[Senate Hearing 107-243]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-243
HAROLD CRAIG MANSON NOMINATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on the
NOMINATION OF HAROLD CRAIG MANSON TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH,
WILDLIFE, AND PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
__________
OCTOBER 3, 2001
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
77-181 WASHINGTON : 2001
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BOB GRAHAM, Florida DON NICKLES, Oklahoma
RON WYDEN, Oregon LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
EVAN BAYH, Indiana RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CONRAD BURNS, Montana
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GORDON SMITH, Oregon
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Brian P. Malnak, Republican Staff Director
James P. Beirne, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 1
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho.................... 11
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico............. 1
Manson, Harold Craig, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary for Fish,
Wildlife, and Parks, Department of the Interior................ 3
Murkowski, Hon. Frank H., U.S. Senator from Alaska............... 1
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 10
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 15
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 17
HAROLD CRAIG MANSON NOMINATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in room
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
The Chairman. The committee will come to order. This
morning's hearing is on President Bush's nomination of Judge
Harold Manson to be the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife,
and Parks. Without objection, Judge Manson's written statement
will be entered into the record.
Let me defer to Senator Murkowski to make any opening
statement he would like to make.
[A prepared statement from Senator Domenici follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Pete V. Domenici, U.S. Senator
From New Mexico
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your calling this hearing today and your
continuing efforts to fill the ranks at the Interior Department. I am
confident that Secretary Norton is also appreciative to have other
aides confirmed.
Mr. Chairman, we have an excellent nominee before the Committee
today. He has exceptional records in both the private sector and in
public service.
For example, Harold Manson has served on the Superior Court of
California since 1998. Before his judicial tenure, he served as general
counsel to the California Department of Fish and Game, as well as a
private attorney, a professor, and an Air Force Colonel. At the
Department of Fish and Game, Judge Manson gained expertise in wildlife
and endangered species issues and in water and environmental law.
I look forward to working with Judge Manson on the many wildlife
issues that affect my home state of New Mexico. For example, for the
past few years, I have been working with the Department on the issue of
the silvery minnow. We have made great progress in balancing the need
to protect this endangered species with the need to protect New Mexican
communities who depend on the Rio Grande water for their survival.
I applaud President Bush's nomination of Judge Manson, and I look
forward to working with him on this and many other issues important to
New Mexico.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Good morning, Judge. We look forward to
hearing your statement. You certainly are a qualified nominee
and I hope that we can act on this nomination expeditiously.
Your career, including General Counsel for California's
Department of Fish and Game under a former Senator, Governor
Wilson, given the difficult issues in California, and for that
matter along the entire Pacific coast and lower Colorado, gives
evidence to your ability to contribute to Secretary Norton.
Hopefully, we will see nominations for the Assistant
Secretary for Lands and Minerals and for the Department or the
Bureau of Land Management shortly, to start to fill out the
vacancies of the Department of the Interior. I also hope that
we can move to the nomination of Jeffrey Jarrett shortly, as
well as some anticipated nominations which I understand are
coming from the Department of Energy.
I would note that, in addition to your writings on the
Endangered Species Act and California statutes, you have also
written and lectured on space law and aliens. That is quite a
spread. I do not know if that will serve you well in the
Department, but it probably will not hurt. You can set a
division of who are the space aliens and who are the folks from
space.
But in any event, I will not prolong that line very much
further, other than to wish you well.
The Chairman. Judge, the rules of the committee which apply
to all nominees require that nominees be sworn in connection
with their testimony. Would you please stand and raise your
right hand.
The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you
are about to give to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth?
Mr. Manson. I do.
The Chairman. Please be seated.
Before you begin your statement, I am to ask three
questions that we address to each nominee before the committee.
The first is: Will you be available to appear before this
committee and other Congressional committees to represent
departmental positions and to respond to issues of concern to
the Congress?
Mr. Manson. Yes, I will.
The Chairman. Second question: Are you aware of any
personal holdings, investments, or interests that could
constitute a conflict of interest or create the appearance of
such a conflict should you be confirmed and assume the office
to which you have been nominated by the President?
Mr. Manson. Senator, my investments and personal holdings
and other interests have been reviewed by myself as well as the
appropriate ethics counselors within the government and I have
taken appropriate action the avoid any conflicts of interest.
There are no conflicts of interest or appearances thereof to
the best of my knowledge.
The Chairman. All right. The third question: Are you
involved or do you have any assets that are held in blind
trust?
Mr. Manson. No.
The Chairman. At this point let me invite you, if you have
anyone here you would like to introduce who accompanied you,
we'd be glad to have that occur. Then we would recognize you
for your opening statement. Go right ahead.
Mr. Manson. Senator, my wife Penny wanted to be here today.
She has some work-related commitments in Sacramento, so she's
remaining there, although she understands that this hearing may
be on the Internet and she's interested in following it through
that method.
The Chairman. Well, good. If she's on the Internet, we wish
her well.
Why don't you go ahead with any opening statement that you
have at this point.
TESTIMONY OF HAROLD CRAIG MANSON, NOMINEE TO BE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PARKS, DEPARTMENT
OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Manson. All right. Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski and
members of the committee: I am very deeply honored and humbled
to be here as the President's nominee to be Assistant Secretary
for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, and I'm very grateful for the
confidence that the President and Secretary Norton have
invested in me. And I also would like to thank Secretary of
Agriculture Ann Veneman for her support.
I want to mention that I'm grateful that the committee has
taken time during a period of national crisis to hold this
hearing. Of particular interest to me and to the committee, I
hope, is the fact that we lost a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
employee, Richard Guadagno, in the crash of the jet in
Pennsylvania. He was the manager of the Humboldt Bay National
Wildlife Refuge in California. He was a native of New Jersey
and highly regarded by everyone who knew him. So I would ask
that your prayers be with his family, as I know they are with
all the families affected.
I was born in Missouri, grew up in New Mexico and
California, have spent most of the last 47 years in the Western
United States, living in Arizona, Colorado, South Dakota, and
having visited for recreation purposes Wyoming and Oregon and
Montana and other Western States. I'm a graduate of the U.S.
Air Force Academy and received my law degree from the
University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento,
and served for a number of years on active duty in the U.S. Air
Force.
After I left the Air Force, I practiced law in Sacramento,
and following that experience, as Senator Murkowski mentioned,
Governor Wilson appointed me to be the General Counsel of the
California Department of Fish and Game. I served in that
position for 5 years, until Governor Wilson appointed me to the
bench. I've been a judge since 1998.
I'm also a professor of law at McGeorge School of Law in
Sacramento and I continue to serve in the Air National Guard
with the rank of colonel.
