did write to all of the
    Governors of the states where monuments had been declared
    asking for their recommendations regarding those monuments, and
    Governor Turnbull did respond. I'm assuming that your office
    had some role in preparing that response. Were all of the
    issues that you raised here today also included in that letter?
        Mr. Plaskett. I--
        Mrs. Christensen. Maybe it does?
        Mr. Plaskett. As a matter of fact, no. I think these issues
    were raised in a letter that we sent to the GAO--
        Mrs. Christensen. OK.
        Mr. Plaskett. --in defense of our position.
        Mrs. Christensen. That was my next question. You were able
    to submit these same arguments to the GAO--
        Mr. Plaskett. Yes, we were.
        Mrs. Christensen. --in preparation for their response.
        Going back to the Section 1705(b)(ii) of the Territorial
    Submerged Lands Act, what, in your view, what was the purpose
    of that exception, and do you think it has no effect, or is it
    just poorly drafted language? What--how do you see that?
        Mr. Plaskett. That section particularly concerns us,
    because as we argue in our brief, the term the ``line of mean
    high tide'' appears to have been neglected in the consideration
    of the government, the Federal Government, in the creation of
    these monuments. Because particularly in the situation with
    Buck Island, there's no line of mean high tide anywhere close
    to that creation. The only adjacent lands around the Buck
    Island expansion are submerged lands. And the actions of the
    Clinton Administration rendered that particular requirement
    superfluous, because again, they talk about the line of mean
    high tide. But except for certain--except for the instances of
    Chocolate Hole and some other situations in St. John, there is
    no line of mean high tide adjacent to these monuments that have
    been created.
        Mrs. Christensen. Assume for a moment that it was
    determined at some point, either just by through the
    collaboration or through a court decision, that the lands were
    determined to be Federal. How does the restricting, the
    prohibition against restricting existing fishing and
    recreational privileges of the Virgin Islands inhabitants in
    and around Buck Island, how does that then affect the
    management of that?
        Mr. Plaskett. Well, we also refer to in our brief a 1936,
    we consider it to be contract, that prohibited any further
    implementation of restrictive rules and regulations surrounding
    Buck Island. It has been my experience, and I've been able to
    learn since this issue has come to the fore, that there are a
    significant number of fishermen who utilize that area.
        We have registered, as I think Mr. Tutein was correct, that
    there's only a certain number of families who do this on a
    regular basis, and this is their traditional fishing grounds.
    However, there is indication in our Fish and Wildlife Division
    that a number of other fishermen utilize that area.
        So if there is going to be the sort of no-take restrictions
    that have been proposed, you know, I agree with the Park
    Service that we're along way from a management plan on this.
    And so I would--I would caution people not to overreact to the
    possibility of there being a no-take. But if in fact there was
    a no-take, I think this would be a significant no-take area.
        And we have, as part--for example, as part of our creation
    of the Territorial Marine Park System, we have addressed and
    spoken with a number of fishermen and they have participated in
    the meetings and so forth that led to the creation of the
    Territorial Marine Park Plan, and they indicated to us that
    this area is an important part of their fishing grounds.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. I would just--I realize we're
    time limited, our time is limited here. There may be some
    further questions that we would want to submit to the
    Commissioner in writing.
        And I wanted to assure you, again, that everything, even
    though you were not able to orally give your full testimony,
    it's all included in the official record.
        Mr. Plaskett. Again, you know, I think that the concern
    that we--that I have is that we have not had the opportunity
    to--at least the Administration has not had the opportunity to
    fully air our position with regards to this. A number of the
    people that you heard speak about this issue are not
    necessarily government officials per se, and are only reporting
    what they may have heard. I wanted an opportunity to completely
    state what the Government of the Virgin Islands' position is
    with regards to this issue, because I think that it is a
    complex situation. It's not as simple as, you know, some would
    have us believe.
        Mrs. Christensen. Are you saying that this is the full
    position of the Government, or that there remains still further
    issues that you want to raise?
        Mr. Plaskett. Well, I think at this time this is the full
    position of the Government of the Virgin Islands. However,
    again, it depends on what the GAO response would be.
        Mr. Radanovich. Right.
        Mr. Plaskett. If they raise issues that we think are
    incorrect, or that needs to have additional light shed upon, we
    would like the opportunity to at least--and then I guess that
    will be part of our consideration as to what our next step
    would be because, you know, dependent upon what their opinion
    is.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Plaskett follows:]

             Statement of Dean C. Plaskett, Esquire, Commissioner,
                  Department of Planning and Natural Resources

        Good afternoon Honorable Representatives to Congress and to all
    present or otherwise listening. My name is Dean C. Plaskett, Esquire,
    Commissioner of the Department of Planning and Natural Resources.
        I have been invited here today to render testimony on behalf of the
    Government of the Virgin Islands with regard to the former President's
    creation of National Monuments here in the United States Virgin
    Islands.
        Pursuant to the Antiquities Act, the President of the United States
    has the authority to designate national monuments on land ``owned or
    controlled by the Government of the United States.'' 16 U.S.C.A.
    Sec. 431. However, because the Virgin Islands owns virtually all of the
    submerged lands that President Clinton designated as national monument
    lands, he did not have the authority to make such designations under
    the Antiquities Act. Furthermore, President Clinton's proclamation
    regarding the Buck Island Reef National Monument breaches a contract
    between the Virgin Islands and the United States, entered into in 1961.
    In addition, the Department of Planning and Natural Resources
    (``DPNR'') and the Territory as a whole, believe that President
    Clinton's Proclamations also violated several other Federal statutes
    and the Constitution.
    A. President Clinton Acted Beyond The Authority Conferred by the
            Antiquities Act
        Since June 8, 1906, the Antiquities Act has authorized the
    President of the United States to declare by public proclamation
    ``objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the
    lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be
    national monuments.'' Id. (emphasis added). Thus, because the United
    States Government did not own the lands designated by President Clinton
    as national monument lands, President Clinton did not have the
    authority to designate such lands and such designation should be void
    ab initio. See United States v. California, 436 U.S. 32, 35n.7
    (1978)(``[b]ecause tidelands within the Monument were not 'owned or
    controlled' by the United States in 1938 or in 1949, Presidents
    Roosevelt and Truman could not have reserved them by simply issuing
    proclamations pursuant to the Antiquities Act'').
        In 1974, Congress passed and the President signed the Territorial
    Submerged Lands Act (``TSLA''), which provides:
            Subject to valid existing rights, all right, title, and
            interest of the United States in lands permanently or
            periodically covered by tidal waters up to but not above the
            line of mean high tide and seaward to a line three geographical
            miles distant from the coastlines of the territories of Guam,
            the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa are hereby conveyed to
            the governments of Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American
            Samoa, as the case may be, to be administered in trust for the
            benefit of the people thereof.
        48 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1705(a). Thus, pursuant to the TSLA, the United
    States transferred certain submerged lands to the Virgin Islands.
    However, the Territory acknowledges that such transfer had its
    limitations:
            There are excepted from the transfer made by subsection (a)
            hereof-
            (ii) all submerged lands adjacent to property owned by the
            United States above the line of mean high tide;

                                     * * *

            (vii) all submerged lands designated by the President within
            one hundred and twenty days after October 5, 1974;

                                     * * *

            (x) all submerged lands within the Virgin Islands National Park
            established by section 398 to 398b of title 16, including lands
            described in sections 398c and 398d of title 16; and
            (xi) all submerged lands within the Buck Island Reef National
            Monument as described in Presidential Proclamation 3448 dated
            December 28, 1961.
        48 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1705(b). The dispute over ownership of the
    submerged lands underlying the Virgin Islands Coral Reef National
    Monument and expanded Buck Island Reef National Monument rest in these
    exceptions.
        Specifically, the United States Government believes that it owns
    the newly designated submerged lands based upon the exception contained
    in 48 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1705(b)(ii). In a September 6, 2000 memo from DOI
    senior counsel Karen Kovacs to Secretary Babbitt (``Kovacs
    Memorandum''), Ms. Kovacs wrote that ``'[i]n 1974, DOI reserved
    approximately 37,000 acres of submerged lands pursuant to the exception
    regarding adjacency of Federally owned upland.''' Chris Larson, Sen.
    Cole Plans Hearings on Ownership of Monument Land, The Daily News, Feb.
    20, 2001, at 4 (quoting Kovacs Memorandum). However, in our opinion,
    such reasoning is substantially flawed.
        On February 1, 1975, President Ford signed Proclamation 4346, which
    withheld from transfer to the Virgin Islands thirty acres of submerged
    lands contiguous to the Buck Island Reef National Monument, thereby
    expanding the Monument pursuant to the exception contained in 48
    U.S.C.A. Sec. 1705(b)(vii). As set forth above, this exception allowed
    the President to withhold additional submerged lands from being
    transferred to the Virgin Islands if the President designated such
    lands within one hundred twenty days of October 5, 1974. If submerged
    lands were excepted from transfer under one of the other paragraphs of
    Section 1705(b), there would be no need for President Ford to act
    pursuant to Section 1705(b)(vii) to withhold such lands. It is clear
    that President Ford believed that the submerged lands contiguous to
    Buck Island Monument were not excepted from transfer under any other
    provision of Section 1705(b):
            [t]hese thirty acres of submerged lands are presently owned in
            fee by the United States. They will be conveyed to the
            Government of the Virgin Islands on February 3, 1975, pursuant
            to [48 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1705(a)], unless the President, under
            Section [48 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1705(b)(vii)] of that Act, designates
            otherwise.

