- H.R. 1171 AND S. 363: AND OVERSIGHT ON HARRIS NECK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AND HOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OBTAINED TITLE TO THIS LAND AND PROMISES MADE TO THE ORIGINAL LANDOWNERS

[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

H.R. 1171 AND S. 363: AND OVERSIGHT ON HARRIS NECK NATIONAL WILDLIFE
REFUGE AND HOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OBTAINED TITLE TO THIS LAND AND
PROMISES MADE TO THE ORIGINAL LANDOWNERS

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

LEGISLATIVE AND OVERSIGHT HEARING

before the

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE,
OCEANS AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

of the

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

Wednesday, December 15, 2011

__________

Serial No. 112-89

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
72-101 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jeff Denham, CA CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Martin Heinrich, NM
David Rivera, FL Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC John P. Sarbanes, MD
Scott R. Tipton, CO Betty Sutton, OH
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Niki Tsongas, MA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Kristi L. Noem, SD John Garamendi, CA
Steve Southerland II, FL Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
Jon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Mark Amodei, NV

Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director
David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel
------

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, OCEANS
AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

JOHN FLEMING, LA, Chairman
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, AK Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Robert J. Wittman, VA Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Jeff Duncan, SC Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Steve Southerland, II, FL Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Bill Flores, TX Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Andy Harris, MD Vacancy
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Jon Runyan, NJ
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio

------
CONTENTS

----------
Page

Hearing held on Wednesday, December 15, 2011..................... 1

Statement of Members:
Fleming, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Louisiana......................................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Background submitted for the record on the Harris Neck
National Wildlife Refuge............................... 62
Sablan, Hon. Gregorio, a Delegate in Congress from the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands............... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 9

Statement of Witnesses:
Bambach, Dorothy, Conservation Chair, Friends of the Savannah
Coastal Wildlife Refuges, Inc.............................. 15
Prepared statement on the Harris Neck National Wildlife
Refuge................................................. 16
Bamford, Dr. Holly, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Ocean
Services and Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.... 46
Prepared statement on H.R. 1171 and S. 363............... 48
Dohner, Cynthia, Southeast Regional Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.......... 11
Prepared statement on the Harris Neck National Wildlife
Refuge................................................. 12
Farr, Hon. Sam, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.............................................. 2
Prepared statement on H.R. 1171.......................... 3
Gilman, Paul, Ph.D., Senior Vice President and Chief
Sustainability Officer, Covanta Energy Corporation......... 53
Prepared statement on H.R. 1171 and S. 363............... 54
Greer, Evelyn, Board Member, Harris Neck Land Trust.......... 28
Prepared statement on the Harris Neck National Wildlife
Refuge................................................. 28
Kelly, David M., Project Coordinator, Harris Neck Land Trust. 19
Prepared statement on the Harris Neck National Wildlife
Refuge................................................. 20
Kingston, Hon. Jack, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Georgia, Oral statement of........................ 10
Moran, Wilson W., Direct Descendent of Robert Delegal, Board
Member, Harris Neck Land Trust LLC......................... 24
Prepared statement on the Harris Neck National Wildlife
Refuge................................................. 25
Relaford, Winston, Board Member, Harris Neck Land Trust...... 28
Prepared statement on the Harris Neck National Wildlife
Refuge................................................. 29
Thorpe, Rev. Robert H., Pastor, Peaceful Zion Church, and
Former Board Chairman, Harris Neck Land Trust.............. 26
Prepared statement on the Harris Neck National Wildlife
Refuge................................................. 27

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1171, TO REAUTHORIZE AND AMEND THE MARINE
DEBRIS RESEARCH, PREVENTION, AND REDUCTION ACT. ``MARINE DEBRIS ACT
REAUTHORIZATION AMENDMENTS OF 2011''; AND S. 363, A BILL TO AUTHORIZE
THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE TO CONVEY PROPERTY OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC
AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION TO THE CITY OF PASCAGOULA, MISSISSIPPI,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND OVERSIGHT HEARING ON HARRIS NECK NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGE AND HOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OBTAINED TITLE TO THIS
LAND AND PROMISES MADE TO THE ORIGINAL LANDOWNERS.

----------

Wednesday, December 15, 2011

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs

Committee on Natural Resources

Washington, D.C.