I want the committee to know that I have extreme enthusiasm
for the position to which the President has nominated me. I
think I bring my experience in natural resources issues, a
judicial approach, and an ability to build consensus across
diverse groups.
I want to mention some things in my tenure in California
which I think illustrate that approach. We conserved hundreds
of thousands of acres of wildlife habitat in the coastal sage
scrub habitat in southern California. That's a habitat where
California's most intensive growth and development pressures
exist, and the program that we established was a multi-species
program. It had the support of landowners, environmental
groups, State and local governments, as well as the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
In addition to that, we also conserved hundreds of
thousands of acres in our State version of habitat conservation
plans. The key and essential fact about that was that each of
these were based upon sound science and had the support of
landowners as well. It was a cooperative effort.
Additionally, the fact of which I am most proud in my
public service occurred in 1997, when Governor Wilson signed
into law revisions to the California Endangered Species Act.
I'm proud of that because the Governor had entrusted me with
the administration's negotiating portfolio on that and we spent
4 years building a consensus among landowners, local
governments, agricultural interests, and environmental groups,
and our legislation was passed on a bipartisan basis.
It introduced the concepts of landowner incentives and
requirements for effective species recovery programs. It also
provided for voluntary, locally designed programs to conserve
habitat while allowing agricultural activities to proceed
without the counterproductive effects of a strict regulatory
approach.
I mention these California experiences to illustrate my
commitment to work through natural resources issues on a
consensus basis. I'm completely committed to what Secretary
Norton has described as the four C's: communication,
consultation, and cooperation, all in the service of
conservation.
If I'm confirmed, I will also apply my judicial experience
to issues involving natural resources, and that means two
things: first, every interested party will get a fair hearing.
That means environmental interest groups, landowners, farmers,
ranchers, historic preservation interests, State and local
governments, and resources and recreational user groups.
Second, any decisions that I make or recommendations that I
give to the Secretary will be based upon the weight of the
evidence, and I agree with the President's view and Secretary
Norton's view that these public policies must be informed by
sound science.
This committee voted last summer to confirm the appointment
of Frank Mainella as Director of the National Park Service.
I've had the chance to spend some time with Director Mainella
and she's doing an outstanding job, and I look very much
forward to working with her if I'm confirmed.
The President has also nominated Steve Williams of Kansas
to be the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Dr.
Williams is the Secretary of Wildlife and Parks in the State of
Kansas. I've spent some time with him. He's an outstanding
professional in the field of natural resources management who
will be an asset to the Department of the Interior if he is
confirmed.
Mr. Chairman, I love this great country and the physical
resources that we've been blessed with and I will do my best if
I am confirmed to see that these resources remain a perpetual
source of enjoyment for the American people, and I'd be glad to
answer any questions that the committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Judge Manson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Harold Craig Manson, Nominee to Be Assistant
Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski, Members of the Committee, I am
honored and humbled to appear before you as the President's nominee to
be Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks,
seeking your confirmation vote. I am deeply grateful for the confidence
in me shown by the President and Secretary Norton. I also thank
Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman for her support.
I appreciate that the committee has taken time to hold this hearing
in a time of great national crisis. As you know, the Department of the
Interior's personnel, including the U.S. Park Police and the law
enforcement elements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others
have played vital roles in responding to the current crisis. Most
regrettably, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employee, Richard
Guadagno, lost his life in the crash of the jet in Pennsylvania. Mr.
Guadagno was the refuge manager of the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife
Refuge in my home state of California. He was highly regarded by all
who knew him and he embodied the very best attributes of the talented
people in both the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park
Service. I ask that your prayers be with his family as they are with
all the families affected by this great tragedy.
As an American, I am a descendant of Africans, Europeans, and
Native Americans. Born in Missouri, I grew up principally in New Mexico
and California, where I now reside. I've spent 42 of the last 47 years
living in the western United States, including, in addition to New
Mexico and California, Arizona, Colorado, and South Dakota. I've had
the great pleasure of visiting other western states for recreation,
including Oregon, Wyoming, and Montana.
I received my undergraduate education at the United States Air
Force Academy. Following my graduation from the Academy, I served two
years as a Minuteman missile launch officer. The Air Force then sent me
to law school and I received my law degree at the University of the
Pacific, McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento. I served in various Air
Force judge advocate assignments in the U.S. and overseas, including
four years on the Air Force Academy faculty, in the Department of Law.
During my faculty tour, I was assigned, with several other faculty
members, to report to the Secretary of the Air Force concerning the
state of Air Force compliance with environmental laws on its overseas
bases.
After leaving active duty in 1989, I practiced law with a major
Sacramento law firm for three years. I was then appointed by California
Governor Pete Wilson to the newly created position of General Counsel
of the California Department of Fish and Game. I held that position for
five years, after which the Governor appointed me to be a judge. I have
served on the Superior Court in Sacramento since 1998. I've also been
on the faculty of McGeorge School of Law since 1992. I continue my
military service in the Air National Guard, with the current rank of
colonel.
Apart from unmitigated enthusiasm for I what think is the best job
in Washington, I offer my experience in natural resources law and
policy, an ability to build consensus across diverse interest groups,
and a judicial approach to decision-making.
During my tenure with California's Department of Fish and Game, we
conserved hundreds of thousands of acres of wildlife habitat in an
innovative multiple species planning program in Southern California's
coastal sage scrub habitat. That habitat, home to hundreds of
potentially at-risk plant and animal species, stretches across the five
counties in which California's most intensive growth and development
pressures exist. Our natural communities conservation program had
bipartisan support as well as the support of landowners, resource
users, local governments and environmental interest groups. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service also was a partner.
In addition to our large scale multiple species plans, during my
tenure at California Fish and Game, we pioneered habitat conservation
plans, HCPs, using our state Endangered Species Act. At one point
during the 1990's, we had more HCPs in the state of California under
state law than existed in the entire rest of the country under federal
law. Each of our state HCPs was based on the scientific judgments of
our biologists and involved the cooperation of landowners. Again,
hundreds of thousands of acres of habitat were conserved while allowing
economic activities to proceed.
In all of my public service, I have had no prouder moment than in
1997 when Governor Pete Wilson signed into law amendments to the
California Endangered Species Act. I had been entrusted with the Wilson
administration's negotiating portfolio on that legislation. We worked
diligently for four years to build a consensus among environmental
groups, landowners, local governments, and agricultural interests. We
listened to everybody. Eventually, our legislation, conceived by a
Republican administration, was introduced by three Democratic state
legislators and won bipartisan passage. The legislation placed into the
California Endangered Species Act the concepts of landowner incentives
and requirements for effective species recovery programs. The
legislation also provided for voluntary, locally designed programs to
conserve habitat while allowing agricultural activities to proceed
without the counterproductive effects of a strict regulatory approach.