                                     * * *

            The aforementioned thirty acres of submerged lands are
            contiguous to the site of the Buck Island Reef National
            Monument.
        Proclamation No. 4346, 40 Fed. Reg. 5,127 (Feb. 4, 1975). Moreover,
    this view also was shared by others in his Administration, including
    Assistant Attorney General Antonin Scalia:
            Unless the proclamation is issued by Sunday, February 2, 1975,
            the lands to be added to the National Monument will
            automatically be transferred to the Government of the Virgin
            Islands pursuant to Section 1(a) of Public Law 93-435 (88 Stat.
            1210).
        Letter from Antonin Scalia, Assistant Attorney General, Office of
    Legal Counsel, to President Ford, dated Jan. 31, 1975; see also Letter
    from William M. Nichols, Acting General Counsel, Office of Management
    and Budget, to Attorney General, dated Jan. 29, 1975; Letter from
    Rogers Morton, Secretary of Interior, to President Ford, dated Jan. 22,
    1975 (``It is essential that title to these lands be reserved. Under
    the provisions of P.L. 93-435 (October 5, 1974), these lands will
    automatically be transferred to the government of the Virgin
    Islands.''). These very submerged lands that President Ford and his
    Administration expressly interpreted as being subject to transfer to
    the Virgin Islands without the President's intervention do not differ
    in character from the vast majority of lands the Clinton Administration
    claimed were never transferred to the Virgin Islands in 1975. Thus,
    there appears to be a direct contradiction between the Ford and Clinton
    Administrations with regard to how the exceptions to the TSLA should be
    interpreted. However, it is President Ford who signed the TSLA on
    October 5, 1974, not the DOI employees in the Clinton Administration
    who are apparently now trying to rewrite history. ``The President,
    after all, has a part in the legislative process except as to bills
    passed over his veto, and his intent must be considered relevant to
    determining the meaning of a law in close cases.'' United States v.
    Tharp, 892 F.2d 691,695 (8th Cir. 1990). This is not simply a matter of
    Presidential interpretation of a Federal law. It is a matter of
    Presidential interpretation where Congress explicitly delegated to a
    particular President, for a one hundred twenty day period, the
    authority to interpret the TSLA and to except from transfer additional
    submerged lands pursuant to Section 1705(b)(vii). President Ford's
    interpretation is unambiguous. He believed that lands similar to those
    he withheld in 1975, now claimed to be Federal lands by the Clinton
    Administration, were transferred to the Virgin Islands in 1975 when he
    decided not to except them from transfer.
        Perhaps even more significant than the Ford Administration's
    interpretation of the TSLA is the weakness of the Clinton
    Administration's rationale for Federal ownership of the submerged
    lands. According to the Kovacs Memorandum, DOI believed that the
    submerged lands around the Buck Island Reef National Monument and the
    National Park around St. John were withheld from the Virgin Islands
    pursuant to the TSLA provision that excepts from transfer ``all
    submerged lands adjacent to property owned by the United States above
    the line of mean high tide,'' 48 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1705(b)(ii). The problem
    with this theory is that almost all of the lands designated by
    President Clinton are not adjacent to uplands owned by the United
    States. In fact, all of the submerged lands designated to enlarge the
    Buck Island Reef National Monument are adjacent to other submerged
    lands, not uplands. With the exception of certain designated submerged
    lands in Hurricane Hole, Coral Bay, and Round Bay, none of the
    submerged lands designated as the Virgin Islands Coral Reef National
    Monument are adjacent to uplands owned by the United States. These
    submerged lands all border other submerged lands within the Virgin
    Islands National Park. The flaw in Ms. Kovacs' analysis is that it
    would render superfluous the ``above the line of mean high tide''
    language contained in Sec. 1705(b)(ii). As you know, the Federal courts
    follow the ``well-established maxim of statutory construction that
    courts should avoid interpretations that render a statutory provision
    superfluous.'' Davis County Solid Waste Management v. EPA, 101F.3d
    1395, 1404 (D.C. Cir. 1996)(citing Pennsylvania Dept. of Pub. Welfare
    v. Davenport, 495 U.S. 552,562,110 S.Ct. 2126, 2132,109 L.Ed.2d 588
    (1990); Alabama Power Co. v. EPA, 40 F.3d 450,455 (D.C. Cir. 1994));
    see Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 135 F.3d 791,819 (D.C. Cir. 1998);
    Asiana Airlines v. FAA, 134 F.3d 393,398 (D.C. Cir.1998)(cardinal
    principle of interpretation requires us to construe statute 'so that no
    provision is rendered inoperative of superfluous, void or
    significant''')(citations omitted).
        President Clinton violated another requirement of the Antiquities
    Act as well. The President is required to confine the designation to
    the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the
    objects to be protected.'' 16 U.S.C.A. Sec. 431. Much of the area
    designated by President Clinton has no relationship with the proper
    care, management and protection of the reef resources. In fact,
    President Clinton simply included within his designations all lands the
    United States claimed it owned and controlled in the vicinity. Thus, it
    does not appear that the Clinton Administration even considered the
    size of the area.
    B. President Clinton's Expansion of the Buck Island Reef National
            Monument Breached a Contract Between the United States and
            Territory and Constituted Takings
        In 1936, the United States gave the Virgin Islands control, but not
    title, to Buck Island. See 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1405c. In 1961, the
    Governor of the Virgin Islands, as authorized by the legislature of the
    Virgin Islands in an Act of December 5, 1961, relinquished its control
    over Buck Island to facilitate the establishment and management of the
    Buck Island Reef National Monument. In exchange for this relinquishment
    of control by the Virgin Islands, however, the United States agreed not
    to adopt any regulation restricting the existing fishing and
    recreational privileges of Virgin Islands inhabitants in and around
    Buck Island. See Presidential Proclamation No. 3443 (1961). In January
    2001, President Clinton reneged on this promise by restricting
    extractive uses within the Buck Island Reef National Monument.
    Accordingly, the Territory is entitled to damages for the United
    States' breach of contract.
        Moreover, when President Clinton designated the Virgin Islands
    Coral Reef National Monument and expanded the Buck Island Reef National
    Monument in January 2001, he effectuated a taking of the fishing and
    boating rights of the residents of the Virgin Islands without just
    compensation. Furthermore, to the extent that the President designated
    territorial, as opposed to Federal lands, as monument lands, the
    Territory view this as a takings as well.
    C. Procedural Requirements
        We believe that the Territory also may be able to pursue arguments
    challenging the procedures followed by the Clinton Administration in
    designating and expanding the monuments. In this regard, the National
    Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA'') and the Coastal Zone Management Act
    (``CZMA'') would apply. For example, the procedural requirements of
    NEPA and the CZMA apply to the actions of agencies and departments who
    advised President Clinton. See e.g., State of Alaska v. Carter, 462 F.
    Supp. 1155,1160 (D. Alaska 1978)(NEPA); 16 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1456(c) (the
    CZMA requires each ``Federal agency activity to be carried out in a
    manner which is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the
    enforceable policies of approved State management programs''). Thus, to
    the extent DOI failed to follow required procedures, the Proclamations
    are invalid.
        For the foregoing reasons, DPNR and the Territory believe that
    President Clinton's Proclamations designating the Virgin Islands Coral
    Reef National Monument and expanding the Buck Island Reef National
    Monument are invalid.
        If there is any concern, whatsoever with the manner in which we
    have protected our resources, in particular our marine resources, we
    feel that our creation of the Territorial Marine Park System addresses
    any such concern.
    St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan--Key Points
        The East End of St. Croix has long been recognized for its unique
    marine resources and biodiversity. In 1960 it was recommended that the
    East End of St. Croix be designated as a Nature Preserve. During 1979
    and 1980 it was designated as an Area of Particular Concern, an Area
    for Preservation and Restoration and nominated as a significant Natural
    Area.
        The process that led to the development of the St. Croix East End
    Marine Park Management Plan grew out of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force
    recommendations to protect coral reef ecosystems and the lifestyles and
    economies that are dependent on them. The primary recommendation is
    that states and territories with significant coral reefs place 5% of
    them under protection by 2002, 10% of them under protection by 2005,
    and 20% of them under protection by 2010. Of these figures, it is
    recommended that 20% be ``no-take'' areas.
        At the Third Coral Reef Task Force Meeting held on St. Croix,
    Governor Turnbull announced that it is his desire to establish and
    underwater park that can be enjoyed by residents and visitors alike,
    while protecting the unique resources and biodiversity of the park.
        The Department of Planning and Natural Resources/Division of
    Coastal Zone Management (DPNR/CZM) applied for and received a $225,000
    grant for its Marine Park Project. A Virgin Islands Marine Park
    Committee was formed with members composed of personnel from DPNR (CZM,
    Division of Environmental Enforcement, Division of Environmental
    Protection, and the Division of Fish and Wildlife), the University of
    the Virgin Islands, nonprofit organizations, for profit organizations,
    fishermen, dive shop operators, and Federal Government agencies to
    facilitate development of this Plan.
        Four documents have been prepared under this grant:
        1. LThe St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan;
        2. LA Resource Description Report;
        3. LA Management Framework for a System of Marine Protected Areas
    for the U.S. Virgin Islands; and
        4. LA Socio-Economic Assessment of Marine Resource Utilization in
    the U.S. Virgin Islands.
        To develop the St. Croix East End Marine Park Management Plan, the
    Nature Conservancy Virgin Islands Program facilitated a series of
    scoping meetings in September and October 2001 and public meetings in
    January and February 2002. This plan was reviewed by DPNR during March
    and April 2002, and is currently being put forth by the Coastal Zone
    Management Commission for comments and input.
        The Plan outlines the purpose and manner in which the area is to be
    used. It sets the management objectives, policies, and strategies to
    achieve the stated objectives. It also addresses the administrative
    structure, resource use, zoning boundaries, financial support, staff
    needs and monitoring plans. The management plan is a working document
    that would be updated periodically, and should be used to actively and
    appropriately manage the park.
        Upon legislative adoption of the Marine Park, rules and regulations
    will be developed, with public input, to effectively implement the
    park's plan.
        Key points of the plan include:
        1. LThe Marine Park surrounds the entire East End of the island. On
    the north shore the boundary begins at the western border of Chenay Bay
    and extends out to the 3-nautical mile territorial boundary. The Park
    extends around the eastern tip of St. Croix, with the southern boundary
    extending to the western border of Great Pond Bay.
        2. LThe landward side of the boundary is the high-tide line.
        3. LThe Marine Park is composed of 4 zones: No-Take Areas, a Turtle
    Wildlife Preserve Area, Recreational Areas, and Open Fishing Areas.
        4. LNo-Take Areas are designed to encompass large, contiguous
    diverse habitats. They are intended to provide natural spawning,
    nursery, and permanent residence areas for the replenishment and
    genetic protection of marine life, and to protect and preserve all
    habitats and species; particularly those not protected by fisheries
    management regulations. Commercial and recreational fishing activities
    will not be permitted within these areas. Other uses, such as swimming,
    diving, and boating will be permitted. However, anchoring and jet
    skiing will not be permitted within the No-Take Area.
        5. LThe Turtle Wildlife Preserve Area will be established to
    minimize disturbance to sensitive wildlife populations and their
    habitats and to ensure protection and preservation of wildlife
    resources in the Park. In particular, this designation will be applied
    to the primary turtle nesting beaches and near shore resting areas.
    Regulations governing access will be designed to protect the endangered
    turtles and their habitat, while providing opportunities for public
    use.
        6. LRecreational Areas are designed to provide areas for
    snorkeling, diving, and boating while prohibiting any activities that
    would compromise the recreational values for which the area may be
    designated. Catch and release fishing and baitfish collection will be
    permitted in recreational areas. Commercial fishing of any sort will
    not be permitted in recreational areas. Mooring of boats will be
    permitted in recreational areas, but only with the use of mooring
    buoys. General shipping will be restricted.
        7. LOpen Fishing Areas are areas in which there are no restrictions
    on fishing, boating, and diving activities. These areas are governed by
    all the rules and regulations pertaining to commercial and recreational
    fishing in the Virgin Islands Code. These areas will be used as a
    control to monitor and evaluate the effects of resource zoning in the
    Park. Trawling and general shipping are prohibited, as well as those
    activities inconsistent with the Park's long-term conservation (e.g.,
    mining and oil drilling).
        In Fiscal Year 2001, DPNR secured an additional $390,000 from the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to hire staff,
    purchase equipment and begin implementation of non-enforceable
    management measures for the proposed Marine Park. DPNR is in the
    process of executing this work-plan and has already hired new staff,
    purchased a vehicle and is nearing completion of the procurement
    process for the acquisition of a marine vessel. A comprehensive
    education and outreach program is also included in this budget and DPNR
    is on schedule to complete the required tasks.
        For Fiscal Year 2002, DPNR has requested $400,000 in Federal
    funding from NOAA to proceed with implementation of the Marine Park
    Plan. NOAA has indicated to DPNR that approval of this additional
    funding is contingent upon legislative approval of the East End Marine
    Park. DPNR plans to utilize these funds to refurbish the building at
    Cramer's Park and put the relevant boundary markers in place.
        It is expected that as this Marine Park matures, it will not only
    provide a protected area for the ecosystems and the marine life they
    support, but it will also become a nursery for depleted fish stocks.
    Other benefits are the continued preservation of traditional uses for
    Virgin Islanders, the increase of St. Croix's tourism products through
    the restoration of the Visitor's Center, and possibly, the creation of
    alternative or expanded tourism products (i.e. guided fishing, scuba/
    snorkeling tours, daily sailing, etc.). A final benefit that is well-
    established throughout the United States is that lands abutting
    protected or preserved areas generally command a higher resale value
    relative to lands that do not. This extra value could allow the Virgin
    Islands Government to receive increased revenues from higher stamp
    taxes, increased property taxes and more income and business taxes from
    realtors, surveyors, and others involved in the real estate industry.
        I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Subcommittee for
    bringing this hearing to the United States Virgin Islands, and we offer
    sincere welcome to all.
                                     ______

        Mr. Radanovich. And your written material certainly does do
    that, and I thank you very much for your testimony here.
        The Committee is pleased to have with us, again, Ms. Betty
    McCollum representing the District and the State of Minnesota.
        Betty, welcome back. Do you have any questions?
        OK. Very good.
        Mr. Plaskett, thank you very much for being here.
        Mr. Plaskett. Thank you.
        Mr. Radanovich. And you're free to leave at any time, as
    Mr. McIntosh is not, though, because he's got to begin his
    testimony.
        So Mr. McIntosh, welcome to the Committee. And again, if
    you'd like to begin your testimony, please keep the clock--red
    means--or green means go, yellow means speed up, and red means
    stop, just like a traffic light.

     STATEMENT OF MAXWELL McINTOSH, SALT RIVER NATIONAL HISTORICAL
                            PARK COMMISSION

        Mr. McIntosh. Good morning, Chairman Radanovich, Delegate
    Christensen, Delegate McCollum. My name is Maxwell McIntosh.
    I'm an attorney in the private practice of law here in the
    Virgin Islands. I also served on the Advisory Commission of the
    Salt River Bay National Historic Park and Ecological Preserve.
        I'd like to thank you for inviting me today to testify
    before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and
    Public Lands of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on
    Resources.
        The Salt River Bay Commission was established on February
    24th, 1992 by then President George Bush, and the Commission
    expired 10 years after the establishment of that law. I
    unfortunately was only able to serve on the Commission for 1
    year, because I was appointed in January of 2001 to the Salt
    River Bay Commission. The other individuals who also served on
    the Commission with me are Roy Adams, Jessica Thompson,
    Gerville Larsen, Commissioner Dean Plaskett who was just here,
    Commissioner Pamela Richards of the Virgin Islands Department
    of Tourism, District School Superintendent Terrence Joseph of
    the St. Croix District, and Senator Vargrave Richards.
        There were other individuals who have served on the
    Commission prior to the new Commission that was installed in
    January of 2001, and those individuals have provided
    significant service to the Virgin Islands.
        The National Park Service performs important and vital
    functions in the United States Virgin Islands. Among other
    things, the National Park Service provides protection of our
    natural resources, preservation and restoration of our historic
    structures, and interpretation of historical and cultural
    resources. In the Virgin Islands we are fortunate to live in
    one of the most beautiful areas in the world. Unfortunately,
    often through our actions and inactions, we damage and destroy
    the natural beauty of our environment.
        The National Park Service helps to protect our natural
    environment so that future generations can also enjoy the
    beauty of these islands. The National Park Service also helps
    to preserve and restore our historical structures. If this
    preservation and restoration did not take place, we would lose
    these structures to weather and time, or they would be in very
    poor condition.
        Finally, the National Park Service provides interpretation
    of our historical and cultural resources. Through
    interpretation, both residents and visitors gain a better
    understanding of what they see before them and what may have
    occurred in the past in that location.
        As I indicated, I'm proud to have served on the Salt River
    Bay National Historic Park and Ecological Preserve Advisory
    Commission. Salt River Bay is truly a unique area that contains
    nationally significant resources. Salt River Bay is a rich area
    because of both its natural and ecological resources, and also
    because of historical and cultural resources. The mangroves at
    Salt River, which is the largest remaining mangrove within the
    Virgin Islands, serve as the nursery for scores of marine
    plants and animals. The area also serves as a rookery for many
    birds, and other birds either populate the area or utilize the
    area as an important resting stop for their period of
    migration. Many endangered and threatened species also inhabit
    Salt River Bay, and numerous plant species can also be found
    within Salt River.
        As to the historical and cultural resources, the history of
    this area encompasses thousands of years of human history on
    St. Croix. As was mentioned earlier, just about every group of
    people that came to St. Croix attempted to establish a
    settlement at Salt River. Salt River is the site of the only
    ceremonial ball court that has been located in the Lesser
    Antilles. It also contains one of the few earthwork
    fortifications in the world. The Spanish, French, English,
    Dutch and Danish all attempted settlements at Salt River.
        Unfortunately, many residents and visitors to the island do
    not know of the rich natural, historical and cultural resources
    at Salt River Bay. The education and interpretation of the area
    is greatly lacking, and signage of the area will go a long way
    in enlightening individuals regarding these resources.
    Unfortunately, the earthwork fort is used as a jumping ramp for
    all-terrain vehicles, and that has further deteriorated this
    earthwork fortification. And unfortunately some of these
    individuals don't even know what they're destroying. They don't
    even know that the fort is there, the ball court, and all the
    other rich historical and cultural resources.
        Salt River Bay is a park that is to be jointly managed
    between the Virgin Islands Government and the National Park
    Service. I'd like to thank the House of Representatives and the
    U.S. Senate for its financial support for the continuing
    acquisition of property within the park boundaries of Salt
    River Bay, and I also know the discussion is to extend the
    boundaries to include an additional acquisition, and I'd be in
    full support of doing so.
        Finally, congratulations are in order for Superintendent
    Joel Tutein for his hard work, dedication and vision in moving
    St. Croix forward.
        I'd like to thank you for this invitation today, and I'm
    available for any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Mcintosh follows:]