----------

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Fleming
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Fleming, Sablan, Bordallo, and
Hanabusa.
Dr. Fleming. The Subcommittee will come to order. The
Chairman notes the presence of a quorum.
Good morning. Today, we are going to have both an oversight
and a legislative hearing. The oversight portion of the hearing
will be the second panel, which will discuss the ``Harris Neck
National Wildlife Refuge and How the Federal Government
Obtained Title to This Land and Promises Made to the Original
Landowners.''
The third panel will be a legislative hearing on two bills,
H.R. 1171, the Marine Debris Act Reauthorization Amendments of
2011, and S. 363, a bill to authorize the Secretary of Commerce
to convey property of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration to the City of Pascagoula, Mississippi.
Dr. Fleming. Since we are dealing with a few topics today,
I would suggest that we go ahead with our first panel and then
give our opening statements for the oversight and legislative
issues preceding each of those panels.
On our first panel today, we will hear from the sponsor of
H.R. 1171, our colleague, Congressman Sam Farr.
Welcome, sir. Like all witnesses, your written testimony
will appear in full in the hearing record, so I ask that you
keep your oral statements to 5 minutes, as outlined in our
invitation letter to you and under Committee Rule 4(a). Our
microphones are not automatic, and so please press the button
when you are ready to begin.
I also want to explain how our timing lights work, and I
think you are probably familiar with that. Four minutes under
green, 1 minute under yellow, and then red. We would certainly
ask that you wrap up your testimony at that point.
So I welcome our friend and colleague, Mr. Sam Farr from
California. And, sir, your 5 minutes are ready to go.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SAM FARR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Farr. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Fleming and
Ranking Member Sablan. I used to be a member of this Committee,
and it is a pleasure to be back. I have always thought that
this Committee has one of the most interesting jurisdictions in
the world because, with the exclusive economic zones throughout
all of the territories and atolls and everything that the
United States owns, the United States has more jurisdiction of
the ocean than any country in the world, and that is a big
responsibility.
And I bring to you today a bill that is reauthorizing what
is already in the law, a bill that was created by the Chairman
in the Senate, Inouye, who obviously knows the issues from
representing Hawaii, and the late Senator Ted Stevens, who was
a big advocate for healthy oceans in Alaska. And that is why my
principal cosponsor on this bill is Don Young. And I am very
pleased to work with him on this.
This legislation is, as I said, a reauthorization. It has
been referred to two Committees: the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee and this Committee. The Infrastructure
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation held a
hearing in July, and the Chairman, Frank LoBiondo, became a
cosponsor with that hearing. And I hope that you will all join
in this, too. I don't think there is much controversy here. It
is bipartisan. I have 31 cosponsors, including 8 members of
this Subcommittee.
What I just wanted to point out is that we have an
incredible problem. Mr. Sablan certainly knows this, from the
Northern Marianas. But this is the northern Hawaiian Islands,
the sanctuary out there. There is absolutely nothing out there.
I mean, there are no man-made facilities, there are no
communities. This just washes up from the beach, just what is
in the ocean. And our oceans have become, frankly, a dumping
ground, and all that stuff that is dumping into the oceans--I
mean, it is almost a landfill in the ocean--is creating all
kinds of economic problems as well as health-risk problems to
the environment.
So this bill, in reauthorizing, is supported by a large
group, a diverse group, from the American Chemistry Council,
the Chamber of Shipping of America, the Jersey Coast Anglers
Association, all the way to, obviously, the Ocean Conservancy
group.
What is happening is the dumping of literally 14 billion
pounds of trash every year into the ocean is accumulating, and
we have to find ways, one, to clean out what is out there that
we can get a hold of, and, two--and where it is and where it is
going--but we also have to monitor what is happening. And with
the tragic tsunami in Japan, we have estimates of 20 million
tons of debris that are floating our way as a result of that
tsunami, which just went in and came out and everything that
came out with it ended up in the ocean.
We also saw--I remember when I was on this Subcommittee,
Congressman Saxton from New Jersey, at the time was just
adamant about what happened in his State following the medical
waste that washed ashore in the 1980s and essentially changed
the whole environment for New Jersey because it cost them about
$3.6 billion in tourism revenue that was lost when nobody
wanted to go to the beaches because of all the medical waste
that was washed up. We found in the Northeast that the lobster
industries lost about $250 million from fishing gear that is
there.
So this bill--and I have to wrap it up--is a
reauthorization, and it updates the language. And I would hope
that we would get strong support for it. I would be glad to
answer any questions you might have.
I would like to also show you one other photograph here of
the amount of fishing gear that was acquired. This is what they
call ghost nets. We are locating them and dragging them out,
because they just continue to catch fish and, you know, for
nothing but to wipe them out. So fishermen hate these things
because it is competitive with their catch, so that is why you
have such strong support by the fishing community.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Farr follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Sam Farr, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California