I mention my experiences in California to illustrate my commitment
to work through environmental and natural resource public policy issues
on a consensus basis whenever possible. In that regard, I am completely
committed to what Secretary Norton describes as the ``4 C's'':
communication, consultation, and cooperation, all in the service of
conservation. I strongly support Secretary Norton's philosophy that the
federal government must be a partner to state and local governments,
individuals and nongovernmental organizations affected by or interested
in natural resource policy.
If I am confirmed, I will also apply my judicial experience to the
issues involving our national parks and natural resources. First, every
interested party will get a fair hearing: environmental interest
groups, landowners, historic preservation interests, state and local
government, and recreational user groups. Second, any decisions I make
or recommendations I give to the Secretary will be based on the weight
of the evidence. I agree with the view expressed by both the President
and Secretary Norton that our natural resources public policies must be
informed by sound science.
There are a number of important issues facing our National Park
System. One of the significant issues is the backlog of deferred
maintenance projects. I support the President's initiative to eliminate
this backlog over the next five years.
This committee last summer voted to confirm the appointment of Fran
Mainella as Director of the National Park Service. I have had the
opportunity to spend some time with Director Mainella and she is doing
an outstanding job. Working with her is something I most look forward
to, if I am confirmed. The President has also nominated Steve Williams
to be Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Dr. Williams is
the director of wildlife and parks in the state of Kansas. I've also
spent time with him. He is an outstanding professional in the field of
natural resources management who will be an asset to the Department if
he is confirmed.
I also look forward to, if I am confirmed, the opportunity to work
with the talented and dedicated field employees of the National Park
Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I have great respect
for these professionals who ensure the preservation of America's
greatest treasures every day.
Mr. Chairman, I love our great country and the physical resources
with which we have been blessed. If confirmed, I will do my best to see
that our resources remain a perpetual source of enjoyment for the
American people.
I'll be pleased to answer any questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for that statement. Let
me ask a few questions, and I'm sure the other members here
will also have questions.
The National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 provides that
the purpose of the national parks is ``to conserve park
resources while providing for the enjoyment of the same in such
manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations.'' One of the major management
challenges of the Park Service has been to properly balance
those two legislative mandates, the mandate of conservation and
the mandate of recreation.
The current Park Service management policy interprets the
Organic Act to mean that when there's a conflict between
conserving park resources and values and providing for the
enjoyment of those resources, conservation is to predominate. I
wanted to ask if you agree with that policy that conservation
of park resources is the primary mission of the National Park
Service?
Mr. Manson. Well, those two mandates on their face seem to
be in conflict, but to me it's not necessary to view them as
inextricably or intractably in conflict. We face this type of
situation with our own personal assets. We want to conserve our
personal assets, our homes, our finances, to pass on to our
children and future generations, but at the same time we have
to use and enjoy them as well.
It seems to me that they are of equal importance, looking
at the statute and interpreting statutorily. But in particular
cases one may yield to the other, depending upon the
circumstances. And I would look at every circumstance very
carefully to understand that we have to achieve both of those
purposes.
The Chairman. Well, let me bring it down to a specific. The
Park Service has recently implemented proposals the
significantly reduce or ban snowmobile use in many national
parks, in particular Denali National Park and Preserve,
Yellowstone, Grand Teton National Park. Do you support those
proposals?
Mr. Manson. Well, you may know that those proposals,
particularly at Yellowstone, have been the subject of
litigation. The litigation was recently settled at Yellowstone
and the Service is preparing, the Park Service is preparing, a
new environmental impact statement on that. As I said in my
opening statement, I would look carefully at the weight of the
scientific evidence before I would make a decision in any
particular case.
If the environmental impact statement shows significant
impacts that can't be mitigated, then I certainly would support
measures to eliminate those impacts by regulating snowmobile
use in those parks.
The Chairman. Just going back to your previous answer
there, we are in agreement, I hope, that the Organic Act makes
conservation of the resource the predominant mission of the
park, and only to the extent that can be accomplished
consistent with use and enjoyment is the use and enjoyment
permitted. Is that your understanding, too?
Mr. Manson. Well, it comes first in the statute and as a
judge I would say that it takes precedence.
The Chairman. I think it not only comes first, it says ``to
provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by
such means as will leave them unimpaired,'' ``them'' being the
``natural and historic objects of the parks,'' ``will leave
them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.''
Mr. Manson. Right. I agree with that mandate.
The Chairman. Okay. Let me ask about the Endangered Species
Act. You indicated your extensive involvement with the
California Endangered Species Act. If confirmed as the
Assistant Secretary, you'll be very involved, of course, with
the Federal Endangered Species Act. Do you have views as to
that act, any changes you think are needed in that act? Do you
support it the way it now exists? What is your thought on the
enforcement, your future actions in trying to enforce that act?
Mr. Manson. Well, I did have an experience with it in my
previous job in California, because we worked closely with the
Fish and Wildlife Service on issues of mutual concern, and of
course the State had an obligation to ensure that its
activities did not violate the Federal Endangered Species Act.
I think there are a couple of things that could be done
with the Federal Endangered Species Act. To the extent that
there has been a lack of focus either statutorily or
regulatorily or on the ground in effective species recovery
programs, I think that's something that requires attention. I
think that the ultimate purpose of the act should be to recover
species to the point where they can be delisted, and I would
hope to have some ability to ensure that that happens, either
as a practical policy or in terms if regulatory action if
necessary. We've got to recover species, not just leave them on
the critical care list perpetually.
The other thing that I think--another thing that I think
needs to be focused on is the ability of States to be partners
with the Federal Government in carrying out the mandates of the
Federal Endangered Species Act. Now, there are a number of ways
that can be done. Of course, section 6 of the act provides for
cooperative agreements between the Federal Government and the
States, and the Fish and Wildlife Service has over the years
provided grants to the States for various purposes under
section 6.
I would be interested in looking at section 6 and the
regulations under section 6 to see what more we could do to
ensure that the States are partners in recovery and enforcement
under the act.
The Chairman. All right. Let me defer to Senator Murkowski
for his questions.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you very much.
Judge, as you undertake your new responsibility you're
going to find that you're going to be exposed to a myriad of
issues relative to not only the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
but the National Park Service as well. One that comes to mind
is a report that was due from the Department of the Interior in
August of this year under Public Law 106-486, which covers the
cost of high altitude rescues on Denali National Park, Mount
McKinley.