     Statement of Maxwell D. McIntosh, Esq., Attorney, Advisory Commission
     Member, Salt River Bay National Historic Park and Ecological Preserve

        Good Morning. Chairman Radanovich, the Honorable Donna Christensen
    and the Honorable Betty McCollum. Thank you for inviting me to testify
    today before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public
    Lands of the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Resources. My
    name is Maxwell D. McIntosh and I am an attorney in the private
    practice of law in the United States Virgin Islands. I also served on
    the Advisory Commission for the Salt River Bay National Historic Park
    and Ecological Preserve.
        The National Park Service performs important and vital functions in
    the United States Virgin Islands. Among other things, the National Park
    Service provides protection of our natural resources, preservation and
    restoration of our historic structures and interpretation of our
    historical and cultural resources. In the Virgin Islands, we are
    fortunate to live in one of the most beautiful areas in the world.
    Unfortunately, through our actions and inactions, we damage and destroy
    the natural beauty of our environment. The National Park Service helps
    to protect our natural environment so that future generations can also
    enjoy the beauty of these islands. The National Park Service also helps
    to preserve and restore our historical structures. If this preservation
    and restoration did not take place, we would lose these structures to
    weather and time or they would be in very poor condition. Finally, the
    National Park Service provides interpretation of our historical and
    cultural resources. Through interpretation, both residents and visitors
    gain a better understanding of what they see before them and what may
    have occurred in the past.
        I am proud to have served from January of 2001 as a member of the
    Advisory Commission of the Salt River Bay National Historic Park and
    Ecological Preserve. Other members who served on this Advisory
    Commission with me are Roy Adams, Jessica Thompson, Gervile Larsen,
    Commissioner Dean Plaskett, Commissioner Pamela Richards, District
    School Superintendent Terrence Joseph and Senator Vargrare Richards.
    Salt River Bay is truly a unique area that contains nationally
    significant resources. Salt River Bay is a rich area because of both
    its natural and ecological resources and because of its historical and
    cultural resources. The mangroves serve as the nursery for scores of
    marine plants and animals. The area also serves as a rookery for many
    birds and other bids either populate the area or the area serves as an
    important stopping point for many migratory birds. And many species of
    animals also inhabit the area and many plant species can also be found
    within Salt River Bay.
        As to the historical and cultural resources, the history of this
    area encompasses more than 4000 years of human history on St. Croix.
    Some of the earliest inhabitants on St. Croix settled at Salt River
    Bay. Salt River Bay is the site of the only ceremonial ball court that
    has been located in the Lesser Antilles. It also contains one of the
    few earthwork fortifications in the world. Unfortunately, many
    residents and visitors to the island do not know of the rich natural,
    historical and cultural resources at Salt River Bay. The education and
    interpretation of the area is greatly lacking and signage of the area
    will go a long way in enlightening individuals regarding these
    resources.
        Through joint management with the Virgin Islands Government and the
    National Park Service, Salt River Bay National Historic Park and
    Ecological Preserve will become a gem of a park. I would like to thank
    the House of Representatives and the United States Senate for its
    financial support for continuing acquisitions within the park
    boundaries. These acquisitions will go a long way in making an
    excellent park at Salt River Bay. Finally, congratulations are in order
    to Superintendent Joel Tutein for his hard-work, dedication and vision
    on St. Croix.
        Thank you for you for this invitation and your expected continued
    support of the National Park Services' efforts at Salt River Bay.
                                     ______

        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. McIntosh.
        Donna, do you want to start off?
        Mrs. Christensen. Well, just a couple of questions. You
    kind of answered the first question I was preparing to ask you
    about losing some of the historical and cultural resources.
        Do you see the acquisition of the property as helping to
    control that loss, and prevent some of the loss? Is it
    important to preserving the structures?
        Mr. McIntosh. Yes, I think it would be a significant step
    toward that process, and for the very reason that it would have
    a presence, a permanent presence of individuals who will be
    there to look at the activities that are going on. Also give an
    interpretation, because a big part of the problem is people
    don't even know, individuals don't know that the earthwork fort
    is there. They don't know that the walls they're jumping off
    of, they just think it's a high mound of dirt, unfortunately.
    So they don't know.
        But through that interpretation, knowledge to the school
    children, I think the loss and deterioration will come to--at
    least it will slow it down.
        Mrs. Christensen. I'm not sure in your 1 year if you are
    able to answer this question, but apparently there have been
    four versions of a Cooperative Agreement submitted. Do you know
    what the issues are that have precluded us signing that
    Cooperative Agreement?
        I guess I should have asked Mr. Tutein but--
        Mr. McIntosh. No, I don't know. I think that would be a
    question for Superintendent Tutein to answer.
        Mrs. Christensen. And one last question for you, Attorney
    McIntosh. Do you have concerns that the local government is not
    getting the kind of support from the Federal Government that
    they should be getting in this joint management situation?
        Mr. McIntosh. I would actually say that the issue is the
    opposite; that the local government hasn't sought the support
    of the Federal Government, and I think that's where some of the
    issues have come up. Even as to the establishment of the
    Commission, there had to be a waiting period for the local
    government to designate the individuals who would serve on the
    commission, and that actually created--it was necessary to wait
    for the local individuals to join the Commission in order for
    it to fully function. So it may be an issue more that the local
    government is not utilizing the resources that are available to
    them from the Federal Government.
        Mrs. Christensen. St. Croix is, of the three islands, St.
    Croix is the most economically depressed, and do you think that
    being able to fully interpret and protect that and really make
    Salt River a show piece would enhance our economic conditions
    here? Would it help tourism? Do you think that it would be a
    boon to our economy here if we were able to really put that
    plan, management plan in place and make Salt River the
    showplace that it has the potential to be?
        Mr. McIntosh. It would definitely do so. I think it would
    attract individuals to St. Croix to come and learn. And even as
    far as the educational component, I know that there is some
    discussions in having both the scientific study of Salt River,
    as well as the archeological, historical and cultural study of
    Salt River. And more and more individuals are actually
    traveling to learn more about the history. It's no longer a
    travel just to sit on the beach and to relax, but actually to
    have a sense of the place.
        And so Salt River would certainly be the location that
    would attract individuals to come, learn, and right now it's
    not occurring because people don't know. You drive down to even
    where the ball court is located, and you don't see signs or
    anything telling you what is there. You know, you have
    different areas within there where Columbus' landing party came
    aground, but there's no indication to someone who goes there
    what is exactly there. So they may go, but they have no sense
    of really what they're seeing.
        Mrs. Christensen. And do you feel that it's an educational
    tool as well for our children and for our enhancement of our
    own self-image and well being?
        Mr. McIntosh. Oh, definitely. And I think that's what the
    even greater part of it is for the individuals of the Virgin
    Islands to know of what is at Salt River. It would actually
    enhance them, and once they gain that knowledge, because even
    some of the natural, the cultural historical artifacts and
    items that are present at Salt River are so unique to anywhere
    in the world, that it would actually enhance the educational
    system of the Virgin Islands.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Donna.
        I have a question--first of all, let me state that I
    applaud the efforts of you and the Federal Government in this
    area of the Salt River Project. I think it's very interesting,
    I think, and applaudable.
        Let me ask you, though, once there becomes Federal land
    ownership in the area, and let me know if this is not your area
    of expertise, but I do consider, I would be concerned about the
    continuous claiming of 3 miles off the shore and us getting
    into fishing issues as a result of more Federal land ownership
    that's bounded by the edge of the island and the water.
        Is that a likely possibility in something like this or--
        Mr. Plaskett. It is, quite honestly, Mr. Chairman, not my
    area of expertise. I don't think that it is likely to create a
    problem at Salt River just because of there being the joint
    management of the park there, so that even on the water side of
    it, I think that will also, because of that joint management
    between the Virgin Islands Government and Federal Government, I
    don't think it would be as much of an issue there.
        Mr. Radanovich. If I--I may submit that to--
        Mrs. Christensen. If the Chairman would yield, I believe
    that as written it applied to Federal land that existed and was
    owned as Federal land in '74. I would like to get the opinion
    on that as well. I believe--
        Mr. Radanovich. Yeah, because I--
        Mrs. Christensen. I believe it cannot apply to something
    was not Federal land at the time that the law was enacted.
        Mr. Radanovich. I see.
        Mrs. Christensen. I'd like to see that as well.
        Mr. Radanovich. OK, that's fine.
        Ms. McCollum, any questions? All right.
        I think I have no further questions either, Mr. McIntosh.
    Thank you very much.
        Mr. Plaskett. Thank you, and thanks for coming.
        Mr. Radanovich. With that we'll call for our third panel
    which consists of Mr. Bill Turner, who's the Executive Director
    of the St. Croix Environmental Association; Mr. Virdin Brown,
    the Chairman of the Caribbean Fisheries Council; Mr. Robert
    McAuliffe, a fisherman; Ms. Michelle Pugh, owner of Dive
    Experience.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Radanovich. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the
    Committee. I appreciate you taking your time from your busy
    morning to come testify. As you know, the rules are we'll go
    through each person to deliver a 5-minute testimony. I will
    keep you as close as I can to the 5-minute rule, but please
    know that your written testimony is already a part of the
    record. And if you can, what we're more concerned about is your
    verbal presentation of those written information. If there's
    something that you didn't cover, there'll be a lot of questions
    and answers afterwards. So we'll make sure that we get all your
    full views in on the record before we're done.
        So Ms. Pugh, welcome to the Committee. If you'd like to
    begin, we'll work from left to right from me up here and get
    all of your verbal testimony in the record.

           STATEMENT OF MICHELLE PUGH, OWNER, DIVE EXPERIENCE

        Ms. Pugh. All right. Thank you. Good morning. My name is
    Michelle Pugh.
        Mr. Radanovich. Michelle, you already need to bring that
    mike closer to you. I'm sorry, it's--
        Ms. Pugh. I'm sorry. Good morning. Can you hear me?
        Mr. Radanovich. OK. That's better. Yeah, I see no hands.
        Ms. Pugh. My name is Michelle Pugh. I'm the owner of Dive
    Experience, Incorporated in Christiansted. I'm also a member of
    the Fishery Advisory Committee since 1989 on St. Croix, and
    also on the Board of Directors of the Island Conservation
    Effort.
        Basically my testimony is the--the change I've seen over
    the years with the fish life and marine life on St. Croix. I
    came here in 1997--excuse me--1977, 24 years ago, and we had a
    lot of fish life, beautiful coral reefs, and it has changed
    over the years. We have very small fish, and very sickly type
    fish. I'm not a scientist, but I can just tell by looking at
    the animals they're not very healthy. We have a lot of problems
    on St. Croix. We have a lot of pollution from businesses, but
    also basically from sewage. We have over fishing. We have great
    laws here, but they're not enforced. So this is causing animal
    life to change here.
        That's basically it.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Pugh follows:]

                Statement of Michelle Pugh, Resident, St. Croix

        I, Michelle Pugh, have been a resident of St. Croix USVI since
    October 1977. 1 have been employed as a PADI open water SCUBA
    instructor and I have logged over 10,000 dives in the waters of St.
    Croix. I am also on the St. Croix Fisheries Advisory Committee
    representing sport diving.
        Over the past 24 years I have noticed a very large change in both
    the coral reefs and fish populations as well as size of the fish. Most
    of our reefs close to shore are covered in algae and are barely alive.
    Many fish in these areas are covered in strange growths and are sickly
    in appearance. I am not a scientist but I would guess that these areas
    have been destroyed by over fishing, sewage spillage, land bulldozing
    and some very strong hurricanes. On the deeper areas the coral life is
    much better, but large fish are rare.
        My first years of diving on St. Croix, I recall seeing large
    groupers, sharks and lots of reef fish. The coral and sponge life was
    very healthy. I do not know if we have gone beyond the point of no
    return.
        I have dived many other Caribbean islands; some have great coral
    and marine life. These islands have marine parks and many ``no dives''
    or ``no take'' areas, which are rotated and protected. Other islands do
    not have such protection and you can tell by the coral damage and lack
    of marine life. It is very obvious that if an island has protected ``no
    take'' areas, the marine life could return.
        St. Croix has many, many laws regarding the fisheries;
    unfortunately there is no enforcement to speak of. Our local government
    has failed. The Federal Government will take a more serious stand on
    laws and perhaps bring life back to our waters surrounding the island
    of St. Croix.
                                     ______

        Mr. Radanovich. OK. All right. Thank you very much. Again,
    we'll ask questions when we get everybody's testimony.
        Mr. McAuliffe, welcome to the Committee, and again, you
    have 5 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF ROBERT McAULIFFE, PRESIDENT OF THE FISHERMEN'S
                      UNITED SERVICES COOPERATIVE