Thank you Chairman Fleming and Ranking Member Sablan for holding a
hearing on the Marine Debris Act Reauthorization Amendments of 2011
(H.R. 1171), which I introduced in March. I sincerely appreciate the
bill's bipartisan support from 31 cosponsors, including 8 Members of
this Subcommittee on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Chairman, our beaches and oceans have turned into landfills.
Prime tourist destinations, which were once pristine coastal
environments, are now littered with garbage. According to the National
Academy of the Sciences, we dump more than 14 billion pounds of trash
into the ocean every year. This trash, which is formally referred to as
marine debris, spans everything from derelict fishing gear that has
been lost at sea, to large kitchen appliances, to single-use bottles
and plastic bags.
The issue of marine debris is critical now more than ever due to
the tragic tsunami that occurred off of the coast of Japan in March
2011. According to recent estimates, between 5 and 20 million tons of
debris resulting from the tsunami is floating across the Pacific Ocean.
Models developed by the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) to track and predict the movement of this debris suggest that it
could wash up on the shores of the Northwest Hawaiian Islands by this
winter and the west coast of the United States by 2013.
Marine debris is not just an eyesore. It has enormous economic
impacts. For instance, in the summers of 1988 and 1989, New Jersey and
New York experienced beach closures when medical marine debris washed
ashore. Estimates suggest that the total loss in tourism revenues was
as much as $3.6 billion.
Another stark example of marine debris' economic impacts is
derelict fishing gear. Studies show that over $250 million in
marketable U.S. lobster is lost each year in derelict fishing gear.
Additionally, in the Puget Sound, a single derelict gillnet will catch
and kill 4,368 crabs over its lifetime. In a time where our fishermen
are already facing economic challenges, losses of this magnitude are
simply unacceptable.
Marine debris also causes economic harm to boaters. Submerged
debris poses significant navigational hazards and results in up to $792
million per year in damages to vessels resulting from boating
accidents.
The only way to protect these industries and ocean-users and their
contributions to the national economy is to reduce the amount of marine
debris in the environment and to prevent it from getting there in the
first place. In 2006, Congress first recognized the significance of
this issue and took decisive action to elevate marine debris as a
national concern by passing the original Marine Debris Research,
Prevention, and Reduction Act of 2006. This legislation was introduced
in the Senate by Senators Daniel Inouye and Ted Stevens and later
passed in the House by voice vote under Republican leadership. The law
signed by President Bush strengthened federal efforts to address this
serious problem by establishing the National Oceanic Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Marine Debris Program.
Now it is time to reauthorize this law, which is the purpose of
H.R. 1171, the Marine Debris Act Reauthorization Amendments of 2011.
H.R. 1171 would ensure that the NOAA Marine Debris Program continues to
address marine debris and its impacts on the economy, navigation
safety, and the marine environment. This legislation continues the
Interagency Marine Debris Coordinating Committee (IMDCC), an
interagency partnership led by NOAA that is intended to avoid
duplicative efforts. As the lead marine debris agency, NOAA sets
research priorities, leads derelict gear removal activities,
establishes public private partnerships, and develops non-regulatory
outreach strategies to prevent marine debris. This work also requires
that NOAA coordinate with and serve as a resource to regional, state,
local, territorial, and tribal entities
The reauthorization also amends the original law in order to allow
NOAA to more comprehensively address the issue of marine debris. First,
the reauthorization includes a formal definition of marine debris,
formulated in consultation with NOAA and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG),
as mandated by the original law. As noted in NOAA's submitted
testimony, the desired definition has been updated since the
introduction of this Act, and I fully support amending the definition
to be consistent with what NOAA and USCG have since agreed on.
Reauthorization also requires NOAA to improve efforts to reduce and
prevent land-based sources of marine debris, where 80% of debris in the
ocean originates. Next, H.R. 1171 calls upon NOAA develop products and
tools that will be available to the public, such as protocols for
monitoring marine debris. Finally, the language suggests that NOAA
cooperate with the international community, which has and will be
critical in dealing with Japan's tsunami debris.
Since its inception in 2006, the NOAA Marine Debris Program has
demonstrated its ability to successfully minimize the consequences of
marine debris to our national economy through countless examples. The
tourism industry, for instance, benefits from the annual International
Coastal Cleanup, which leaves beaches trash free and more desirable as
vacation destinations. This event, which is organized by the Ocean
Conservancy and partially funded by the NOAA Marine Debris Program, is
the world's largest single day marine debris cleanup event. In 2010,
the United States had over 240,000 volunteers from every territory and
all 50 states who cleaned up 4.5 million pounds of trash from our
coastlines. In Louisiana alone, volunteers removed over 7,500 pounds of
debris from the beaches, while in Florida's 2nd Congressional district,
over 1,857 people participated.
Funding for the International Cleanup comes from a portion of the
Program's budget that is dedicated to grants. From 2005-2009, the NOAA
Marine Debris Program provided grant funding for 86 projects with only
$6.3 million. As a result of the minimum 50% matching requirement that
was put in place by the original law, these funds have leveraged an
additional $7.9 million in non-Federal funds. H.R. 1171 maintains this
matching requirement and ensures that projects like the International
Coastal Cleanup continue in order to safeguard the coastal tourism
economy.
The NOAA Marine Debris Program also promotes the fishing economy.
Derelict fishing gear can have devastating effects on the value of
fisheries. When traps, nets, pots, and other gear are lost at sea, they
continue to catch and kill valuable, harvestable species in a process
called ghost fishing. Although the Marine Debris Program has already
made significant strides in working with the fishing community to
address and recover derelict fishing gear, the Reauthorization
specifies that NOAA must ``develop effective non-regulatory measures
and incentives to cooperatively reduce the volume of lost and discarded
fishing gear and aid in its recovery.'' These efforts are becoming
increasingly critical, as a recent economic study found that for each
derelict net that is retrieved from the marine environment, the fishing
industry saves $6,285 due to reduced mortality of target species. This
demonstrates that ignoring the problem will simply cost the fishing
industry money.
In the Chesapeake Bay, research shows that there could be as many
as 120,000 derelict traps that are actively ghost fishing. For this
reason, the NOAA Marine Debris Program has undertaken an effort to
partner with fishermen, academia, and the private sector to reduce the
prevalence of derelict gear to ensure that valuable seafood isn't lost.
Through a NOAA partnership with the Virginia Institute of Marine
Sciences, fishermen in the Chesapeake Bay region are paid to find to
find and retrieve derelict traps, and thus far, over 34,000 derelict
pots have been removed. In sum, this project has reduced the economic
impacts of derelict gear on the fishing industry, while creating jobs
for watermen.
In a separate effort to address derelict fishing gear, NOAA has
engaged in a public-private partnership with two companies, Covanta
Energy, of New Jersey and who will be testifying at the hearing, and
Schnizter Steel Industries, of Hawaii. In this partnership called
``Fishing for Energy,'' fishing gear recycling bins have been installed
in 25 ports across the country. These bins provide a no-cost solution
to fishermen for disposal of old fishing gear. This alternative to
costly landfill disposal also provides fishermen with a voluntary
incentive to retrieve any derelict gear they might come across while
out on the water. Covanta Energy and Schnizter Steel then take the gear
and recycle it in order to produce electricity. This public-private
partnership provides another example of how the existing law has
allowed NOAA to find efficient and effective solutions to the problem
of marine debris, and the reauthorization will allow for these
partnerships to be strengthened.
Finally, NOAA is working to make boating a safer activity by
reducing navigational hazards caused by marine debris. For example,
following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the Gulf of Mexico, the
increased abundance of submerged marine debris posed a significant
navigational hazard to boaters and fishermen. To minimize this risk,
NOAA partnered with USCG, the Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources, and several private nautical mapping companies to survey
over 1,500 square nautical miles along the Gulf Coast. Through this
effort, over 7,000 submerged items were located and mapped in offshore
fishing and shrimping grounds. The fishermen and boaters were then
provided maps and information and outreach materials in order to help
them reduce collisions, thus reducing the number of incidents that
would require additional Federal response and resources.
Navigational safety may also become a major issue in the Pacific as
a result of Japan's tsunami. To prepare for this, the NOAA Marine
Debris Program has provided information to the U.S. Department of
Transportation for a Maritime Advisory concerning Japan tsunami debris.
The advisory urges U.S.-flagged ships and mariners to be vigilant while
transiting the North Pacific between Japan and the West Coast of the
United States. The advisory includes information on potential types of
debris and provides instructions for reporting significant sightings of
floating debris. In addition, NOAA convened a meeting with IMDCC
representatives in June 2011 in order to determine the role of each
federal agency in a potential tsunami debris response. Representatives
of the IMDCC have agreed to help NOAA in pursuing methods for assessing
and tracking tsunami debris and have established a Japan tsunami
workgroup.
The examples provided here have resulted in strong support from the
private sector and the fishing industry for the Reauthorization.
Private sector and fishing industry entities including the American
Chemistry Council, the Chamber of Shipping of America, and the New
Jersey Coast Anglers Association have submitted support letters for
H.R. 1171, which are attached to the end of this testimony.
As the tsunami debris approaches the United States, Congress must
take action to prepare by passing H.R. 1171. Existing law has allowed
for the formation of successful partnerships both within the Federal
government and between the Federal government and the private sector.
These partnerships have successfully leveraged the resources and
capacity of NOAA, enabling the Marine Debris Program to make
significant strides in tackling the pervasive challenge of marine
debris, with very limited resources. In fact, the NOAA Marine Debris
Program truly serves as a model for how successful and cost-effective
federal programs should operate.
We must act now to ensure that this Program and its partnerships
are not only maintained, but strengthened, and H.R. 1171 is the
necessary vehicle to ensure our country can address the impacts of
ocean trash on marine ecosystems, coastal economies, and navigation
safety. Thank you again for this hearing, and I look forward to working
with this subcommittee to move this legislation forward.
______