The issue there is that the Park Service provides a
helicopter, a high endurance helicopter that costs about
$750,000 a year. The fee for climbing Denali is $150. It's not
my intent to discourage climbers by any means, but the question
of whether this is a reasonable cost to be undertaken by the
taxpayers of the country or there should be a more reasonable
fee or an insurance program of some kind, which some countries
mandate, to offset the cost of rescue.
I would suggest that, during some leisure time when you're
looking at some of your hobbies, you consider looking into this
matter, I think it puts an unfair burden on the taxpayer. To
get geared up to do that kind of a climb is very expensive.
Obviously, it isn't everybody off the street that can do it and
the preparation costs a good deal. The fee is totally
unreasonable in our opinion and it's a question of costs to the
Department of the Interior.
There is also the danger to those who are involved in the
rescue, and then behind that is a military capability which is
done as part of the training. That was the rescue prior to the
Park Service committing this helicopter capability.
Another issue is that you're going to be managing 54
million acres of national parks in my State of Alaska. That's
more than all the rest of the National Park Service land
stewardship put together. As a consequence, many of the
mandates associated with activities in the park consist of the
old parks, the new parks, and the park preserves. These are
distinctions that Alaskans have had to live with relative to
the use of those parks. It's important that policymakers
understand the differences and the management scenarios.
There is an issue outstanding relative to Park Service
action that was taken some time ago in the elimination of
commercial and sports fishing in Glacier Bay. That's a point of
agitation. The excuse the Park Service used was they didn't
want any commercial activity. Yet, the cruise ship industry is
a commercial activity. There was no justification based on any
scientific evaluation of the inadequacy of the State of Alaska
Fish and Game in managing the fisheries resources in there. So
it wasn't done for conservation purposes.
It seemed to have been done as a policy of the last
administration, who objected to the modest amount of commercial
activity associated with commercial fisheries from the
residents and the Native people in the nearby village of Hoonah
and so forth. We feel this is an injustice. The State is
pursuing this, and we would certainly request that you
familiarize yourself with the issue.
The Park Service has even forbidden the gathering of
seagull eggs, which is a traditional harvest of the Native
people. It's pretty hard to understand the justification for
that kind of mandatory action based on no explanation of need.
I would hope that we would have an opportunity to have you
visit Alaska in the near future. The number one tourist
destination in our State is Denali National Park, the number
two is Glacier Bay. Glacier Bay is open about 90 days a year.
We suggest that there should be perhaps two cruise ships a
day. The Park Service is very much opposed to that. There's
probably not a better way to see a national park than off the
deck of a cruise ship from the standpoint of the footprint. The
idea of roads into that area are not realistic. Flying into the
area is often difficult because of adverse weather. There is no
airfield, with the exception of Gustavus, outside the park.
So my point is we feel that there are unrealistic policies
mandated by the Park Service, pretty much at the whims of the
Park Service and not based on any science. They'll tell you the
reason is whales and so forth, but most of the whales are
outside the park. That's where you go to watch the whales, at
the north end of Chichigof Island. Alaskans know this, but
there seems to be a mandate among some in the Park Service, not
based on any logic, that somehow visitors should be discouraged
to come into that park in the most practical way, which is the
cruise ship.
There are 12 months of the year and there are only 3 months
when the cruise ships come into that area. To suggest that 2 a
day is unreasonable is not based on any science.
The last issue is relative to Denali National Park. The
Park Service supports one entry into the park, the existing
entry. What's happened out on the highway, unfortunately, is
that it's developed into almost a strip mall. It's not very
pretty, and the congestion and the disappointment of visitors
who come up and can't be accommodated into the park, mandates
that this six million acre park needs another entry, an entry
from the north end.
We've proposed that. There has been a preliminary study
done some years ago. There's going to be another review. But
clearly, I think that the Park Service has an obligation to
address relief and access.
I would also point out the issue of snow machines in the
park and the park preserves are an issue that you're going to
find crossing your desk. I hope that you will recognize the
guarantees made for access relative to snow machiners who enjoy
that portion of the park that is suitable for snow machining
and familiarize yourself with some of the other points that I
have made. These parks are among some of the crown jewels of
the Park Service and they need attention.
Mr. Manson. Senator, I have heard about some of those
issues. I don't have an intimate familiarity with them. I've
not yet seen the report on the rescue, but I can assure you
that if I'm confirmed that I will become intimately familiar
with each of the issues that you've raised.
Senator Murkowski. Well, Mr. O'Toole behind me perhaps can
help you, if he's still here. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Thomas.
STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Judge. Glad to have you here.
Mr. Manson. Thank you very much.
Senator Thomas. I look forward to you moving into this
position.
One of the things that I hope will be fairly high on the
agenda: We passed a bill in 1998 with respect to parks and one
of the things rather specifically was the concession management
aspect of it, which of course is vital to the enjoyment of
visitors.
To this time, the direction set forth in that law has not
been implemented by the Park Service. Indeed, all they have
done is just extend the contracts and so on. We want to get
those contracts being made more in a professional way. Do you
have any reaction to that?
Mr. Manson. Well, I have been informed that the Park
Service is working on all of the contracts presently. I haven't
had any involvement in that as of yet. It's an issue that is
important to me from a personal point of view because I believe
that there ought to be public-private partnerships and the
ability of the private sector to contribute to the experience
in the national parks under the law.
So that's something that I will take a close look at.
Senator Thomas. I just think there needs to be--and I
talked to the Parks Director just yesterday, as a matter of
fact, and hopefully there'll be some movement there. We need to
get a little bit of private sector expertise in there to help
do something that basically is a private sector thing and so
on.
Also, there are some discussions about fees, the way fees
are charged, the demonstration fee program specifically, and
then the various other fees that people talk about. I happen to
favor the demonstration fee program, but think that there ought
to be a limit on the individual fees that are charged. What's
your reaction to that?
Mr. Manson. Well, my experience thus far with the parks, my
personal experience outside of this particular issue, is that
the fees that I have been familiar with have been relatively
reasonable. I think there is a point where it starts to detract
from the ability of people to have access to the parks. It's
something that requires constant attention.
Senator Thomas. I think 4 or 5 years ago the Fish and
Wildlife Service indicated that the recovery for grizzly bears
had been obtained in terms of numbers. We'd been promised last
year from the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service that
would be under way. It is not under way. What we have, I think
as you suggested, is more emphasis put on listing than we have
on recovery.
It would seem to me that, specifically in the case of
wolves and grizzly bears, there ought to be some real efforts
made there to acknowledge the recovery.