        Mr. McAuliffe. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I've listened to
    you tell everybody else to eat this thing.
        Mr. Radanovich. Correct.
        Mr. McAuliffe. My name is Robert McAuliffe, President of
    the Fishermen's United Services Cooperative of St. Croix. I
    speak on behalf of the co-op members and the fishing community
    in general.
        My involvement with Buck Island, though a bit more
    personal, is reflective of that of the fishing community on St.
    Croix. In the early fifties, during my first year of high
    school, I would go with one of my uncles to guide tourists at
    Buck Island on snorkeling and spear fishing strips. I received
    my first mask as a gift from one of the tourists. It was the
    latest full face mask with two snorkels and ping pong ball
    valves. It's an antique now.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. McAuliffe. What started out as simple hospitality to
    some friendly tourists by a couple of young Crucian men has
    grown into a major tourist attraction and national monument.
        Harvesting the sea has been my reason for living from my
    earliest memories. When completing my military service with the
    U.S. Coast Guard, I took the first flight back to St. Croix and
    its familiar fishing grounds.
        This brief introduction will hopefully help demonstrate to
    the Subcommittee that even though I have 50 years of fishing
    experience, many of my most vivid memories are rooted in the
    waters around Buck Island. For example, my first 30-pound
    kingfish caught while fishing for yellow tail snapper with a
    hand line made of cotton marlin twine. That event took place 49
    years ago, and I still remember the exact landmarks for the
    spot.
        The purpose of this exercise is not to sit here all morning
    telling fish stories, but to convince this Subcommittee of the
    importance of the waters around the original park boundaries--
    and I highlight original boundaries--to the commercial fishing
    industry, the charter fishing industry, and the community as a
    whole.
        I do not feel that the Park Service has the moral right to
    ask the people of the Virgin Islands to surrender their
    management rights to the fishing grounds around Buck Island
    National Monument when they, the Park Service, have failed for
    over 40 years to fully protect the stocks under their
    jurisdiction. It is an insult to the community that has, with
    very few exceptions, respected the authority and rules of the
    Service. For this Service to attempt to use ambiguities and
    failures of their own rules to take public lands of the Virgin
    Islands from the people of the Virgin Islands through
    Presidential proclamation is unacceptable. I refer to Title 36
    Chapter 1 Code of Federal Regulations, and the Presidential
    Proclamation 7392 of January 17, 2001.
        A great deal can be achieved by bringing all parties to the
    table from the beginning with frank discussion and good faith
    negotiations. The Virgin Islands Government must accept a full
    share of the blame for this situation, for they are paid by the
    people to keep the populace fully informed and in the loop. It
    is the duty of the local government to defend the property
    rights of the people of the Virgin Islands from all threats,
    including those from the Federal Government. Where are all
    these defenders that we, the people, pay such high salaries to?
        In closing, I would like to make the point that if, after
    all our arguments in favor of local fishing industries' rights
    and need to make a fair living, we should still lose these rich
    fishing grounds to the Park Service, the fishermen should be
    fairly compensated. Considering that there are 224 licensed
    fishermen on St. Croix, and all of them will be affected in
    some degree over the remainder of their lives, I would suggest
    that each licensed holder be paid $100,000. I thank you.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. McAuliffe. We appreciate
    your testimony.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. McAuliffe follows:]

                 Statement of Robert N. McAuliffe, President,
              Fishermen's United Services Cooperative of St. Croix

        My name is Robert N. McAuliffe, President of Fishermen's United
    Services Cooperative of St. Croix, I speak on behalf of the Co-op
    members and the fishing community in general.
        My involvement with Buck Island, though a bit more personal, is
    reflective of that of the fishing community of St. Croix. This
    relationship also applies to Christiansted town and Salt River. I will
    confine my comments to Buck Island as it will affect the most people in
    the short term.
        Prior to my birth my family kept goats on Buck Island. They were
    accessible only to the larger boats that were fitted with sail. To row
    a small boat out to the island to shoot a few goats then row back to
    the main island was not an easy feat. When the Government built the
    lighthouse on the island the workers hunted the goats to extinction. My
    earliest recollection of Buck island was looking at it from the porch
    of the family shack while helping my uncles knit a net to catch giant
    parrot fish and turtles on the lea side of the island. By this time the
    family had access to one of the first outboard engines on St. Croix, a
    ten hp Johnson owned by Dr. Evans a gentleman who went on to become our
    first elected governor.
        In the early 50s during my first year of high school I would go
    with one of my uncles to guide tourists at Buck Island on snorkeling
    and spear fishing trips. I received my first mask as a gift from one of
    the tourist. It was the latest, a full face mask with two snorkels with
    ping pong ball valves. What started out as simple hospitality to some
    friendly tourist by a couple of young Cruzan men has grown into a major
    tourist attraction and National Monument.
        Harvesting the sea has been my reason for living from my earliest
    memories. On completing my military service with the U.S. Coast Guard,
    I took the first flight back to St. Croix and its familiar fishing
    grounds. After providing, with the help of many relatives, shelter for
    my wife and two young sons, I started my adult fishing career.
        This brief introduction will hopefully help demonstrate to the
    Subcommittee that even though I have fifty years of fishing experiences
    many of my most vivid memories are rooted in the waters around Buck
    Island. For example, my first 30 lb king fish caught while fishing for
    yellow tail snapper with a hand line made of cotton marline twine. That
    event took place 49 years ago and I still remember the exact land marks
    for the spot.
        The purpose of this exercise is not to sit here all morning telling
    fish stories, but to convince this Subcommittee of the importance of
    the waters around the original park boundaries, and I highlight
    original boundaries, to the commercial fishing industry, the charter
    fishing industry, and the community as a whole.
        I do not feel that the Park Service has the moral right to ask the
    people of the Virgin Islands to surrender their management rights to
    the fishing grounds around the Buck Island National Monument when they,
    the Park Service, have failed for over 40 years to fully protect the
    stocks under their jurisdiction. It is an insult to the community that
    has, with very few exceptions, respected the authority and rules of the
    Service. For this Service to attempt to use the ambiguities and the
    failures of their own rules to take public lands of the Virgin Islands
    from the people of the Virgin Islands through Presidential Proclamation
    is unacceptable. (Title 36, Chapter 1 Code of Federal Regulations--
    Presidential Proclamation 7392 of January 17, 2001)
    Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Chapter 1
        Sec. 7.73 Buck Island Reef National Monument. Paragraphs (e) (1)
    through (e) (5) are unenforceable and do not impart any meaningful
    protection to the fish stocks. It is only through the good will
    conservation and misunderstanding of the regulations by the people of
    St. Croix that the fish stocks within the Monument boundaries gained
    any relief.
        These five paragraphs, as written, are an open mandate to strip the
    Monument of all fish life. The fact that these regulations are still on
    the books is a clear demonstration that the Park Service is not
    equipped with the knowledgeable staff or the understanding to properly
    manage the underwater portion of the Monument. This is also a strong
    argument against any additional expansion of the original boundaries.
        A situation that I find particularly troubling falls under
    paragraph (e) (1). Provided, That fish may be taken by pots or traps of
    conventional Virgin Islands design and are not larger than five feet at
    the greatest dimension. When I discussed this with Joel Tutein recently
    he informed me that the Park Service did in fact permit the setting of
    traps within the Monument boundaries provided they met the size
    restriction and that they were not marked with a buoy. When Secretary
    Babbitt was taken on his now famous dive tour, traps were discovered
    with fish in them that were not marked with a buoy and labeled as ghost
    traps. The presence of ghost traps in the area has been given as one of
    the justifications for the need to expand the Monument boundaries. I
    would suggest that this situation warrants a complete re-evaluation
    with public input.
        Net mesh size restrictions speak to the minimum size of the mesh
    not the maximum size.
        There is no mention of cast nets in the regulation even though it
    is the most common type of bait net. Cast nets are measured by their
    hanging length or radius. The diameter of a 20 foot cast net would be
    40 feet, a real monster net.
        (e) (2) This paragraph is to ambiguous, mask, fins and snorkels
    could be considered spearfishing equipment as they are used for spear
    fishing.
        (e) (3) The taking of lobster by hand held hook is illegal in
    Virgin Islands waters and most other parts of the world. A boat with
    eight people on board would be technically legal if found to have
    thirty two (32) lobsters in their possession within the Monument
    boundaries. That is a lot of lobster.
        (e) (4) There is no mention of the size limits or closed seasons
    that apply to both conch and whelk in VI waters. Does that mean that as
    long as they are harvested and consumed within the Monument boundaries
    that it is permissible to violate Virgin Islands' Law?
        (e) (5) This is another example of ambiguity. Only the means of
    taking is prohibited, possession is not. A person would have to be
    caught in the act to be in violation.
        A great deal can be achieved by bringing all parties to the table
    from the beginning with frank discussions and good faith negotiations.
    The Virgin Islands Government must accept a full share of the blame for
    this situation for they are paid by the people to keep the populace
    fully informed and in the loop. It is the duty of the local Government
    to defend the property rights of the people of the Virgin Islands from
    all threats including those from the Federal Government. Where are all
    these defenders that we the people pay such high salaries to?
        In closing I would like to make the point that if, after all our
    arguments in favor of the local fishing industry's rights and need to
    make a fair living, we still lose these rich fishing grounds to the
    Park Service the fishermen should be fairly compensated.
        Considering that we have 224 licensed fishermen on St. Croix and
    all of them will be affected in some degree over the remainder of their
    lives I would suggest that each license holder be paid $100,000.00.
    These compensation payments should be administered directly by the Park
    Service or some other Federal agency, but not by the local Government.
        Thank you
                                     ______

        [Attachments to Mr. McAuliffe's statement follow:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0850.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0850.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0850.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0850.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0850.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0850.010

        Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Virdin Brown, welcome to the Committee.
    And again, if you'd like to begin?

    STATEMENT OF VIRDIN C. BROWN, CHAIRMAN OF THE CARIBBEAN FISHERY
                           MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

        Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to you
    and to Honorable Delegate Donna Christensen and to the
    Honorable Betty McCollum who's now with us. We are happy to
    have you here to take testimony on the issues of concern to the
    members of this community.
        Let me say my name is--I guess I gave my name already.
    Anyway, I've been involved in a number of issues in this
    Territory as an administrative official. I've served seven
    terms in the Legislature of the Virgin Islands. I've served as
    the Commissioner of the Department of Conservation and Cultural
    Affairs which was charged with the first time full 4-year
    period of administering the submerged lands. I've also served
    as Assistant Commissioner of the Department, and I am currently
    sitting as chair of the Caribbean Fishery Management Council.
    My testimony, and much of what I put forth, has been on my
    personal involvement with the issues before you, although a
    portion of my testimony reflects concerns of the Council as
    well. So I speak to you with two hats in part.
        Let me say at the outset that the issue before you in terms
    of the monuments is not whether or not they should be larger or
    smaller, but whether in fact they exist legally in any right,
    in any way. And my submission to you is that they do not. They
    do not legally exist. They are not on any Federal submerged
    lands. And I'll try in my brief 5 minutes to clarify points,
    and I'll answer questions as you bring them forth.
        A little historical fact, I was in the Senate in 1971 to
    '75. This is the first part of my first two terms. And it was
    at that time I instigated, promoted the idea of transferring
    the submerged lands from the Department of Interior to the
    local government, because the Department of Interior had
    difficulty administering those submerged lands. As we began to
    develop, there were a number of illegal activities taking
    place, which included not only docks, but dredging and filling
    that took place. It was the Honorable late Congressman Phillip
    Burton who I talked to, along with our first Delegate to
    Congress Ron de Lugo, and who moved the issue through the
    Congress to transfer these submerged lands, and it became
    public law in 93-435 as you know.
        The question of whether or not the Department of Interior
    had any further rights beyond February 2nd of 1975 were
    extinguished in the Virgin Islands by two proclamations that
    the law permitted the President to issue, or any such
    proclamations that he had the right to issue. But he only
    issued two. That was President Gerald Ford. He issued two
    proclamations, and I'll cite them by number: Proclamation 4346
    and 4347, both of which were signed on February 1st right at
    the last hour of the 120-day allowable period.
        That then said that after--on and after the 120-day period,
    February 2nd, 1975, the Department of Interior had no further
    rights or interests or involvements in the administration of
    the submerged lands. That those lands, by Public Law 93-435,
    were transferred to the Government of the Virgin Islands, as
    the law states, for the administration in trust for the people
    of the Virgin Islands.
        It's mind boggling, I mean absolutely mind boggling, after
    a quarter of a century of administration of these submerged
    lands without any questions whatever, clear, unambiguous
    authority exercised, that the Department of Interior or any
    Presidential proclamation could come forth and take and lay
    claim to something that it does not own. The proclamations make
    it clear if there is no right or no title or interest in these
    lands, then the monuments don't--proclamations don't stands.
    Therefore, I say to you that they are moot and that this
    honorable Committee, Subcommittee, should recognize that.
        I've submitted testimony prior to the signing of the
    proclamations on January 10th to Honorable Congresswoman Donna
    Christian-Christensen stating this fact before the signing, and
    urging that she urge the President not to sign. And
    subsequently, on January 30th, I wrote to the Chair of the Full
    Committee, the House Resources Committee, Jim Hansen, to state
    the case and to ask that these monument, the proclamations, not
    be recognized. I think that letter was also referred to this
    Committee--Subcommittee.
        Let me try to highlight a couple of other points, one which
    you asked and was raised about the application I think of it's
    1705(b)(ii) as to whether or not the Department of Interior had
    right to all submerged lands adjacent to property owned by the
    United States above the line of mean high tide, that that was
    excepted. That's in the law. That's in the law. That's cited in
    the law. But I want to point out to this Committee that this
    law does not apply only to the Virgin Islands. It also applies
    to Guam and American Samoa, and that that section more aptly
    applies to perhaps Guam, where the Navy has substantial
    interests and holdings that are adjacent to submerged lands,
    and not to the Virgin Islands.
        Additionally, I want to submit to you to make it even more
    abundantly clear, the Congress identified Buck Island Reef
    National Monument, as it was established by proclamation, and
    the Virgin Islands National Parks around in St. John, with its
    water boundaries specifically in this legislation in 93-435. If
    that isn't clear on the face of it, I don't know what is.
        So there are other things, but I won't get into them, I
    will wait for your questions, but what I want to submit to you,
    Mr. Chair, is that this is a clear issue so far as I am
    concerned. From an administrative point I've had up close and
    intimate involvement with the assumption and administration of
    these submerged lands and with cataloging and reviewing them.
        I see the red light is on, but if I may just make one final
    point here, and I'll answer questions on Salt River and
    Christiansted as you raise the question. I read from one of my
    points in the testimony today I presented. The Department of
    Interior has done a mapping job of this Territory, and they use
    the Bureau of Minerals Management Service Mapping and Boundary
    Branch to supposedly catalog and identify Federal and
    Territorial lands around the Virgin Islands. I'm very concerned
    about what I've seen in those documents because the Department
    of Interior, or at least the maps as they were initially drawn,
    indicate in clear markings that Interior claims other Federal
    submerged land areas outside of these boundaries expanded,
    proposed national monuments. South of Water Island; west of St.
    Croix; within the harbor here in Christiansted, at Fort Louise
    Augusta in Charlotte Amalie Harbor, and elsewhere, and I just
    cite those as a point.
        Mr. Chairman, members, the Department of Interior has no
    such rights or claims, and therefore should not make any. But
    if we use their analogy on 1705(b)(ii) to apply to the Buck
    Island Reef and the newly found Virgin Islands Coral Reef
    National Monument around St. John, then what happens in
    Charlotte Amalie harbor in the instance where the National Park
    Service has now acquired lands on Hassel Island, acreage on
    Hassel Island, which also is partly land--additional lands
    there, a park owned by the V.I. Government, another case where
    there can be joint management. But what happens in Salt River
    or Green Cay or elsewhere?
        So the analogy, the concept, the whole rationale that is
    used is faulty and should not apply. And I'll be happy to
    answer questions and deal with the other areas as it's
    appropriate to.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]