Dr. Fleming. Well, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Sablan, do you have any questions?
Mr. Sablan. I have just one, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Fleming. OK. Sure. Go ahead.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome, Congressman Farr. And thank you for your
leadership in addressing marine debris.
As you mentioned in your written testimony, marine debris
resulting from the tragic tsunami off the coast of Japan is
approaching the United States territories, including the
Northern Marianas and Guam. Can you explain how your bill could
help address this problem, please?
Mr. Farr. Well, because of the authorization and because of
the coordination among Federal agencies, what we do is we
monitor it now. We monitor it by--we can tag it with satellite
tags if it is big enough, if it is something on the surface.
And that way, you know, you know where it is going.
And then what we have been able to do by, like, retrieving
these nets is, if you can retrieve it--and the Coast Guard is
on mission. They have been very effective in retrieving nets. I
work out of--I represent Monterey, California, a big fishing
community. Fishermen have lost their nets. Those are very
expensive; they are thousands and thousands of dollars. They
get caught on dredges. And we are now having the original
fishing boat that lost its net, because it only has the gear to
be able to pull it out, they are going out with the Coast Guard
and with the National Marine Sanctuary to retrieve it.
So you have to know where it is, first. And, as you know,
the oceans are vast and deep and mysterious. So it is finding
it.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Farr, for your
testimony today. A very important issue, and, certainly, we are
going to be working on this going forward.
Mr. Farr. OK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I hope we
can get a markup and get it to the Floor so that we can get it
reauthorized. The last time the bill was passed, there wasn't a
single negative vote in either the Senate or the House, so it
is a popular issue.
Dr. Fleming. All right. Very good. Thank you, sir.
Our next panel is another Member, Mr. Kingston. He has not
arrived yet, so we will move forward with our opening
statements, and hopefully we will see Mr. Kingston very soon. I
will begin with mine.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN FLEMING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Dr. Fleming. Our story begins in 1865, when, at the end of
the Civil War, Ms. Margaret Ann Harris leaves 2,688 acres of
land to Mr. Robert Delegal, a former slave, and his heirs in
her final will and testament. For the next 75 years, 75 African
American families lived on Harris Neck, and they raised their
families, their crops, and invested their future in this land.
In 1942, the Federal Government decided that they needed
this exact land to build an Army airfield, and they used their
condemnation authority to acquire it. The residents who lived
on Harris Neck were given 2 weeks to move themselves and all of
their belongings. They were allegedly told that they could
reclaim their property at the end of World War II and that they
would be fairly compensated.
Sadly, it appears that neither of these promises were kept.
It is now nearly 70 years since their property was condemned,
and, since that time, the 2,688 acres have been used as a
failed county airport for drug smuggling, illegal cattle
grazing, gambling, and as a unit of the National Wildlife
Refuge System.
While we are not going to solve this controversy today, I
am holding this hearing at the request of Congressman Jack
Kingston, who represents this area and who believes, as I do,
that the descendants of those who owned the property in 1942
should have this opportunity to tell their story before the
House Natural Resources Committee.
Let me close by asking unanimous consent to submit for the
record the last will and testament of Margaret Ann Harris; a
copy of the United States Court of Appeals case in 1982; the
1985 report of the United States General Accounting Office; a
letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to a Reverend
Robert Thorpe; and a resolution unanimously adopted by the
McIntosh County Board of Commissioners in 2007. The resolution
concludes with the assertion that, ``Commissioners hereby
recognize the Harris Neck Land Trust and encourage and support
the Trust with its efforts to regain these 2,688 acres of
Harris Neck from the Federal Government.''
[NOTE: The information submitted for the record by Dr.
Fleming can be found beginning on page 62. The last will and
testament of Margaret Ann Harris and copy of the U.S.Court of
Appeals case have been retained in the Committee's official
files.]
Dr. Fleming. I am now pleased to recognize our Ranking
Member. And before I do recognize him, I want to also recognize
our good friend, Congressman Jack Kingston from Georgia, whose
district includes the issue at hand.
And we thank you, sir, for joining us this morning. And we
will give you an opportunity to testify in just a moment.
So, with that, I am now pleased to recognize our Ranking
Member from Northern Marianas, Congressman Sablan, for any
statement he wishes to make.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Fleming follows:]

Statement of The Honorable John Fleming, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs

Good morning, today, we are going to have both an oversight and
legislative hearing. The first panel of witnesses will address a
painful experience in our nation's history and I will reserve my
comments on the legislative proposals until we conclude this portion of
the hearing.
Our story begins in 1865 when at the end of the Civil War, Ms.
Margret Ann Harris leaves 2,688 acres of land to Mr. Robert Delegal, a
former slave, and his heirs in her Final Will and Testament.
For the next 75 years, 75 African-American families lived on Harris
Neck and they raised their families, their crops and invested their
future in this land. In 1942, the federal government decided that they
needed this exact land to build an Army Airfield and they use their
condemnation authority to acquire it.
The residents who lived on Harris Neck were given two weeks to move
themselves and all of their belongings. They were allegedly told that
they could reclaim their property at the end of World War II and that
they would be fairly compensated. Sadly, it appears that neither of
these promises were ever kept.
It is now nearly 70 years since their property was condemned and
since that time the 2,688 acres have been used as a failed county
airport, for drug smuggling, illegal cattle grazing, gambling and as a
unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
While we are not going to solve this controversy today, I am
holding this hearing at the request of Congressman Jack Kingston who
represents this area and who believes, as I do, that the descendants of
those who owned this property in 1942 should have this opportunity to
tell their story before the House Natural Resources Committee.
Let me close by asking unanimous consent to submit for the hearing
Record, the Last Will and Testament of Margret Ann Harris, a copy of
the United States Court of Appeals case in 1982, the 1985 Report of the
United States General Accounting Office, a letter from the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to Reverend Robert Thorpe and a Resolution
unanimously adopted by the McIntosh County Board of Commissioners in
2007. The Resolution concludes with the assertion that: ``Commissioners
hereby recognizes the Harris Neck Land Trust and encourages and
supports the Trust with its efforts to regain these 2,688 acres of
Harris Neck from the Federal Government''.
I now recognize the Ranking Minority Member for any statement he
would like to make at this time.
______

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GREGORIO SABLAN, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS

Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Chairman Fleming. And I
look forward to hearing the testimony about the issues and
views with us today.
Today, we will hear testimony from witnesses regarding the
history of Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge. I look forward
to learning more about this important issue.
We will also examine Senate Bill 363, introduced by Senator
Wicker. This bill will simply authorize a land exchange between
the City of Pascagoula and NOAA, which has been agreed upon by
both parties.
Finally, I am very pleased that my colleague and good
friend, the distinguished gentleman representing California's
17th Congressional District, Congressman Farr, testified
earlier on his bill, on H.R. 1171, the Marine Debris Act
Reauthorization Amendments of 2011. As someone who is
passionate about the well-being of our oceans, I find marine
debris to be a particularly concerning issue.
Marine debris and any discarded or abandoned manmade
objects that enter the coastal or marine environment of the
Great Lakes, the majority of this trash, from plastic bottles
to derelict fishing gear, breaks down very slowly and can float
thousands of miles on ocean currents. We now know that trash is
not only accumulating on the world's beaches but is gathering
in the most remote parts of the ocean. This litter is more than
an eyesore. Marine debris poses a serious threat to fishery
resources, wildlife and habitat, as well as human health and
navigational safety.
The spiraling whirlpool of trash between California and
Hawaii, which is popularly known as the ``Pacific Garbage
Patch,'' is one of several areas of highly concentrated marine
debris in the Pacific Ocean. By skimming the water with fine
nets, scientists have discovered that in some parts of this
vast Pacific garbage patch the plastic outweighs tiny marine
creatures six to one.
In March of this year, the tsunami in Japan created
scattered patches of marine debris in the Pacific Ocean that
are visible by satellite. This debris has the potential to
litter our shores, from the islands to the West Coast, over the
next 5 years. Last year, in just 1 day, over 1,000 volunteers
cleared more than 6,000 pounds of marine debris from the
beaches on the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, my
district. And in a similar effort this year, almost 5,000
pounds were collected.
The national and international efforts on the part of NOAA,
working with the United States Coast Guard and other agencies,
have been highly successful in identifying, removing, and
preventing marine debris.
Marine debris is hazardous to humans and wildlife, clogs
our beautiful oceans and beaches, and has devastating economic
impacts. It is for these reasons and many, many more that I
strongly support H.R. 1171. And I look forward to hearing from
our witnesses today.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sablan follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs

Thank you, Chairman Fleming. I look forward to hearing the
testimony about the issues and bills before us today.
Today, we will hear testimony from witnesses regarding the history
of Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge. I look forward to learning
more about this important issue.
We will also examine S.363, introduced by Senator Wicker. This bill
will simply authorize a land exchange between the City of Pascagoula
[PASS-KA-GOO-LA] and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, NOAA [No-ah], which has been agreed upon by both
parties.
Finally, I want to also welcome my colleague and good friend, the
distinguished gentleman representing California's 17th Congressional
District, Congressman Farr, who will testify on his bill, H.R. 1171,
the Marine Debris Act Reauthorization Amendments of 2011. As someone
who is passionate about the well-being of our oceans, I find marine
debris to be a particularly concerning issue.
Marine debris is any discarded or abandoned man-made object that
enters the coastal or marine environment or the Great Lakes. The
majority of this trash, from plastic bottles to derelict fishing gear,
breaks down very slowly and can float thousands of miles on ocean
currents. We now know that trash is not only accumulating on the
world's beaches, but is also gathering in the most remote parts of the
ocean. This litter is more than an eyesore--marine debris poses a
serious threat to fishery resources, wildlife, and habitat, as well as
human health and navigational safety.
The spiraling whirlpool of trash between California and Hawaii,
which is popularly known as the Pacific Garbage Patch, is one of
several areas of highly-concentrated marine debris in the Pacific
Ocean. By skimming the water with fine nets, scientists have discovered
that in some parts of this vast Pacific Garbage Patch, the plastic
outweighs tiny marine creatures six to one. In March of this year, the
tsunami in Japan created scattered patches of marine debris in the
Pacific Ocean that are visible by satellite. This debris has the
potential to litter our shores, from the islands to the West Coast,
over the next 5 years.
Last year, in just one day, over one thousand volunteers cleared
more than 6,000 pounds of marine debris from our beaches on the
Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands and in a similar effort
this year, almost 5,000 pounds were collected. The national and
international efforts on the part of NOAA, working with the United
States Coast Guard and other agencies, have been highly successful at
identifying, removing, and preventing marine debris.
Marine debris is hazardous to humans and wildlife, clogs our
beautiful oceans and beaches, and has devastating economic impacts. It
is for these reasons and many more that I strongly support H.R. 1171,
and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today.
______