Mr. Manson. I agree that we need to look carefully at
grizzly recovery and wolf recovery and ultimately with the goal
of potentially de-listing. This is an area where the States
definitely have a role to play. I know that Montana and Wyoming
have been active in this particular area, and if I'm confirmed
I would hope that we can work with those States to get to a
position where ultimately both grizzlies and wolves can be de-
listed.
Senator Thomas. We've been pushing to get into the
Endangered Species a provision that would require that when a
listing is made there also has to be simultaneously a recovery
plan.
Mr. Manson. That was, by the way, an element of our
legislative proposals in California under the State Endangered
Species Act, that there be a strategy in place for recovery.
That's certainly something that I have found to be worthwhile
in the past.
Senator Thomas. Just as an observation, on the upper
Colorado a couple of fish that have been listed for some time,
I think from 1989 until now there has been an expenditure of
$80 million on a couple of fish. Some of them are almost trash
fish. It looks like there ought to be some kind of measurement
in terms of when you do this how much you spend on these
issues.
I happen to be one who thinks--some think any species are
all equal. I happen to think that is not the case. It would be
interesting if you'd take a look at that upper Colorado fish
opportunity.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Craig.
STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR
FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We are all looking forward to working with you in your new
capacity, and the experience you bring I think is going to be
extremely valuable.
Idaho, unfortunately, has a very small unit of the Park
Service. We have a national monument and, although it has been
expanded greatly in the last year and a half by the former
President and out of that expansion has created some
interesting conflicts of management between the BLM and the
Park Service, I think we can probably work those out, and we'll
look forward the working with you to resolve some of them.
But Idaho is in a state of crisis, and it is in a state of
crisis as a product of the Endangered Species Act. A former
colleague of mine who is now Governor of our State, who served
as chairman of a subcommittee here for a good many years trying
to reform the Endangered Species Act, found out that the past
administration was really very unwilling to do that, and I
think that my colleague from Wyoming has said it well: They are
more intent on listing and using it as a tool to stop human
activity on our public lands than to develop cooperative
relationships that would allow both a recovery of a species and
then the human species the continue to prosper and flourish.
States like California, Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska, New Mexico
that are dominantly public lands States, find some very real
conflicts. That former colleague, the current Governor of
Idaho, Dirk Kempthorne, has set up an endangered species office
within the State, not unlike I think the experience you've had
in California, to try to resolve some of these conflicts.
One that is now raging in our State is the wolf conflict.
The past administration and the former Secretary of the
Interior, at the direct objection of the State and its citizens
and the congressional delegation, planted wolves in Idaho. Of
course, in that environment there is no predator to control the
predator, and that wolf is populating at a very rapid rate.
It is now taking domestic livestock in ever-increasing
numbers, and it appears within its range and its pack areas to
be taking an unprecedented amount of wildlife. Our elk herds no
longer have calves in that area, our deer herds no longer have
fawns.
It is really an issue that cries out for de-listing. I
believe the test the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
established there is a super-test, if you will: a certain
number of packs within the State of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho
within that range, that really I think goes beyond that. At
that point they say we could de-list, the State could come in
and participate in the management, and the State would like to
do that.
The great tragedy there, and I've watched it in the eyes of
the human species that lives there, is that there was great
anger when those wolves were first placed there. Then out of
that grew frustration as they began to see the take of the
wildlife. Now wolves are very visible. On the outskirts of
communities, they're killing the domestic dogs, and people now
feel threatened and therefore grow fearful.
Mothers no longer allow their kids to walk a mile from the
ranch house out to catch the local school bus. They drive them
out there, and on the rack of the pickup is the 30.06 with a
scope on it. They're going to protect their kids against the
wolves.
That should not be the Federal Government at work, but it
is, and they are ignoring a local population that grows
increasingly angry. The tragedy of that, as you can well, I
would guess, expect, is that when that happens the very species
we allowed to be placed there is now at risk at an ever-higher
number, and it will be at risk in a silent, quiet way as the
citizens of that area feel they have to defend themselves and
their property against something that the Federal Government
will not control, or at least argues a kind of control that
doesn't seem to be compatible. That's one area of the State.
The other area of the State that I think you would find
uniquely interesting is--the area I just spoke of is the south-
central area of the State. The other area is right up against
the Canadian border, a county that was historically a logging,
mining county and an agricultural county, still remains a
beautiful county with abundant forests. It's in a high moisture
area, nearly a rain forest type environment, right up against
the Canadian border.
There we have--and my staff and I were just counting, and I
think we have one, two, three, four, five, six or seven species
listed. We have bull trout, we have sturgeon in the Kootenai
River, we have a burbot, which is a new fish just listed as at
risk or threatened, we have bears, wolves, lynx, and caribou.
All of those management areas overlap each other and are in
conflict with each other, and if you step out of one into
another there's a whole new prescription of what you can or
cannot do, and the end result is that county's just literally
been economically shut down. It is now at risk, its communities
are faltering, industries that should still remain robust
there. And one of those ought to be the forest products
industry. Up in that country they grow trees, unlike the inner
Great Basin area of the West that is a good deal dryer, and
they farm well there. It's a unique kind of microclimate.
Yet, that is almost all stopped, and that cries out for a
solution. Now, if you were to poll the people of Idaho they'd
probably not want to get rid of the Endangered Species Act, but
they grow increasingly frustrated and angry when they see the
Federal Government using it as a tool to shut them down and to
shut the economic activity of a dominant public lands State
down. Clearly, in the last 8 years that has been the message
communicated, an unwillingness to put a management plan
together, an unwillingness to de-list, as my colleague from
Wyoming said with grizzly bear, which spills out of Yellowstone
and into the north, the northeast toe of the Idaho boot.
Those are just a few. Then of course we have the Snake and
the Columbia River listed species of salmon, and you had those
in California in the Sacramento Delta country and all of that
issue.
I have no questions for you. I only offer you that as some
of the challenges. I think your early statement that you could
see cooperating relationships develop with States--we should
not use the Endangered Species Act as a tool to shut down human
activity or to deny people the right to live in a State that
they have chosen as their lifestyle. That's exactly what's
happening in Idaho at this moment, and it shouldn't be allowed
to happen.
At the same time, some of our colleagues who are east of
the Mississippi in my opinion have a poor understanding of how
the tool of the Endangered Species Act gets used, and of course
therefore the public pressure for them is to preserve and not
to balance or cooperate or do what I think you've suggested
ought to be done in some of these areas, bring the States into
some of these management plans so that we can develop
cooperation.
Well, enough said. We'll look forward to getting you on the
job so you can begin to work with us. I would hope that we
could make some slight adjustments that allow some reality to
the Endangered Species Act and not allow it to be continually
used by some of our agencies as simply a tool to shut down
human activity. I think that's the wrong approach.
