[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.]
-