                 Statement of Virdin C. Brown, Former Senator,
                           Virgin Islands Legislature

        Good day Mr. Chairman, members, and staff of the House Resources
    Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands. My name
    is Virdin C. Brown and I am a resident of the Virgin Islands who reside
    on the Island of St. Croix. I am honored to have the opportunity to
    appear before your Committee and present my views on the several items
    outlined in your letter of invitation which include Christiansted
    National Historic Site, Buck Island Reef National Monument, and the
    Salt River Bay National Historical Park and Ecological Preserve.
        I am a former Senator in the Virgin Islands Legislature (having
    served seven terms 1971-75 & 1983-93), former Commissioner of the
    Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs (1975-79), and former
    Assistant Commissioner of the Department of Planning and Natural
    Resources (1995-99). At present, I am serving as Chairman of the
    Caribbean Fishery Management Council, which is one of eight such
    councils established under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
    and Management Act of 1976. I have devoted more than three decades of
    service in the Government of the Virgin Islands to environmental and
    natural resource management issues. I was involved in the promotion of
    legislation and the transfer, acceptance, and administration of the
    submerged lands that were transferred to the Government and People of
    the Virgin Islands by Public Law 93-435.
        Mr. Chairman and members, because of the impact and legal
    significance of Presidential Proclamation No. 7392 (The Boundary
    Enlargement and Modifications of the Buck Island Reef National
    Monument) and Proclamation No. 7399 (Establishment of the Virgin
    Islands Coral Reef National Monument), I will address the monuments
    issue first. First and foremost it is my considered opinion that
    neither of the proclamations are legal, nor do they have any validity.
    The subject submerged lands, which they proclaim title and jurisdiction
    over, are the property of the Government and People of the Virgin
    Islands not the Federal Government. Public Law 93-435 transferred these
    same submerged lands from the Department of Interior to the Government
    of the Virgin Islands to be held in ``trust'' for the people of the
    Virgin Islands on October 5, 1974. Title 48 USC, Section 1705 (b)(vii)
    clearly states that the president would have one hundred twenty (120)
    days after October 5, 1974, to exempt from the transfer (by
    presidential proclamation) those submerged lands that he (and the
    Department of Interior) deemed necessary for retention by the Federal
    Government. Only two proclamations were issued in accordance with the
    aforementioned section of Title 48. They are the following:
        1) Proclamation No. 4346, which added thirty (30) acres of
    submerged lands to the Buck Island Reef National Monument; and
        2) Proclamation No. 4347, which reserved several acres of
    submerged, lands off the west coast of St. Croix for use by the Navy.
        The ``enlarged'' Buck Island Reef National Monument is increased in
    size by 18,135 acres of submerged lands, while the proposed Virgin
    Islands Coral Reef National Monument is designed to incorporate 12,708
    acres of submerged lands around St. John. This is a total of 30,843
    acres of property that belong to the government and people of the
    Virgin Islands that are being taken by executive fiat. These submerged
    lands were transferred by an Act of Congress (PL 93-435) and there are
    no provisions for an executive order, proclamation, or other
    nonlegislated instrument to overturn the transfers made by this Act
    after the 120-day period. This is especially noteworthy since the
    proclamations establishing the monuments were issued more than a
    quarter of a century after the executive branch of the Federal
    Government had already exercised its authority to withhold whatever
    submerged lands it so desired from transfer to the Government of the
    Virgin Islands not later than February 2, 1975.
        It is my understanding that the Department of Interior based its
    authority to make its claim to the 30,843 acres of submerged lands on
    the exception cited in Title 48 USC, Section 1705 (b)(ii) to wit, ``
    All submerged lands adjacent to property owned by the United States
    above the line of mean high tide.'' This rationale flies in the face of
    the PL 93-435 and Presidential Proclamation Numbers 4346and 4347 that
    set aside exemptions from the original transfer. It also disregards the
    laws and proclamations that established the Virgin Islands National
    Park and the Buck Island Reef National Monument. Additionally, it fails
    to recognize other legal documents that define the boundaries of each.
        The Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Management Plan's Coastal Land and
    Water Use Plan Map (attached) clearly identifies the Federally owned
    and controlled submerged lands around St. John, Buck Island and off the
    west coast of St. Croix. There were no Federal objections to this map
    when it was published in accordance with Federal consistency guidelines
    as late as 1978.
        If one accepts the Department of Interior's legal interpretation of
    Section 1705 (b)(ii), then one might assume that they will eventually
    lay claim to the Charlotte Amalie Harbor since they recently acquired a
    significant portion of Hassel Island. Is this interpretation
    transferable to Green Cay, Salt River, and other shoreline properties
    that the Department of Interior may acquire in the future? Where and
    when will it end? The people and the Government of the Virgin Islands
    have a right to their title to ALL of the submerged lands conveyed by
    PL93-435. We should not have to worry about what is going to be taken
    away next.
        There is still reason for concern. I have reviewed a map and
    related documents prepared by the Bureau of Minerals Management Service
    Mapping and Boundary Branch of the Department of Interior and I've
    become even more disturbed by what I have seen. The map identifies
    several large and small tracts of submerged lands within the
    Territorial Sea of the U.S. Virgin Islands as Federal Submerged Lands
    Areas. These marked submerged lands belong to the Government and People
    of the Virgin Islands and have been administered by the Virgin Islands
    Government since the enactment of PL 93-435.
        The concept of protecting the natural and cultural resources within
    the bounds of the ``proposed'' new and expanded monuments is
    noteworthy. However, as well intentioned as they may be, it does not
    give the Department of Interior the right to walk into the Virgin
    Islands and ``take'' our jewels and tell us that they are going to
    protect them for us. The constitutional process dictates otherwise. We
    are still a government of laws not of men. We must all operate under
    the constitution and laws of the United States and of the United States
    Virgin Islands. So too must the Department of Interior.
        I respectfully request that Presidential Proclamations 7392 and
    7399 be declared null and void because they do not address Federal
    lands nor lands that the Federal Government has legally acquired or
    controlled. It is my hope that the Virgin Islands Government will be
    given support and resources to help it to become a better steward of
    these and other resources.
    SALT RIVER
        The Salt River Bay Historical Park and Ecological Preserve has the
    potential to establish a new benchmark for cooperation between the
    Virgin Islands Government and the Department of Interior's National
    Park Service. Thus far, some acquisitions have been made and more are
    pending. This is good. However, little or no attention is being given
    to the concept of helping the Virgin Islands Government establish its
    Territorial Parks System's administrative, management, and enforcement
    apparatus in a meaningful way. This Park is not only important for its
    historical and ecological value. It is also important because it can
    become the vehicle for full cooperation between both governments and in
    which the personnel of the Virgin Islands Territorial Parks System can
    obtain its training and become full fledged partners in the management
    and protection of the valuable resources of the Virgin Islands. It is a
    greater benefit to all of us if the Virgin Islands can develop its
    higher potential to become a responsible steward of its other
    significant natural and cultural resources that exist outside the
    boundaries of any of the legally established national parks. The
    Subcommittee should take note that the Government of the Virgin Islands
    also owns noteworthy properties on Hassel Island where the National
    Park Service also owns property. The need for cooperation and support
    is highlighted by the fact that both governments will continue to
    operate in close proximity to each other and should do so on a
    cooperative basis.
        I respectfully request that your Subcommittee take steps to
    appropriate funds for training and salaries of a reasonable number of
    individuals to be hired by the Virgin Islands and trained to become
    rangers and managers in the V. I. Territorial Park System. This support
    should be spread over a reasonable period. It will help the Virgin
    Islands mature in its resource management capabilities while promoting
    wise development and management of the Salt River Bay Historical Park
    and Ecological Preserve.
        Finally, I recommend that the Salt River Commission be continued in
    its planning and in an advisory capacity to insure equity in training,
    management, development, and utilization of the valuable resources at
    Salt River Bay.
    CHRISTIANSTED NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE
        I have been pleased with the commitment of resources by the
    National Park Service to help enhance the appearance of the
    Christiansted National Historic Site. This special property is an
    important part of the Christiansted Town and as such it should
    represent one of its outstanding attractions. Resources should be
    continuously appropriated and allocated to insure that it is well
    maintained as a living part of St. Croix. Private property owners are
    struggling to rehabilitate their properties within Christiansted to
    help revitalize St. Croix. Therefore it is important that The
    Christiansted National Historic Site maintains its vibrancy and
    attractive appearance.
        Finally Mr. Chairman, I have appended copies of my January 10, 2001
    testimony at a public meeting held by our Honorable Congresswoman Donna
    Christian-Christensen and a copy of my January 30, 2001 letter to
    Congressman Jim Hansen, the Honorable Chairman of the House Resources
    Committee. It is my understanding that that letter was referred to your
    Subcommittee. I respectfully request that they be made a part of your
    record along with my statement.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to address the Honorable
    Members of this Subcommittee.
        Attachments
    ATTACHMENT A
                        CONGRESSWOMAN DONNA CHRISTENSEN
                       RE: NATIONAL MONUMENT PROCLAMATION
                                January 10, 2001
        Good evening Congresswoman Christensen. My name is Virdin Brown. I
    am a former Senator in the Virgin Islands Legislature (serving seven
    terms), former Commissioner of the former Department of Conservation
    and Cultural Affairs, and former Assistant Commissioner of the
    Department of Planning and Natural Resources. Currently, I serve as
    Chairman of the Caribbean Fishery Management Council. My presence and
    testimony here this evening is to represent my own views and personal
    opinions on the proposed designation of national monument status for
    certain submerged lands around St. John and Buck Island out to the
    boundary of the Territorial Sea.
        I have devoted almost three decades of service in the Government of
    the Virgin Islands to environmental resource management issues--
    especially the acceptance and administration of the submerged lands
    that are within the three-mile limit. In my current capacity I am
    involved with the development of management plans, which govern the use
    of marine resources from the three-mile Territorial Sea boundary out to
    the 200-mile limit of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the
    Caribbean.
        I have had the opportunity to review only a few of the documents
    related to the proposed establishment or designation of additional
    submerged lands around St. John Buck Island as national monuments. I
    have seen the press releases and the maps but have not seen the
    official proposed proclamation as of this moment. However, the
    information I have at hand is sufficient for me to formulate my views
    on this subject.
        Basically, I have no problem with the desire and intent to protect
    the coral and marine resources to insure that they are maintained,
    enjoyed, and--where appropriate--utilized by this and future
    generations. There is an international undertaking by governments and
    nongovernmental organizations to better manage and protect marine
    resources (especially corals) around the world.
        Tonight the issue surrounding the proposed national monuments is
    not so much ``WHY'' but rather ``HOW'', in my opinion. The Virgin
    Islands National Park on St. John and The Buck Island Reef National
    Monument on St. Croix have well defined limits within the sea that are
    easily discerned on maps and marine charts. In neither instance is
    either of these boundaries out to the limit of the Territorial Sea or
    international boundary, except for a small area between Mary's Point on
    St.
        John and Thatch Cay in the British Virgin Islands. Nevertheless,
    the Secretary of Interior has recommended ``TAKING'' 30,843 acres of
    Virgin Islands Submerged Lands (12,708 acres around St. John and 18,135
    acres around Buck Island on St. Croix) without due process or just
    compensation to the people of the Virgin Islands. I hasten to point out
    that this vast acreage of submerged lands is outside the existing
    boundaries of the Virgin Islands National Park on St. John and the Buck
    Island Reef National Monument on St. Croix. These 30,843 acres belong
    to the people of the Virgin Islands. They were transferred from the
    Department of Interior to the Government of the Virgin Islands in 1974
    through a conscientious Act of Congress designated as Public Law 93-435
    and codified in the U.S. Code in Title 48. In accordance with Title 48,
    section 1705(a) of the U.S. Code, these submerged lands were
    transferred ``... To be administered in trust for the benefit of the
    people...'' The Virgin Islands Government administers these submerged
    lands under Title 12, Chapter 21 of the Virgin Islands Code (The
    Coastal Zone Management Act) and refers to them as ``Trustlands.'' To
    be sure and keep the record clear, I must point out that Public Law 93-
    435 made provisions for certain exceptions regarding conveyance of the
    submerged lands. Title 48, Section 1705(b) USC states in pertinent
    part:
            ``There are excepted from the transfer made by subsection (a)
            hereof

                (i) all deposits of oil, gas, and other minerals, but the
                term ``minerals'' shall not include coral, sand, and
                gravel;

                (vii) all submerged lands designated by the President
                within one hundred and twenty days after October 5,1974;
                (These 120 days ended on February 2, 1975);

                (x) all submerged lands within the Virgin Islands National
                Park established by sections 398 to 398b of Title 16,
                including the lands described in sections 398c and 398d of
                Title 16; and

                (xi) all submerged lands within the Buck Island Reef
                National Monument as described in Presidential Proclamation
                3448 dated December 28, 1961.''