Dr. Fleming. I thank the Ranking Member, Mr. Sablan, for
his statement.
Now I would like to recognize Mr. Kingston for his
statement on this important topic.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JACK KINGSTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Mr. Kingston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking
Member and Committee members and staff. I know we have been
working closely with you over the last couple of years on this.
I greatly appreciate your having the hearing. Harry Burroughs
has been especially helpful to us.
One of the things that I want to emphasize, this is the
first hearing that the Harris Neck residents have ever been
able to have, and yet this is a situation that has been going
on really for decades. And it is a question to me of, what was
the original intent of the U.S. Government, was there
compensation that was fair to the residents, and was the
original intent followed in terms of reverting the land back to
the residents of it?
And you, Mr. Chairman, just outlined the situation, so I
won't reiterate that. But I will say that, from my involvement
with it, the parties have been very good. Fish and Wildlife has
been very responsive in terms of answering questions. We have
had a meeting or two in my office that I think have been
productive. There has been a lot of good faith. And we all
realize that we have somewhat inherited this from people who
previously sat in our chairs, you might say.
So today we are going to hear from Winston Relaford, the
Chairman of the Land Trust; Reverend Thorpe, a former Board
Chairman and Harris Neck Elder; former residents Evelyn Greer
and Wilson Moran, also on the Board; and Project Coordinator
David Kelly. And I have met with them. We are also going to
hear from Dot Bambach from Friends of the Savannah Coastal
Wildlife Refuge and Cynthia Dohner from Fish and Wildlife
Service.
And what I would rather do than--I would rather yield the
balance of my time to the panel and give them an opportunity to
be heard. So thank you very much, again, for having this first
hearing on this. I think this is going to be very productive
for all of us.
Dr. Fleming. Very good. Well, I thank the gentleman, and I
thank you for requesting this hearing.
And I will now invite the panel to come forward, and we
will begin hearing from the witnesses.
OK. The panel members today, which Mr. Kingston has already
introduced, but I will go back through and ask them to come
forward. I welcome all the witnesses to the panel. We
appreciate your time today.
We will hear testimony from the Region 4 Director of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ms. Cindy Dohner; Ms. Dot
Bambach, representing the Friends of the Savannah Coastal
Wildlife Refuges; and Mr. David Kelly, Project Coordinator,
Harris Neck Land Trust; Mr. Wilson Moran, who is a direct
descendant of Mr. Robert Delegal; Reverend Robert Thorpe,
Pastor, Peaceful Zion Church; Ms. Evelyn Greer and Mr. Winston
Relaford, who are both Board Members of the Harris Neck Land
Trust.
Thank you, panel, for joining us today. Hopefully everyone
is sitting in the seat with their name in front of them.
Sometimes that is a challenge.
Ms. Dohner, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. And you
may have heard me explain the light scenario. You have probably
testified before.
And I will go through that real quickly for panel members
before I again recognize Ms. Dohner.
When you testify, the green light says you are within the
first 4 minutes of your testimony. The yellow light says you
are in the last minute of your testimony. When it turns red, if
you haven't finished, we would ask that you go ahead and wrap
up immediately.
So, with that, I will recognize Ms. Dohner.

STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA DOHNER, SOUTHEAST REGIONAL DIRECTOR, U.S.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Ms. Dohner. Good morning, Chairman Fleming and members of
the Subcommittee. I am Cynthia Dohner, the Southeast Regional
Director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within the
Department of the Interior. As the Regional Director, I oversee
and coordinate the services and programs across the Southeast
in 10 States and Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about
the history of Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge and its
ecological value and importance to the American public.
Jurisdiction over these lands was transferred to the
Service in 1962. What we know about the condemnation of these
lands by the Department of Defense during World War II is
limited to two Federal court cases, a General Accounting Office
report, and other information provided by the Harris Neck Land
Trust. The Service is not in possession of the original records
pertaining to DOD's condemnation of these lands.
In my written statement, the historical background
indicates that DOD condemned 2,687 acres of land for use as an
airfield during World War II in the early 1940s. About 20 years
later, the land was transferred to the Service to be managed as
a national wildlife refuge. Since then, the Federal court
rulings and the GAO report found that there was no evidence of
improper procedure in DOD's condemnation of these lands.
These lands serve as an important link in the chain of
refuges along the Atlantic coast that provides migratory birds
with important areas for resting and feeding as they make their
journeys north and south. Harris Neck Refuge has a variety of
habitats, ranging from live oak forest to salt marshes and
freshwater impoundments. It is home to numerous resident
species: bobcat, whitetail deer, bald eagles, and more than 342
species of birds, including an endangered bird.
The refuge is one of 18 stops along the Georgia Colonial
Birding Trail and has been designated as an Important Bird Area
by the National Audubon Society. It is best known for its
incredible viewing opportunities of the endangered wood stork
during nesting season. The Woody Pond Colony is the largest
breeding colony of wood storks, with nearly 500 nesting pairs.
This is one of the most stable and productive colonies in the
country and is key to recovering this species.
The staff station at Harris Neck Refuge has expertise to
actively manage the refuge and its habitat for the benefit of
these species. The Service's management of the Refuge ensures
that visitors--about 90,000 a year--are able to enjoy wildlife-
dependent recreational opportunities on the Refuge, including
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, hiking and
biking trials. There is an auto tour route, and there is an
environmental education program.
These ecological and historical values of Harris Neck are
increasingly important as the population in the Southeast
region continues to grow. These natural habitats are key to
sustaining fish and wildlife along the East Coast. It is the
Service's responsibility and obligation to ensure the
conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats for the
benefit and enjoyment of the public. We also have the
responsibility to take care of more than a dozen historic
properties on the Refuge, and consider it an important part of
our work.
The Refuge is part of this community, and we strive to be a
good neighbor and a good partner. As we pursue our mission, we
have reached out to the community, including the Harris Neck
Land Trust, to understand their concerns. We recognize the
historical relationship that members of the Land Trust have to
these lands. As such, the Refuge ensures the Land Trust members
are provided access to the Gould Cemetery, which is within the
Refuge, and some members of the land trust are afforded
unlimited access to Crabber's Dock.
The Refuge belongs to the American people. The Service is
charged by statute under the National Wildlife Refuge
Administration Act with managing these lands for the benefit
and enjoyment of the public now and in the future. Under our
legal mandates, the Service does not have the administrative
authority to dispose of the Refuge, given its significant
ecological value.
I would like to conclude by saying the condemnation of
private property sometimes presents difficult issues,
especially in wartime. Some may see these situations and
decisions as unfair. The Service is not aware of any unfair
treatment or unlawful activity related to this condemnation.
We believe this Refuge plays an important role in the
quality of life for all citizens in the nearby communities.
Given the current economic climate, the significance and value
of affordable recreational opportunities where families can
connect with fish and wildlife in the outdoors as well as
create memories that will last a lifetime can't be
overemphasized.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
today. I will be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dohner follows:]