Judge, thank you.
Mr. Manson. Thank you, Senator. I have been on record
supporting cooperation with the States. That'll be very
important if I'm confirmed.
I must say, quite frankly with some embarrassment, that
Idaho is the only State west of the Mississippi that I have not
ever visited, and it sounds like you have an abundance of
issues and an abundance of natural heritage there, and I look
forward if I am confirmed to making an early trip to Idaho.
Senator Craig. Well, that one mistake you've made in your
life we will want to eliminate, and do it very quickly, Judge.
We'd love to have you come to Idaho and to visit with our State
government and our Governor and look at some of these issues
that we think cry out for cooperation. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Well, thank you.
Judge Manson, thank you for being here. We will advise
members that they will have until 5 o'clock this evening to
file with the committee staff any additional questions they
would like the nominee to respond to for the record, and the
committee will stand in adjournment.
[Whereupon, at 10:18 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed you will find my response to the
written question I received following my nomination hearing before the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday, October 3,
2001.
If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Designate.
[Enclosures]
Response to Question From Senator Cantwell
Question. In testimony for the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, you
highlighted your work in California and the use of habitat conservation
plans (HCPs) to protect endangered species and their habitat. A number
of studies have been done as to the effectiveness of HCPs and the
results have been mixed. Numerous of prominent biologists, including
Stanford University conservation biologist Dennis Murphy, have argued
that some HCPs may be doing more harm then good, and have advocated for
a moratorium on HCPs.
One HCP in my home state of Washington, located on 85,000 acres of
Crown Pacific Ltd. timber lands in Skagit and Whatcom counties,
proposed to exempt from the Endangered Species Act ``take'' provisions
of 28 species of fish and wildlife including coho and sockeye salmon,
bald and golden eagles, Townsend's big-earred bat, and the California
wolverine. However, an analysis of the Pacific Crest Biodiversity
Project, Seattle Audubon Society and Gifford Pinchot Task Force found
that in this case the HCP did not apply the best available scientific
information. For example, the HCP's discussion of fish habitat does not
account for chemical pollution, detrimental changes to stream
temperature, invertebrate food sources, or the timing and intensity of
water flows that are caused by upslope logging and other practices.
Mr. Manson, as Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks,
how would you address these concerns with HCPs and how will you ensure
that the federal government encourages priceless endangered species
populations to actually recover rather than just preventing them from
declining further?
Answer. Based upon my familiarity with Habitat Conservation
Planning activities in California, I have found that the HCP process is
particularly valuable because it enables States, local jurisdictions
and private landowners to work cooperatively toward species
conservation. If confirmed, I will work to ensure the best available
scientific and commercial information is used in both the development
and approval process for HCPs, and that the HCP process is conducted in
an open and collaborative manner.
I am not familiar with the specific circumstances regarding the
Crown Pacific HCP in Washington. If confirmed, I will look into that
situation and report back to you.
As I testified in my appearance before the Committee, I firmly
believe that the primary goal of the endangered species program must be
the recovery of species. While I am not yet familiar enough with the
Fish and Wildlife Service's actual management of the program to provide
specific steps I would initiate if confirmed, I assure you this will be
my clear objective.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Northern California Water Association,
Sacramento, CA, August 20, 2001.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate, Hart
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bingaman: I am writing today to convey the Northern
California Water Association's (NCWA) support for the appointment of
Craig Manson to the position of Assistant Secretary of the Interior for
Fish and Wildlife.
NCWA represents 68 water suppliers and individual farmers who
collectively irrigate over 850,000 acres of fertile Northern California
farmland. Several of our members also deliver water to state and
federal wildlife refuges and a large portion of this land serves as
important seasonal wetlands for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds and
other wildlife.
Mr. Manson has an extensive background in resource management,
including service as General Counsel for the California Department of
Fish and Game. More significantly, I have personally known Mr. Manson
for more than a decade. As a result, I wholeheartedly attest to his
personal judgment and integrity, which will serve the Administration
well. You can be sure that Mr. Manson's background and experience will
be an asset to the Department of the Interior and to the people of the
United States.
Once again, I would like to express our support for Mr. Manson's
appointment.
Sincerely,
David J. Guy,
Executive Director.
______
State Water Contractors,
Sacramento, CA, August 23, 2001.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chair, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Subject: Support for confirmation of Mr. Harold Craig Manson as
Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
Dear Senator Bingaman: The State Water Contractors \1\ strongly
support the nomination of Mr. Harold Craig Manson as Assistant
Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. The State
Water Contractors is an organization that represents 27 public agencies
throughout California that have long-term contracts for water supply
from the State Water Project. The State Water Project provides water
supplies for 22 million Californians and irrigation supplies to one
million acres of prime farmland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District,
Zone 7; Alameda County Water District; Antelope Valley-East Kern Water
Agency; Casitas Municipal Water District on behalf of the Ventura
County Flood Control District; Castaic Lake Water Agency; Central Coast
Water Authority on behalf of the Santa Barbara County FC&WCD; City of
Yuba City; Coachella Valley Water District; County of Kings; Crestline-
Lake Arrowhead Water Agency; Desert Water Agency; Dudley Ridge Water
District; Empire-West Side Irrigation District; Kern County Water
Agency; Littlerock Creek Irrigation District; The Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California (``Metropolitan''); Mojave Water
Agency; Napa County FC&WCD; Oak Flat Water District; Palmdale Water
District; San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District; San Gabriel
Valley MWD; San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency; San Luis Obispo Co. FC&WCD;
Santa Clara Valley Water District; Solano County Water Agency; and
Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to his distinguished public service as Judge with the
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, Mr. Manson spent
seven years as General Counsel for the California Department of Fish
and Game. Mr. Manson supervised the California Department of Fish and
Game's team of 14 attorneys and support staff, oversaw environmental
and other litigation in state and federal courts, drafted legislative
proposals on natural resource issues, represented the California
Department of Fish and Game before other state and federal
administrative agencies and provided policy and legal advice to the
Governor and state agencies on natural resource issues.
We believe Mr. Manson will focus on achieving objectives in a
manner that reflects sensitivity to the environment and to the public
we serve. His years of experience in the field of environmental law and
his expertise in environmental law and regulatory issues, solution-
oriented approach, leadership skills and dedication to public service
make him a fine addition to the Department of the Interior.
I urge you to confirm his nomination.
Sincerely,
John C. Coburn,
General Manager.
______
Sacramento, CA, August 29, 2001.
Hon. James Jeffords,
Chair, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, Dirksen
Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chair, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Hart
Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Support for Confirmation of H. Craig Manson as Assistant Secretary
of the Interior
Dear Chairmen Bingaman and Jeffords: We urge you to support the
nomination of Superior Court Judge, H. Craig Manson as Assistant
Secretary of the Department of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife and
Parks.