        On February 1, 1975 President Gerald Ford exercised his authority
    under Title 48, section 1705(b)(vii) above and reserved an additional
    thirty (30) acres around Buck Island to increase the size of this
    National Monument. That was it. That was the most noteworthy exception
    made in the transfer. It meant that the President automatically
    transferred all other submerged lands to the Government of the Virgin
    Islands because the 120 days expired without further proclamations or
    exemptions being issues. How then, can the Department of Interior claim
    title, or exercise unusual authority, over submerged lands it does not
    own or control?
        In 1980, Congress further affirmed its unambiguous intent to
    transfer title of submerged lands, and the resources therein, to the
    people of the Virgin Islands when via Public Law 96-205 it directed the
    Secretary of Interior to convey ``...All right, title, and interest of
    the United States in deposits of oil, gas, and other minerals in the
    submerged lands conveyed to the government ... by subsection (a) of
    this section.'' Clearly what the Congress has given in an official act,
    only the Congress can take away in like manner.
        The documents that I have seen, recognize the President's authority
    to create national monuments on ``federal'' land--I repeat ``FEDERAL''
    land--and I do not question that authority. However, it is my position
    that the submerged lands, to which the Secretary of Interior is
    claiming title, and is recommending to be designated as national
    monuments, or expansion of same, are NOT'' Federal lands. These
    submerged lands belong to the Government and the people of the Virgin
    Islands.
        They cannot be developed, occupied, sold or otherwise transferred
    without the approval of the Legislature of the Virgin Islands. This is
    codified in Title 12, Chapter 21 of the Virgin Islands Code and has
    existed in law since the transfer of the submerged lands to the
    Government and people of the Virgin Islands. The Government of the
    Virgin Islands has exercised its authority and control over the subject
    30,843 acres and the other submerged lands since the transfer became
    official.
        It should be noted that no executive agreements, exchange of notes,
    verbal commitments, nor memorandum of understanding could change the
    fact that the 30,843 acres of submerged land in question belong to the
    Government and people of the Virgin Islands. To best of my knowledge,
    no Act of Congress, or of the Legislature of the Virgin Islands has
    been undertaken to transfer these lands to anyone. If it is to happen,
    it is the kind of issue that should be the subject of a ``REAL
    REFERENDUM'' in accordance with the provisions of the Organic Act.
    Therefore I urge you to ask the President not to sign the proposed
    proclamation because it was conceived and developed on faulty legal
    claims, and because the Department of Interior has not developed this
    issue in the clear.
        On another matter, I urge you to follow up on the inaction of both
    the local and Federal Governments in making The Salt River Historical
    Park and Ecological Presence a functional reality. An Act of Congress
    created this Park in 1991. One of the mandates was that there would be
    a cooperative effort to develop the Park while at the same time help
    the Virgin Islands Government train staff  manage Salt River jointly
    with the National Park Service. This was to be the springboard for
    development of the Virgin Islands Territorial Parks System, but the
    expectations have not yet been realized. The Virgin Islands Government
    owns approximately 600 acres of submerged lands within the boundary of
    the Salt River Park as 'ell as terrestrial acreage. This is fertile
    ground for Federal/local cooperation. It is imperative that the Salt
    River Commission gets on with its mission before it arrives at its
    sunset date.
        Thanks very much for affording me an opportunity to express my
    views on this subject.

        [Attachments to Mr. Brown's statement follow:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0850.004

    ATTACHMENT B

    Virdin C. Brown
    P.O. Box 7809 S.I.
    St. Croix, Virgin Islands 00823
    January 30, 2001

    Honorable Jim Hansen, Chairman
    Resources Committee
    U.S. House of Representatives
    1324 Longworth Building
    Washington, D. C. 20515

    Dear Congressman Hansen :

        I am writing to express my concern about an executive action that
    has wrought an injustice upon the government and people of the Virgin
    Islands, and to request your assistance in rectifying it.
        On January 17, 2001, President Clinton signed Proclamation Nos.
    7392 and 7399. The former is entitled ``Boundary Enlargement and
    Modifications of the Buck Island Reef National Monument'' near St.
    Croix and the latter, ``Establishment of the Virgin Islands Coral Reef
    National Monument'' off St. John. The natural and cultural resources to
    which these proclamations make reference are noteworthy and are indeed
    worth protecting. The issue here is whether or not the Department of
    Interior has right and title to the submerged lands over which they
    have exercised this authority under Section 2 of the Act of June 8,1906
    (34 Stat. 225,16 U.S.C. 431). The Department of Interior was
    overzealous in its efforts to have these sites designated as ``National
    Monuments'' and spent very little time discussing its plans with the
    people of the Virgin Islands especially fishermen who will be most
    directly impacted by this Federal action.
        My concern is that by these proclamations the Clinton
    Administration took, or declared its intention to take, 30,843 acres of
    submerged lands that belong to the Government and people of the Virgin
    Islands. These are NOT Federal submerged lands and the Department of
    Interior has had neither ownership nor control over them since midnight
    February 2, 1975.
        On October 5,1974, Public Law 93-435 took effect and transferred an
    submerged lands in the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa to the
    respective territorial governments. It provided for the retention of
    certain lands and mineral rights by the United States Government and
    also clearly stated that the President, by proclamation, would have one
    hundred and twenty (120) days after October 5,1974, to reserve those
    submerged lands that he proclaims win be exempted from transfer to the
    territorial governments. There were only two (2) proclamations issued
    under this section of PL 93435 affecting the Virgin Islands. They are
    Proclamation No.4346, which added thirty (30) acres of submerged lands
    to the Buck Islands Reef National Monument, and Proclamation No.4347
    which reserved certain submerged lands off the west coast of St. Croix
    for use by the U.S. Navy. President Gerald Ford signed these
    proclamations on February 1,1975, just one day prior to the expiration
    of the one hundred twenty day period.
        Thereafter, all other submerged lands were transferred from the
    Department of Interior to the Government of the Virgin Islands. These
    30,843 acres of submerged lands, which the Department of Interior
    through presidential proclamation has declared national monuments, are
    not Federal lands but the property of the Government of the Virgin
    Islands. I am keenly aware of this issue because I was the chief
    territorial official (Commissioner of the Department of Conservation
    and Cultural Affairs) responsible for the administration of the
    submerged lands immediately after PL 93-435 took effect. Prior to that,
    I was a Senator in the Virgin Islands Legislature and worked with the
    late Congressman Phillip Burton and former Congressman Ron de Lugo to
    secure enactment of the transfer legislation.
        Because of my experience and knowledge of the transfer and
    administration of the submerged lands, I cannot quietly observe the
    Department of Interior take submerged lands that do not belong to it.
    If Interior is sincerely interested in protecting these valuable
    natural and cultural assets, it could do so legitimately by providing
    the V. I. Government with the resources to execute a similar concept in
    its own right permitting thorough review and input from the residents
    of the Virgin Islands. It is interesting to note here that the Governor
    of the Virgin Islands, Dr. Charles Turnbull, has expressed his
    objections to Proclamation Nos. 7392 and 7399 apparently because he
    felt that he was blindsided by their issuance.
        Recently, I reviewed a map prepared by the Bureau of Minerals
    Management Service Mapping and Boundary Branch of the Department of
    Interior and became more concerned by what I saw. The map has
    identified several other areas within the Territorial Sea of the U.S.
    Virgin Islands as Federal Submerged Lands. However, these are submerged
    lands over which Interior has NO control and which have been
    administered by the V. I. Government since the enactment of PL 93-435.
    This map is alarming because it suggests that the Department of
    Interior intends to extend its claim or illegal taking of additional
    Virgin Islands Submerged Lands by some other unconstitutional means.
    This must not be allowed to happen because it would be a flagrant
    trampling of, and infringement upon, the rights of the Government of
    the Virgin Islands and its people. If they have used fallacious and
    specious justifications for recent proclamations what is there to
    prevent them from doing it again?
        It is obvious that a great injustice has been done to the
    Government and people of the Virgin Islands and it should be corrected
    by rescinding Proclamation Nos. 7392 and 7399. They are taking
    Territorial Submerged Lands without due process. Please note that the
    proclamations were published in the Federal Register on January 22,
    2001, two days after President Bush issued an executive order to
    suspend publication and implementation of all such eleventh-hour
    executive actions by the outgoing administration.
        I have enclosed a copy of my statement to Congresswoman Donna
    Christensen at a public hearing she held on January 10, 2001, a copy of
    an article from the V. I. Daily News in which Governor Turnbull
    expressed his surprise and opposition to the proclamations, and copies
    of the proclamations for quick and easy reference.
        I urge you to please review this issue and take steps to rescind
    Proclamation Nos. 7392 and 7399 in recognition of the fact that the
    submerged lands in question are the property of the Government of the
    Virgin Islands- and should remain so.

    Respectfully,

    Virdin C. Brown`
                                     ______

        Mr. Radanovich. Appreciate the testimony, Mr. Brown.
        Mr. Turner, welcome to the Committee. And again, if you'd
    begin your testimony, that would be great.

             STATEMENT OF BILL TURNER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
                  ST. CROIX ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to
    the honorable members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the
    opportunity to testify on this very important issue, or on a
    number of very important issues actually.
        First of all, St. Croix Environmental Association is an
    organization that's committed to conservation through community
    involvement. And in fact this community involvement I think is
    the linchpin of conservation efforts here in the Virgin
    Islands. Mr. McAuliffe, who testified before me and with whom
    I'm about to stringently disagree, and I are members of the
    Coalition for Sustainable Development here on St. Croix. So
    while we do disagree on this issue, there is a great deal of
    respect that SEA has for the community in which we operate.
        No. 1, I'd like to address the effectiveness of our local
    National Park Service, and I cannot be complimentary enough in
    the short time that I'm allotted to Mr. Tutein and his
    dedicated staff. And, in fact, contrary to what my friend Mr.
    McAuliffe said regarding the Park Service efforts, I think that
    the biodiversity that exists at Buck Island right now, given
    the current boundaries, is miraculous under the circumstances.
        It is, in fact, very difficult to put lines on a map and
    have that translate into a natural ecosystem's function and
    form. Specifically at Salt River, the St. Croix Environmental
    Association has planted 16,500 red mangroves and 3,000 black
    mangroves at Sugar Bay. While those mangroves are nowhere near
    a coral reef system, their effect on it is scientifically
    proven. Empirical evidence suggests that the planting of the
    mangroves actually cools the water as it comes into the
    shallower points at high tide, and as it returns out over the
    reef it's less damaging than had it not had the shade of the
    mangroves going back out.
        So for that matter, actually, the expansion at Buck Island,
    and I will talk a little bit more about that, is vital. It is--
    nothing exists in stasis in nature. Human beings are the only
    animals on earth that have the ability to make maps. Animals
    and natural systems do not recognize boundary lines. It is a
    much larger system that influences a coral reef system.
        Specifically to Buck Island, there is the question of
    legality, and I'm certainly not qualified to address that
    question. However, I will say that as it stands, there is a de
    facto area of protection that exists there at Buck Island. I
    think, Mr. Chairman, your comments regarding the--where the
    line falls on a map are entirely appropriate, and perhaps with
    more community input and involvement and more involvement with
    the local government, this issue could have been addressed and
    resolved by former President Clinton in a much more expedient
    way, preventing the legal issues coming about. So on that issue
    I do recognize that everyone has concerns about the legal
    issues of Federal land versus local land, and we certainly
    share those concerns and hope that the General Accounting
    Office can provide a solution that's acceptable to everyone.
        I have to admit that as a conservationist I'm in the
    luxurious position of having two different governments fighting
    to preserve a great deal of marine area, and I would like to
    mention while we're on the subject that the Coastal Zone
    Management Committee did vote on Friday to create a marine-
    protected area on the east end of St. Croix. Therefore, I would
    like my testimony amended in the second point where we suggest,
    under Exhibit 2, a creation of a national park extending to the
    shoreline of St. Croix, that that be struck given that the
    local government has taken action.
        Unfortunately, the local government, as Delegate
    Christensen has pointed out, is very--does have a very scarce
    amount of resources with which to deal with these important and
    vital issues, and we believe that there has to be collaboration
    between the Federal and local government to make sure that
    every resource available for the protection of marine life is
    utilized.
        Having said that, I still believe that if we look at the
    Buck Island National Monument that exists under the President--
    former President's plan, I believe that there is the
    possibility in this plan that is presented for collaboration
    between the local and Federal Government. The local government
    does have a marine mark established on the east end. I cannot
    see the harm of the extension of that boundary line out from
    Buck Island as it stands.
        We talk about the coral reefs--and this is the last point
    that I want to make--we talk about the coral reef system being
    protected by the current boundary lines. That's not accurate.
    That boundary line has to extend beyond the coral reef. The
    fish don't know that a boundary line exists. Fish that live in
    coral, fish that are predators in coral reef systems don't stop
    at a boundary line. Extending the boundary line only serves to
    preserve the coral system. And I will point out, again, turtles
    are vital. They're vital parts of the ecosystem. That boundary
    line being extended further does in fact protect the turtles
    and migratory whales, as Mr. Tutein did point out.
        So we do support as much conservation as is possible. We do
    accept that the GAO will make its decision, and we only hope
    that after that decision has been rendered, that the Federal
    Government and the local government can collaborate together to
    create a situation where as much conservation as is possible
    exists, also taking into account the needs of the local people
    here in the Virgin Islands.
        Thank you very much for this opportunity.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Turner follows:]