Statement of Cynthia Dohner, Southeast Regional Director,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

Good morning Chairman Fleming and Members of the Subcommittee. I am
Cynthia Dohner, Southeast Regional Director for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) within the Department of the Interior. As
Regional Director I oversee and coordinate management and policy for
the Service's programs across the Southeast, which includes 10 states,
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to testify
about Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge in McIntosh County, Georgia,
and its ownership history. Harris Neck NWR was established in 1962 and
today includes 2,824 acres of saltwater marsh, grassland, forests, and
managed wetlands. Because of this great variety in habitat, many
different species of wildlife, especially birds, are attracted to the
refuge throughout the year. In the summer, egrets, herons, and the
endangered wood stork, nest in the swamps, while in the winter,
concentrations of migratory birds use the refuge. Harris Neck NWR
serves as an important link in the chain of refuges along the Atlantic
seaboard.
Early Ownership of Harris Neck Lands
Since the lands for the Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge were
not transferred to the Service from the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) until 1962, the Service is not in possession of the original
records pertaining to the federal government's acquisition of these
lands. We do know, however, that two federal court rulings have upheld
the condemnation of these lands, and a U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) report issued in 1985, opined that just compensation had been
paid for these lands.
The historical background we do have on these lands indicates that
between 1929 and 1932, the Civil Aeronautics Authority (CAA)
established an emergency airfield at Harris Neck denoted as two
airstrips on a 1935 U.S. Navy Aviation Chart. Based upon this existing
airstrip, in 1943, the United States through the Department of Defense
condemned 2,687 acres of Harris Neck land for use as a war-time
airfield during World War II. At the conclusion of the war, the federal
government conveyed the land to McIntosh County, Georgia, in June 1948
for use as a county airport under the Surplus Property Act of 1944. The
Service understands the county held the land until February 1961, when
it reverted to federal ownership under the FAA because the county was
not operating it in accordance with the 1948 agreement. In September
1961, the FAA declared the property surplus and in May 1962, under the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, transferred
it to the Service to be managed as a unit of the National Wildlife
Refuge System.
Based on the GAO report, the Service understands that once
Declarations of Taking were filed, compensation was set aside in
advance of a final judgment; and compensation was ultimately provided
to landowners in 1948 when a U.S. District Court approved the judgments
for condemnation. In addition, the Service is not aware of any
assurances then or since that these lands could be restored to the
former owners at the conclusion of World War II. Federal court rulings
over time have upheld the action of the Department of Defense and the
compensation paid for those lands. The GAO's report concluded the same
in its report based on available records.
As the Service continues to pursue its wildlife conservation
mission at Harris Neck, we also work with members of the Harris Neck
Land Trust to ensure access to Crabber's Dock and a boat ramp built by
the Service in 1985 and permitted to the Barbour River Watermen's
Association to ensure access to a valuable fishery. In addition, the
Service has held meetings with representatives of the Land Trust as
recently as 2010 to pursue an ongoing dialogue and learn more about the
early history of these lands. So far, those efforts have not led to the
discovery of any new documentation that would shed additional light on
the history of the Harris Neck lands relative to this action.
The Refuge and its Benefits
Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge is an important component of
the National Wildlife Refuge System. It supports a variety of habitats
ranging from live oak forests to salt marshes and freshwater
impoundments. The refuge is home to numerous species, including
bobcats, white-tailed deer, bald eagles, and endangered gopher
tortoises. In addition, more than 342 species of birds utilize the
refuge, including roughly 83 species of nesting birds.
The mature maritime forest, best recognized by the stately live
oaks draped with Spanish moss, is important to a number of migratory
birds including the painted bunting--one of the highest priority
songbirds in the southeastern United States for conservation. This
species is experiencing precipitous population declines primarily from
the loss of these forests and the associated shrub habitat that
represents the younger, developing stages of the forest. The painted
bunting is the signature songbird of Harris Neck NWR with the refuge
hosting one of the greatest densities of nesting pairs on the mainland
in the southeast. In addition, the painted buntings' brilliant and
colorful plumage is one of the primary attractions for the vast
majority of bird watchers that come to the refuge.
Harris Neck NWR is an important stop along the coast that form the
Colonial Birding Trail and it has been designated as an Important
Birding Area by the Audubon Society. The refuge is best known for its
incredible viewing opportunities of the federally endangered wood stork
colony during nesting season. The Woody Pond stork colony is the
largest breeding colony in Georgia with nearly 500 nesting pairs making
it one of the most stable and productive colonies in the country. This
site plays a key role in moving the wood stork toward full recovery.
The refuge's expanse of coastal wetlands and upland forests also
plays an important role in the cooperative planning and habitat
management efforts of the South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative.
This initiative, developed as part of the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture,
is a collaboration of federal, state, and non-governmental
organizations to manage and protect habitats for high priority
migratory birds within the coastal region of the southeast.
The Service is responsible for protecting historic properties on
lands it owns or manages under laws such as the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act.
Several historic properties, including the Gullah-Geechee community of
Harris Neck, have been identified through archaeological investigations
on the refuge since the 1980s.
With a four-person staff and a budget of roughly $449,000, Harris
Neck NWR provides public use opportunities, including two annual deer
hunts, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, more than five miles
of hiking and biking trails, and interpretation/environmental education
programs, to roughly 90,000 visitors this year. Two public boat ramps
on the refuge provide access for saltwater anglers. Additionally, the
public can enjoy wildlife viewing along a four-mile auto tour route
known as Wildlife Drive. In 2010, McIntosh County received $48,309
through the Service's refuge revenue sharing program and a similar
amount is anticipated for 2011.
Conclusion
The ecological and historical values of Harris Neck NWR are
numerous and increasingly important as the population of the coastal
region of the southeastern U.S. continues to grow, especially along the
coast of Georgia. The refuge is vital to ensuring the conservation of
fish and wildlife resources along the Georgia coast for future
generations to enjoy. In addition, these refuge lands serve an
important conservation objective, particularly with regard to the
endangered wood stork and other high priority migratory birds.
Harris Neck NWR is an important link in the network of National
Wildlife Refuges along the east coast of the United States providing
protected, high quality habitat for hundreds of species of migratory
birds. Moreover, Harris Neck NWR is easily accessible by the public to
enjoy the wildlife this refuge supports. It is the Service's
responsibility and obligation to ensure the protection of these species
and the habitats in which they reside.
The condemnation of private property sometimes presents difficult
issues, especially in time of war. Some may see these situations and
decisions as unfair. However, it does not mean that people were not
fairly compensated, or that laws and regulations were not followed
appropriately. The Fish and Wildlife Service is unaware of any unfair
treatment or unlawful activity incident to the condemnation of this
property.
It is important to understand that this issue has been reviewed
over the years by both the U.S. District Court in Georgia and the U.S.
Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit, which both found that just
compensation had been awarded in the condemnation of this property.
Also, the GAO confirmed in its report that the actions of the federal
government had been legal and appropriate under rules established for
condemnation of property, fair compensation, and subsequent land
conveyances. Moving forward, the Service is open to further discussions
if any new information becomes available.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you again for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the history of Harris
Neck National Wildlife Refuge. I'll be happy to answer any questions
you may have as best I can.
______