During his tenure as the first General Counsel for the California
Department of Fish and Game from 1993 to 1998, Judge Manson
consistently demonstrated an in-depth knowledge and understanding of
the diverse and often complicated natural resource issues affecting
California. In particular, his legal and policy expertise regarding
federal and state Endangered Species Acts, wetlands, water law, the
National Environmental Policy Act and California Environmental Quality
Act, and other natural resource issues, helped ensure the long-term
protection and enhancement of those important resources in California.
Judge Manson approaches all issues with a professional judicial
demeanor, recommending decisions only upon the best scientific
evidence, with absolute fairness and impartiality. His well-known
reputation for thoughtfully listening to and giving consideration to
constituencies on all sides of the issues has earned him great
bipartisan respect over the years from a host of diverse interests.
With his deep understanding of so many of the highly-complex and
diverse resource issues facing California and the Nation, and with no
ties to any special interests, Judge Manson should be expected to make
well-reasoned, prudent decisions as Assistant Secretary which will
benefit the long-term protection, preservation and maintenance of our
country's wildlife, parks and natural resources.
It is particularly important to have a Californian in a key
Interior position, for at least two reasons. First, there is no greater
proving ground in which to be exposed to the greatest diversity of
natural resource issues than in the state of California with its
unparalleled ecological diversity and substantial human population and
resource development needs. Secondly, California, in many ways, is an
excellent microcosm of many National issues that are to surface in the
future.
Judge Manson's proven experience, remarkable depth of knowledge of
natural resource issues, and pragmatic and balanced approach to
decision-making, will greatly aid Department of the Interior policy
formulation.
For all of these reasons, we urge you to endorse the nomination of
H. Craig Manson, as Assistant Secretary of the Interior, and support
his timely confirmation by the full U.S. Senate.
Sincerely,
Angelo K. Tsakopoulos.
Eleni Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis.
______
September 12, 2001.
Senator Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Dirksen Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
Re: Confirmation of Judge H. Craig Manson
Dear Senator Bingaman: This letter is sent to support the
confirmation of Judge Craig Manson for Assistant Secretary of the
Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks. We are attorneys who worked for
Judge Manson for all or part of the four years he was the General
Counsel for the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG). We
commend him without reservation for this important office.
Judge Manson is a skilled and sensitive policy maker with a proven
ability to balance the competing interests of environmental protection
and development, commercial and recreational uses, and government
regulation and individual rights. Judge Manson respected all of these
interests and made sure that each had a voice in DFG's deliberations on
important public policy matters. In his years at DFG, Judge Manson also
showed an impressive command of state and federal environmental laws
and gained a wealth of experience in their application.
Judge Manson has great integrity. Professionally and personally, he
maintained the highest standard of honesty and professionalism during
his tenure at DFG. And he held us to the same standard. Even when
confronted with the volatile conflicts that often seem to pervade the
stewardship of natural resources, Judge Manson maintained, and insisted
that we maintain, a high level of professional courtesy and integrity.
We believe that virtually all of those who dealt with Judge Manson
would say he treated them with courtesy and respect even in the course
of vigorous debate.
Finally, we believe Judge Manson's long record of public service
shows a deep and unwavering commitment to education, good government,
and legal services to the poor. Despite long and demanding days at DFG,
he made time to teach evening courses at the University of the Pacific
McGeorge School of Law. While in private practice and at DFG, he
donated his time to a number of worthy causes. Much to his credit,
Judge Manson also encouraged attorneys in his office to contribute
their own time to legal services programs. ``Service pro bono publico
is a venerable tradition of our profession,'' he wrote in a 1996
memorandum on the subject.
For these reasons, we urge you to confirm Judge Manson as Assistant
Secretary of the Interior. Judge Manson would be a tremendous addition
to the Department of the Interior. He would bring insight and reason to
the office. He would treat with respect everyone who walks through his
office door and would apply the laws he is asked to administer fairly.
We welcome the chance to work with him again on natural resource issues
concerning California and the nation.
Ann S. Malcolm, J. Christopher Beale, Stephen E.
Adams, Nancee Murray, Jennifer Decker,
Joseph P. Milton.
______
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
Washington, DC, September 19, 2001.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Committe on Energy and Natural Resources, Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility (PEER) opposes the nomination of H. Craig Manson for the
position of Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife &
Parks. PEER is a service organization representing thousands of federal
and state employees within land management and wildlife protection
agencies, including the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the National
Park Service--agencies that Mr. Manson would oversee if confirmed.
As Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife & Parks,
Mr. Manson would be the key decision-maker on an array of natural
resource decisions ranging from how to implement the Endangered Species
Act to the direction of our National Wildlife Refuge System. The
position also oversees more than 30,000 permanent employees and
thousands more seasonal and volunteer employees.
Despite the importance of this position, Mr. Manson has spent very
little of his career involved in natural resource or land management
issues. The principal relevant qualification for this position is the
approximately six years in which he served as Chief Counsel to the
California Department of Fish & Game (DFG).
For that reason, more than passing scrutiny of what happened at DFG
during his tenure is appropriate. From accounts collected from scores
of current and former DFG employees who have served in that agency with
Mr. Manson, a disturbing pattern emerges. According to these current
and former colleagues, Mr. Manson's principal role within the agency
was to aid politically-connected developers and other permitees, to
frustrate strict enforcement of resource protection laws and to work,
usually behind the scenes, to weaken interpretations of key statutes
and policies.
One case epitomizes Mr. Manson's tenure at DFG--that of a
whistleblower named Jerry Mensch. Mr. Mensch, a supervising biologist
in the DFG Regional Office responsible for the Sacramento River Delta,
received a direct order from the DFG Deputy Regional Director, Jim
Messersmith, to sign a permit for a Caltrans (state transportation
department) project involving construction on a delta island of a pier
with creosote-coated pilings. Despite Mr. Mensch's protest that the
permit violated specific prohibitions against putting creosote or other
coal tar products into state waters--prohibitions contained in both the
state Health & Safety and Fish & Game Codes--Mr. Messersmith insisted,
intimating that the order emanated from above his level (on the second
tier of hierarchy under the DFG Director). Mr. Mensch signed the
illegal permit but then filed a criminal complaint with the Solano
County District Attorney who in turn filed criminal charges against Mr.
Messersmith. Mr. Messersmith pled no contest to two misdemeanors and
promptly retired.