                 Statement of Bill Turner, Executive Director,
                      St. Croix Environmental Association

    I. Introduction
        1.01 For more than 15 years, the St. Croix Environmental
    Association (SEA) has worked to preserve and conserve the vital
    resources of St. Croix. Our efforts have helped to preserve the Great
    Pond, Southgate Pond, Jack's and Isaac's Bays and, most relevant to
    this hearing, the Salt River watershed. Much time, money and effort
    have been given to the preservation of an ecosystem that endures both
    natural catastrophes and the pressures of economic development, along
    with a variety of infra-structural failures.
        1.02 In spite of all of these difficulties, we have worked to
    develop plans that will ensure that there is an ecologically sound
    future for the citizens of St. Croix. Our efforts include the
    replanting of nearly 20,000 mangroves in the Salt River watershed,
    community forestry education, education of elementary school students
    and advocacy for sound environmental initiatives. We have also reached
    out to developers to ensure that plans for the growth of St. Croix's
    economy are sustainable and conserve resources. We will continue to
    pursue avenues of education and action wherever possible.
    II. The importance of National Parks on St. Croix.
        2.01 There are two specific benefits that National Parks provide:
    aesthetic improvement and ecological preservation. Aesthetic
    improvement is important for maintaining a higher quality of life, but
    on an island that desperately needs tourist dollars, aesthetic
    improvement can be the difference between success and bankruptcy for
    local businesses. Ecological preservation within the United States'
    park system is well documented. On St. Croix, many fishermen rely on a
    steady harvest of fish for their livelihood; thus ecological
    preservation is crucial to them to maintain the biodiversity that
    allows them to continue harvesting fish. The preservation of resources
    goes hand in hand with the preservation of culture and allows for
    independent sustainable growth on St. Croix.
        2.02 Aesthetic improvement on St. Croix is most notable in
    Christiansted. The efforts of the National Park Service to preserve the
    fort, the customs house and various other Danish colonial structures
    has led to one of the most breathtaking views in the United States.
    While this site has a great historic significance, the creation of
    ``green areas'' around the buildings has increased the charm and
    usefulness of the site as a tourist attraction. Most importantly, the
    people of St. Croix have a location to enjoy and to view as a source of
    local pride. The efforts of Mr. Joel Tutein and his staff are to be
    commended for this marvelous local resource.
        2.03 Ecological preservation is observed most notably at the Salt
    River National Park. This site was slated for the addition of a large
    resort hotel. The potential for ecological devastation was both real
    and enormous. Through preserving this site, the National Park service
    has prevented a catastrophic destruction of coral that could have
    easily placed the local fishing industry in grave danger.
        2.04 Buck Island demonstrates the power of ecological preservation
    to provide aesthetic improvement. Through the preservation of coral
    reefs and attention to natural resources, the National Park Service has
    actually allowed a local industry to develop that specializes in tours
    to Buck Island. In Buck Island, we have an example of preservation that
    leads to economic development.
        2.05 SEA has worked at the Salt River National Park to restore an
    entire mangrove system that was devastated by Hurricane Hugo. Mangroves
    provide a natural filter for non-point source pollution, prevent reef
    silting and provide safe cover for juvenile fish. Mangroves are ``the
    roots of the sea.'' Through our efforts, 16,500 red mangroves and 3,000
    black mangroves have been restored at Salt River. We have provided an
    interim sketch of our efforts and are preparing a final report on the
    mangrove restoration effort. (See exhibit 1) With the amount of work
    that we have done in this watershed, it is natural for us to take great
    pride in it and to seek the well being of the park.
    III. The future of National Parks on St. Croix.
        3.01 Two National Park Service locations are the current focus of
    our attention. Buck Island and Salt River are, as we have previously
    stated, vitally important to St. Croix. This importance cannot be
    overstated. The opportunity to enhance their facilities and increase
    their size should not be overlooked. This is an opportunity to improve
    two sites and increase ecological preservation in the Virgin Islands.
        3.02 At Buck Island, we endorse without reservation or
    qualification the expansion of the park by 18,135 acres. Given the
    record of success of the National Park Service at Buck Island, we
    believe that expansion will not only preserve the environment, we
    believe that it will enhance an already thriving ecosystem. We
    recognize that some groups have contested this expansion; but we must
    insist that the overall benefit of this expansion would be far more
    beneficial to local interests.
        3.03 In addition to our support for the expansion of Buck Island's
    area by 18,135 acres, we strongly urge the Subcommittee to explore the
    possibility of increasing the area to include the waters up to and
    surrounding Green Key (See Exhibit 2). There are three practical
    reasons for this suggestion. We believe that this expansion would
    provide critical protection for marine species in the proposed area, we
    believe that a potential for collaboration between the National Park
    Service and SEA exists and we believe that, ultimately, the restoration
    of marine life to sustainable levels would provide a more stable future
    for local fisheries.
        3.04 The seabed between Green Key and Buck Island once was filled
    with rich biodiversity. Conch thrived along the floor of the sea there.
    Unfortunately, with an export value of approximately $14 per pound and
    little or no enforcement of catch limits, this area has become a conch
    graveyard. To quote a friend and local Federal Enforcement Officer,
    ``if it is not behind a boundary sign, kiss it goodbye.'' The
    authority, creativity and resourcefulness of our local National Park
    Service personnel could easily reverse this trend.
        3.05 SEA has purchased nearly 100 acres of land bordering Cheney
    Bay and Southgate Pond. We are currently in the planning phase of
    creating a comprehensive nature park on this property. We would be
    happy to explore the potential of working with the National Park
    Service to provide resources and facilities should the Service be able
    to create the area of protection that we have suggested.
        3.06 This proposed area of protection, if managed by the National
    Park Service or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service would
    restore the conch population, enhance biodiversity and would lead to
    larger future fish and conch harvests. The increase in harvest size
    would improve the economic position of local fisherman. Also, the
    increased protection would ensure that future generations would have
    access to the resources that are the core of local industry.
        3.07 At Salt River, we endorse without reservation or qualification
    the proposed expansion of the Park. Our own experience with our
    Southgate Pond property has shown us how difficult it is to site
    facilities without harming the surrounding ecosystem. If the National
    Park Service could acquire land with buildings in place for their
    facilities, they could reduce expense in planning and quickly have
    operations in place. With the growing importance of the Salt River
    National Park, it is important for the National Park Service to have a
    fixed and permanent presence there.
    IV. Threats to National Parks on St. Croix.
        4.01 In spite of all of the efforts of our local National Park
    Service staff, our National Parks face three imminent and potentially
    dangerous threats. Discharge of raw sewage into coastal waters, non-
    point source pollution and lack of a comprehensive solid waste
    management system place our National Parks at risk for serious to
    severe health hazards. We must advise the Committee that the failure of
    the current local administration, as well as the cumulative failures of
    past administrations, to address these issues opens the door to
    potential disaster.
        4.02 In the past six months, discharge of raw sewage into coastal
    waters has forced the Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural
    Resources on several occasions to issue warnings to avoid contact with
    seawater. We have included two of these warnings, issued on January
    15th and April 9th, in our testimony, because the waters that are
    contaminated reach the Christiansted National Historic Site at Fort
    Christianvern. The Government of the Virgin Islands is under a court
    order to repair the wastewater system, however, action has been slow
    and problems persist.
        4.03 A visitor to a National Park should not be confronted with the
    potential of contracting a serious disease as a result of their visit.
    Sewage contaminated water can contain hepatitis A, cryptosporidium,
    cholera and E coli bacteria. These are only a few of a much larger list
    of potential contaminants. Furthermore, contraction of any one of these
    diseases by a tourist or tourists could smear the good name and
    reputation of our National Park Service.
        4.04 The Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural
    Resources is a recognized leader in mitigating non-point source
    pollution. Commissioner Dean Plaskett has demonstrated commitment to
    address this serious problem. Unfortunately, the lack of a
    comprehensive land and water use plan in the Virgin Islands leads to
    development that is poorly planned. This poor planning requires greater
    efforts to protect the fragile systems that it endangers, such as Salt
    River National Park.
        4.05 Solid waste management in the Virgin Islands is the threat,
    which most directly affects the aesthetics of our National Parks. The
    presence of solid waste containers at Columbus' Landing that are not
    emptied, detract from the experience of the visit. Although the
    National Park Service does not control this area, if it were there
    would be no problem of this nature, it is a part of the general
    experience and should be addressed.
    V. Conclusion
        5.01 It is the position of the St. Croix Environmental Association
    that our National Park Service should be expanded on St. Croix. This
    agency has affected positive change on the island as a whole by
    providing an excellent service to the citizens. To the extent that it
    is possible, this Committee would be well served to increase funding,
    personnel and equipment available to this National Park Service staff.
                                     ______

        [Attachments to Mr. Turner's statement follow:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0850.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0850.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0850.003

        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Turner.
        Appreciate the testimony of everybody here. I would
    further--Mrs. Christensen, do you have any questions?
        Mrs. Christensen. OK, well, I'll start.
        I want to thank the panelists for their testimony as well.
    Maybe I would begin with Mr. McAuliffe.
        I'm not talking loud enough?
        Mr. Radanovich. Uh-huh.
        Mrs. Christensen. Mr. McAuliffe, you stated in your
    testimony that the Park Service has failed for 40 years to
    fully protect the stocks under their jurisdiction. What do you
    think should have been done that would have insured a different
    result?
        Mr. McAuliffe. That's pretty fully covered in the written
    testimony, in that the Code of Federal Regulations rules for
    Buck Island for fishing, if we were to follow those rules, we
    would be able to pretty much strip the park of living life and
    not violate the rules. That is very antiquated and should have
    been revised many, many years ago. And I look at that as a
    failure not on the part of the local Park Service employees,
    because they can only go by the rules that are given to them,
    but the Park Service in general.
        The Park Service employees here have had their hands tied
    for many years trying to enforce fisheries regulations in that
    area, but they--what they have enforced have not been done
    equally across board. Most of the community, fishing community
    has respected the original boundaries, and all of us have
    understood that you just don't fish within those park
    boundaries. Yet the rules permit fishing, and fishing with
    traps and fishing to a degree that would denude the park.
        Mrs. Christensen. Let me ask you another question. Did you
    attend the September public hearings that were held by the
    Department of Interior and the National Park Service?
        Mr. McAuliffe. I didn't hear you.
        Mrs. Christensen. The September 2000 public hearings that
    were held by the Department of Interior and the Park Service,
    did you attend those?
        Mr. McAuliffe. I wasn't aware of them at the time. I wasn't
    notified until I think the day or the day after.
        Mrs. Christensen. OK. Because I notice that you put some
    stress on good faith negotiations. Are you--do you consider--
    well, you probably have partly answered my question, but do you
    consider that they afforded the public an adequate opportunity
    to provide input into the protections that were needed?
        Mr. McAuliffe. Absolutely not.
        Mrs. Christensen. I guess I should have asked Mr. Tutein a
    question as well.
        Let me go to Mr. Turner and ask two questions if I can get
    them in. How do you reconcile your unqualified support of the
    monument as designated by President Clinton with the needs of
    the fishing community and the possible impact on people that
    are making a livelihood?
        Mr. Turner. As I stated, we are very strong supporters of
    the local fishermen. In fact, we worked with them in the
    creation of the local marine protected area that was voted in
    by the Coastal Zone Management Commission. Again, Mr. Tutein
    pointed out we're talking about 5 percent of the overall
    fishing area. That leaves 95 percent available for fishing. I
    recognize that for some families this will be a strain, and I
    agree with Mr. McAuliffe entirely that some form of
    compensation must be given to those fishermen who are greatly
    affected by this.
        On the other hand, I believe that it's been demonstrated
    before also in St. Lucia at the Soufriere management area that
    once you preserve and protect a specific location, the fish
    size and the number of fish goes up substantially. In some
    cases two to three times the number of fish, and two to three
    times the size of the fish. Those fish do not stay in that
    zone. They migrate in and out of that zone. Therefore the
    fishermen would have a much greater take in the ultimate
    outcome of this plan.
        Mrs. Christensen. You also mentioned in your written
    testimony that the National Parks face certain other threats on
    St. Croix despite the best efforts of the National Park Service
    staff. Would you elaborate on that, and is SEA doing anything
    to assist in some of those areas, because the fishing is not
    the only threat to the reefs and to the National Park.
        Mr. Turner. That is absolutely correct. In fact, we were at
    the Salt River National Park yesterday, and up from the Salt
    River National Park there's an area called Mon Bijou, there's a
    gut. A gut is an intermittent river that runs on St. Croix. In
    that gut there's a pile of garbage, including refrigerators,
    old used appliances, all sorts of other materials.
        Non-point-source pollution is a serious threat. In fact,
    that is why SEA undertook the mangrove replanting there at
    Sugar Bay to mitigate some of the non-point-source pollution.
        Also at Christiansted Harbor I must in fact congratulate
    the local Department of Public Works for finally correcting the
    problem that exists there. However, many other problems do
    exist. And again, it's a scarcity of resources issue which
    leads to these problems existing, and raw sewage dumping into
    the harbor actually can introduce a number of different
    pathogens into the water, from hepatitis A to E. coli to
    Cryptosporidium. I could go on for a while with just what could
    be dumped into the water.
        So yes, there are substantial threats to the National Parks
    here on the island.
        Mrs. Christensen. Can I ask one last question?
        Mr. Radanovich. Sure.
        Mrs. Christensen. On this round anyway.
        Former Senator Brown, the Section 1705(b)(ii), the part
    that deals with the at mean low tide--high tide, that
    exclusion, how do you interpret that? Does it just--because all
    of what we're talking about seems to ride on that one
    exception, and is it just not clearly written? Does it have no
    impact?
        How do you interpret that second exception?
        Mr. Brown. Well, to restate what I said earlier, I don't
    see a problem with that language, 1705(b)(ii). The point is
    that someone in the Interior has used it to apply to the Virgin
    Islands. And my position is, and in fact the reality is, it
    does not apply to the Virgin Islands, but it more aptly applies
    to Guam, and again where there are substantial holdings.
        Mrs. Christensen. But the law applies equally to--
        Mr. Brown. It's a general law.
        Mrs. Christensen. And it applies in effect equally to each
    of those jurisdictions.
        Mr. Brown. But it has to be taken in the context in which
    it's written, and that is--
        Mrs. Christensen. I--
        Mr. Brown. If it applied, if there are any such Federal
    lands existing in the Territory, then it would so apply. But it
    does not apply because there are no such Federal lands existing
    in the Territory; one, because President Ford made the
    exceptions that would not be transferred. That's the 30 acres
    to--added to Buck Island, plus the several dozen acres on the
    west end of St. Croix that were excluded specifically. Then in
    1705(b)(x) and (xi) I think it is, if I'm correct, the law
    specifically cites the Virgin Islands National Park as it's
    defined and it has been defined by law. Therefore it
    specifically states what those boundaries are, and the Buck
    Island Reef National Monument.
        If that isn't clear on the face of it as to what is to be
    considered Federal lands in this Territory, I'm not sure what
    other way to interpret it. And as I say, then 1705(b)(ii) can
    only apply then to Guam certainly where there, again, is
    substantial holdings by the U.S. Navy, lands adjacent to
    submerged lands, and I'm not too sure to what extent it might
    apply in American Samoa. But definitely in Guam, but not here.
        Mrs. Christensen. Did you have an opportunity to provide
    input to the GAO as well? I asked that question, didn't I?
        Mr. Brown. I was told by you that I was to be invited to
    give input, but I did not receive an invitation. But I took the
    initiative to call and speak to the person who is responsible
    for and overseeing that report. That was a couple months ago,
    maybe sometime in March I spoke to her.
        Mrs. Christensen. So you were able to provide your--
        Mr. Brown. I gave extensive--
        Mrs. Christensen. --your input into the decision that we're
    anticipating?
        Mr. Brown. Yes. At the time I think the anticipation was
    that there was--a report would be forthcoming shortly, but now
    we see that it is not. It has not come.
        Mrs. Christensen. But the question was--
        Mr. Brown. I did.
        Mrs. Christensen. --you were able to provide your--
        Mr. Brown. I did.
        Mrs. Christensen. --input.
        Mr. Brown. We had extensive communication verbally.
        Mrs. Christensen. I just wanted to make sure.
        Mr. Brown. No written communication as yet. Since I did not
    receive the written invitation to give testimony, I took the
    initiative to call and give my input.
        Mrs. Christensen. But you were able to provide it. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much.
        Ms. McCollum?
        Ms. McCollum. Just a follow-up to Mr. Brown's.
        You were serving you said in '70--in 1971 through '75, is
    that correct?
        Mr. Brown. I'm sorry. Say that again?
        Mr. Radanovich. 1971 to '75 was your first term you were
    serving?
        Mr. Brown. I served two 2-year terms during that period,
    and at a subsequent date in the eighties up into the early
    nineties I served another 5-year term.
        Ms. McCollum. So when President--
        Mr. Brown. Expired terms.
        Ms. McCollum. OK. So when President Ford put fourth the
    language which then became part of the statute dealing with
    submerged lands, and I will find the documentation I'm sure you
    submitted about the exceptions that you've spoken about for the
    Virgin Islands. I have not seen that, but I'll be looking for
    it. Did you then, or did the Virgin Islands Government actively
    pursue a clear understanding to what President Ford's language
    in 1974 meant to the Virgin Islands? Because there's
    documentation, I believe it's in 1975 from the Park Service,
    clearly saying how they were going to be using that language.
    It's a public record.
        Did you aggressively say, Gees, we don't agree with the
    Department of Interior on that? Did you--do you have
    documentation that you filed with the Federal Government on
    President Ford's foundation for what President Clinton went
    forward on?
        Mr. Brown. I--well, let me put it this way: First of all,
    there were no real contests about the proclamation as issued by
    President Ford, and there was no reason to. There is reason to
    contest what the National Park Service, by extension, want to
    interpret what it says. But the law says the President, by
    proclamation, shall make such exceptions from the transfer as
    he may deem necessary. Not the Department of Interior. And it
    has to be done by a proclamation. There were only two
    proclamations issued, and therefore we had no reason to contest
    anything.
        The administrative transfer of the submerged lands from the
    Interior was through the Office of Territorial Affairs, which
    was responsible for the administration of the submerged lands
    at the time. All of their records and documents were physically
    transferred, as well as some monies, to this government. I was
    in the Legislature at the time that the law was enacted, and I
    was the, immediately after that, the following year in
    February, appointed by the Governor to be in his cabinet as the
    Commissioner of the Department of Conservation and Cultural
    Affairs. And therefore I was the person then responsible
    directly for the administration of these submerged lands.
        Let me state further that our law was structured at that
    time to clearly state, by Act of the Legislature in 1974, that
    any use of these submerged lands, as we define them, trust
    lands, could only be done by an administrative process that got
    the Governor's approval, and subsequently the approval of the
    Legislature. That was to allow the highest possible public
    scrutiny and opportunity for inputs on the disposition or
    utilization or development of any of these trust lands,
    submerged lands. So that's from the shoreline out to the 3-mile
    line.
        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, just a follow-up for the record
    here. I'm going to be doing some more extensive research on
    Public Law 93-435 dated October 5th, 1974. I appreciate on the
    interpretation, and law is subject to interpretation as by our
    sitting in a court chamber, but it appears from my reading,
    sir, and I will be looking at what you have brought to my
    attention, that the Federal Government, and we may agree or
    disagree as to its interpretation, I quote, it says, All
    submerged lands adjacent to property owned by the Federal
    Government, and then they go on to say that they can extend
    protection to it.
        And then I also, Mr. Chair, for the record I mentioned this
    at the other hearing, I refer to a document written on January
    16th, 1975, and I was just right out of high school so I wasn't
    in public service then, but I have to go, as you're going
    through your interpretations, I'm--I would like to draw to your
    attention to a quote from that letter. It's to the Acting
    Director of Territorial Affairs, and it refers again to the
    public law that I had just cited, Submerged Lands, and it says,
    quote:
        For example, the Park Service would continue to have
    administrative responsibility for submerged lands adjacent to
    park lands, and it says, And the Navy would have jurisdiction
    over submerged lands adjacent to the lands of its own
    facilities.
        So to your point, when you were talking about Guam, this
    letter does address that the Navy does have authority over its
    submerged--jurisdiction over submerged lands, but this also
    states that the Park Service also has.
        So we'll do--I'll do a little more research, and I just
    thought I'd let you know what I had seen. And thank you very
    much all of you--
        Mr. Brown. If I might--
        Ms. McCollum. --for your testimony.
        Mr. Brown. If I may, just a comment, by extension help your
    research. Attached to my presentation is a copy of a map chart
    done as a part of the development of our Coastal Zone
    Management Plan, which was circulated and given to all of the
    requisite Federal agencies for comment, including Department of
    Interior, and this document set aside and identified those
    waters that are relevant to the National Park Service. And when
    I cited, and when it's cited in the law, and when I cited the
    Virgin Islands National Park and Buck Island Reef National
    Monument as they are cited in the 1705(b)(x) and (xi), it's
    clearly identified here on this map. And if you look at it,
    you'll see what the boundaries are. The water boundaries for
    the National Park Service are identified. They're not out to
    the 3-mile limit. And only on one case between the British
    Virgin Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands in St. John does it
    touch the international boundary. Very narrow point, a point on
    a pin. To the south, to the east, nor to the west are there any
    indications in anywhere under the law as the V.I. National Park
    has defined them that its boundaries, albeit in the water as
    established by Act, are to the 3-mile limit.
        The same is true for Buck Island. That is here. And I have
    this in color if you want to see it, and the exceptions are
    shown as Buck Island as defined here, and the lands identified
    for use by the Navy are also defined here. That's in the
    documents, that's among those things that I submitted to you.
    So it's there for you to review along with it.
        So if, as I pointed out, this was 1978. Why did the
    Department of Interior not make any exceptions or express any
    concerns at that time? And come to this quarter century later
    and decide that it can claim what it does not claim, have a
    right of title to, and further make further claims, if they use
    the analogy they've used, the arguments that they've used,
    further claims against lands, submerged lands within this
    Territory.
        Mr. Radanovich. Does the map, Mr. Brown, have a date on it?
        Mr. Brown. Should be 1978. I have a copy of the original
    which I can't give to you but--
        Mr. Radanovich. As long as we have the information, I think
    it's--
        Mr. Brown. Yes, you have it. And it may be retrievable from
    the Department--the original maps may be retrievable from the
    Department of Planning and Natural Resources.
        And I support the Honorable Commissioner's position as he's
    postulated to this Subcommittee.
        Mr. Radanovich. Very good. Thank you.
        Mrs. Christensen?
        Mrs. Christensen. Just--just maybe one, because--and it
    goes back to the question that you asked, Mr. Chairman, because
    Mr. Brown raised it again, former Senator Brown, that if one
    accepts the Department of Interior's legal interpretation of
    Section 1705(b)(ii), then one might assume they will act,
    eventually lay claim to Charlotte Amalie Harbor, since they
    recently acquired a significant portion of Hassel Island.
        Now, I'm not a lawyer, and my colleagues remind me of that,
    but is not Section 1705(b)(ii) referring to lands owned by the
    Federal Government at the time of this law in 1974, and not
    lands later acquired by the Federal Government? I need to refer
    to Hassel Island, for example, as being recently acquired.
        Mr. Brown. Well, see that is--are you raising the question
    to me? That is the question that is to be answered in the sense
    of who interprets which statement. It, at least to me, on the
    face of it, applies only to what existed at the time, and to
    what extent the Federal Government owned whatever lands it
    owned.
        I can't help but restate, in the Virgin Islands case, it's
    clear on the face of it. The V.I. National Park is identified,
    Buck Island Reef National Monument is clearly identified, and
    they are defined elsewhere in the law, so what else could there
    be?
        Mrs. Christensen. But you're posing the question of
    additional takeover of additional land--
        Mr. Brown. Yes.
        Mrs. Christensen. --and I'm just saying, I'm just asking is
    wasn't the law referring to lands owned at that time?
        Mr. Brown. At that time. And under the circumstances.
        Mrs. Christensen. Well, you know, essentially when I wrote
    to GAO I essentially put forth the same argument that you're
    putting forth now, so I'm not arguing with that.
        Mr. Brown. I see.
        Mrs. Christensen. I'm asking about Charlotte Amalie Harbor
    and all of the other things that you're saying could take--
    could be a taking of the Federal Government. And I'm saying
    that as I read it, and wouldn't you agree that it applied to
    Federal lands owned in 1974?
        Mr. Brown. I don't--I would tend to agree with what you
    said, and I don't see that any way under any circumstances that
    any subsequent acquisitions could be utilized to transpose to
    Charlotte Amalie Harbor or around Green Cay or elsewhere.
        Mr. Radanovich. Unless a new monument was declared.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Brown. Well, Salt River is there.
        Mrs. Christensen. It would come under that law, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Radanovich. Thank you.
        Any further questions, Mrs. Christensen? Forgive me for
    interrupting.
        Mrs. Christensen. I don't think I had any further questions
    at this time. No.
        Mr. Radanovich. All right.
        Ms. McCollum? Guess not.
        OK. I think in closing, it seems to me that I guess the
    concerns that I have with monuments, and I'm very fortunate to
    be able to come here for the first time and see your beautiful
    habitat. It's just a gorgeous place, and I can see everybody's
    need to want to preserve the environment as well as draw a
    living from it. It seems to me that when this issue comes and
    goes whenever GAO decides, there's still going to be the issues
    of cooperating amongst yourselves, and maybe there's other
    avenues to go down as far as even private donations or
    otherwise to build an infrastructure that maintains
    preponderance fisheries and allows people to live, and at the
    same time preserve your glorious resources, because they need
    it. And I think that that is something that everybody should
    strive for.
        So that's my closing, and again, I want to thank Mrs.
    Christensen for making sure that we had everybody here and were
    able to conduct this hearing, and would like to defer to Mrs.
    Christensen for her closing statement.
        Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I also once again just want to thank you for holding a
    hearing, and Ms. McCollum for joining us, and remind the
    audience and the testifiers that written statements are still
    accepted for a period of 2 weeks that would be made a part of
    the record of this formal hearing.
        And I want to just underscore what the secretary has said
    on many, many occasions, and what was reiterated here today by
    the Director of the National Park Service, that their position
    is that Cooperation, Consultation, Communication, and
    Conservation, are their four Cs. To date they have proved
    themselves, proved to me that they mean to incorporate those
    four Cs as they administer both the Department and the National
    Park Service, and I look forward to working with you and
    bridging that communication and cooperation and collaboration
    between the National Park Service and the Department and the
    people of the Virgin Islands, as we've already started to do.
    And I want to thank everybody for taking the time to come out
    here today.
        Mr. Radanovich. With that, our hearing is closed. Thank you
    very much.
        [Whereupon, the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                       -