Mr. Mensch was removed from his position and transferred to a newly
created position that had no discernible duties. Mr. Mensch brought
whistleblower complaints against DFG and top agency officials,
including Mr. Manson. The State of California settled the case for an
undisclosed sum and Mr. Mensch still works at DFG.
As Chief Counsel for DFG, Mr. Manson--
Was involved in the use of tax dollars to hire a private law
firm to defend Mr. Messersmith from the criminal charges;
Participated in decisions to punitively remove Mr. Mensch
from his position;
Hid behind his role as Chief Counsel refusing to answer
questions put to him either by the State Legislature's
investigating committees or Mr. Mensch's attorney, repeatedly
invoking the attorney-client privilege to queries about actions
within DFG leading up to the illegal permit issuance.
The State of California settled the civil suit brought by Mr.
Mensch, paying him an undisclosed sum and ensuring his continued
employment by DFG where Mr. Mensch still works.
While this episode involving Mr. Mensch played out in a public
arena, numerous other similar incidents did not draw attention of the
State Legislature or end up in superior court. Nonetheless, the nature
of DFG actions relative to enforcement of resource protection laws and
its own employees who tried to enforce these laws was, by virtually all
accounts, similarly dismal during Mr. Manson's time there.
It is precisely because Mr. Manson's qualifications for the
position of Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife &
Parks are so thin that whatever presumption owed to him as the
President's selection is commensurately thin. The troubling questions
raised by his tenure at DFG argue strongly against this nomination.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Ruch,
Executive Director.
PS. Enclosed are a short list of questions we respectfully suggest
that you ask this nominee to answer before making a decision on his
confirmation.
Suggested Questions for H. Craig Manson, Nominee for Assistant
Secretary of Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks
On March 3, 1997, ``all managers and supervisors'' within the
California Department of Fish & Game (DFG) received a directive about
``incompatible activities'' containing the following prohibition:
``Employees may not engage in any outside employment, activity or
enterprise (including teaching, lecturing, or writing) with or without
compensation which . . . reflects discredit upon, or causes unfavorable
criticism of, State government or the Department.''
A. As Chief Counsel of DFG at this time, did you review, approve or
author this admonition? If not, why would you not be aware of such a
directive?
B. Do you believe that this admonition is appropriate and
consistent with the constitutional rights of state employees?
C. If confirmed as Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish,
Wildlife & Parks, would you consider issuing a similar directive?
D. What is your view of the proper role of employee free speech
within a federal agency?
News articles reflect your involvement in a DFG whistleblower case
concerning Jerry Mensch, a supervising biologist give a direct order to
approve an illegal permit. In addition, Mr. Mensch filed civil suit
against a number of individuals, including you. Reportedly, that suit
was settled out of court.
E. What was your role in all of the circumstances leading up to the
civil suit filed by Mr. Mensch?
F. In his civil suit what did Mr. Mensch allege that you had done?
G. Did you participate in the settlement discussions to resolve
this case?
H. What is your view today of the merits of that case?
I. Is Mr. Mensch still employed by DFG? If so, in what position?
Given your involvement in a whistleblower case in which it had been
alleged that you were a party to illegal retaliation, what steps would
you take as Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife &
Parks to alleviate employee concerns that you might retaliate against
them for making protected disclosures under the Whistleblower
Protection Act?
Near the end of your tenure at DFG in 1998, an organization called
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) surveyed all
department staff. Nearly one-third of all DFG employees returned the
PEER questionnaires. Some salient responses included:
11. I fear being rebuked for advocating aggressive
environmental enforcement.
34% agreed with this statement; 37% disagreed and 29% declined
to express an opinion.
12. In the past two years I have been directed to ignore an
environmental law, regulation or violation.
20% said yes; 55% said no and 25% expressed no opinion.
13. Some permit applicants/project sponsors receive
preferential treatment after first contacting the Resources
Agency or the Governor's Office.
55% agreed; only 3% disagreed and 42% registered no opinion.
14. [For law enforcement employees only] In the past two years,
DFG management has inappropriately intervened in a criminal
investigation.
35% said yes; 40% said no with 25% saying no opinion.
A. Were you aware of the PEER survey and its results?
B. To your knowledge, did you, as Chief Counsel, or did DFG
management attempt to investigate the underlying concerns raised by
employees in this survey? If so, what was done? If not, why not?
C. Do these survey results trouble you now?
D. What steps would you, if confirmed as Assistant Secretary of the
Interior for Fish, Wildlife & Parks, take to ensure that federal
resource enforcement staff under your purview do not express similar
concerns?
During your tenure as Chief Counsel of DFG, please describe one
instance in which you personally took steps to ensure a higher level of
protection for natural resources within the State of California.
______
State of California--The Resources Agency,
Department of Fish and Game,
Sacramento, CA, September 20, 2001.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Hart
Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: I am writing in support of the nomination of
Judge H. Craig Manson as Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of
the Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
Judge Manson and I have known and worked with one another for the
past eight years. When he was serving as General Counsel of the
California Department of Fish and Game and I was Executive Officer of
the California State Lands Commission, we worked together on a variety
of natural resource and public lands issues in California. Judge Manson
proved himself a dedicated and skilled steward of public resources in
this state, and his contributions as general counsel have lasted long
past his tenure at the California Department of Fish and Game.
I am confident Judge Manson will be a valuable asset at the U.S.
Department of the Interior, and I look forward to working with him
again on important public resource issues. I urge you to confirm Judge
Manson as Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Hight,
Director.
______
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies,
Washington, DC, October 1, 2001.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Frank Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bingaman and Senator Murkowski: I write to share with
you the strong support of the Association for the nomination of Harold
Craig Manson to be Assistant Secretary, Fish, Wildlife and Parks, U.S.
Department of the Interior. As you know, Judge Manson was General
Counsel for the California Department of Fish and Game, during which
time we had the opportunity to work with Craig on many issues of vital
interest to the State Fish and Wildlife agencies collectively. Judge
Manson has extensive knowledge of and experience with fish and wildlife
conservation issues, in particular as they relate to the states'
authorities and responsibilities and with respect to the relationship
between the states and the federal government.
Judge Manson has demonstrated his commitment to both our natural
resources and our citizens through his years of public service in
California. He is a thoughtful, creative and deliberate professional
who seeks to solve problems in ways that advance both conservation and
the needs of our citizens and he has the respect of his colleagues in
this field of endeavor. Judge Manson has the Association's strong and
enthusiastic support.
This Nation, our natural resources, and our citizens would be well
served by having Judge Manson as Assistant Secretary of Fish, Wildlife
and Parks and the Association urges expeditious Committee action
reporting his nomination to the floor for consideration by the Senate.
Thank you for your attention to this important nomination.
Sincerely,
R. Max Peterson,
Executive Vice President.