Dr. Fleming. I thank you, Ms. Dohner.
Before we go to our next witness, I want to ask unanimous
consent that the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Kingston, who just
testified, be allowed to sit with the Subcommittee and
participate in the hearing.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Ms. Bambach, you are up next for 5 minutes, and we are
ready to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF DOROTHY BAMBACH,
FRIENDS OF THE SAVANNAH COASTAL WILDLIFE REFUGES

Ms. Bambach. Good morning. My name is Dorothy Bambach. I
represent the Friends of the Savannah Coastal Wildlife Refuges.
I also have the support of Georgia Ornithological Society,
National Audubon, and the National Wildlife Refuge Association.
Thank you very much for inviting me today.
Our Friends group is a nonprofit organization that supports
and advocates for our seven local national wildlife refuges,
including Harris Neck. We also promote public understanding of
the need to protect and preserve wildlife and wildlife habitat.
Our 281 dues-paying members come from all walks of life--
professionals, blue-collar workers, sportsmen, retirees, and
others. The one thing we all have in common is that we care
passionately about our local refuges and are willing to invest
our time, our money, and our sweat to maintain and protect
them.
The 85,000-plus annual visitors to Harris Neck are also a
diverse group. As Cindy has already mentioned, they are hunters
and fishermen, crabbers, shrimpers, cyclists, paddlers, Scout
troops, birders, garden clubs, butterfly clubs, photographers,
nature watchers, wildlife watchers, hikers, joggers, and school
groups. They come from all over the United States and several
foreign countries, and they bring much-needed revenue to local
businesses with each one of their visits.
Here are a few direct quotes that I received from some of
the regular visitors:
``Try not to let your jaw hit the ground at the sight you
will behold at Woody Pond, perhaps the most amazing wader
rookery in the entire State.''
``I bike and fish at Harris Neck at least once a week
because the peace, quiet, and wildlife are just unbelievable.''
``Harris Neck is a source of beauty, family recreation, and
outdoor education for us, and has been for many years.''
And, finally, ``A highlight of any visit to Harris Neck is
meeting people from all over who have stopped in with their
cameras, tripods, and binoculars.''
Personally, I have never met anyone who was unenthusiastic
about their experience at the Refuge.
And I know Harris Neck well because I am a frequent
volunteer there. In the past 11 years, I have accrued more than
3,300 volunteer hours, most of them at Harris Neck, and I have
driven over 30,000 miles in service to the Refuge. My
experience as a volunteer has allowed me to see firsthand what
a valuable and enduring asset Harris Neck is to the local
community and the Nation.
And I empathize greatly with the families of the Harris
Neck Land Trust for the sacrifices they made during this
country's World War II efforts. But I strongly support the
Refuge, and I do not want to see it diminished by converting
any part of it to residential or commercial use.
Although the Refuge System was not involved in the original
1943 acquisition of the property, the system has proven to be
an excellent steward of the land for the past 30 years. The
Refuge has identified and protects vestiges of a number of
different communities that occupied the land over centuries,
not just the Gullah-Geechee families of the Harris Neck Land
Trust, but also Native American settlements and burial grounds,
antebellum plantations, a mansion from the pre-war estate era,
and, of course, the World War II airfield.
I should notice that the plantations that are within the
Refuge boundary historically were the Peru, Gould, and King
Plantations. The plantation of Margaret Ann Harris was south
and west of the Refuge. And that will--while she did will her
property to Mr. Delegal, none of those properties are within
the Refuge boundary.
Continued Federal ownership and control will assure that
descendants of all traditions--Native American, local families,
and war veterans alike--know that they and future generations
will be able to experience the land and environment on which
their ancestors once lived. Losing Harris Neck to development
would be an economic, cultural, and environmental tragedy. We
ask the Subcommittee to ensure that the Refuge remains intact,
undisturbed, and under the ownership and control of U.S. Fish
and Wildlife.
Thank you for allowing me to testify today. I invite each
of you to come for a visit to Harris Neck. I will ensure you a
private tour of the Refuge, and I guarantee you will be
informed and absolutely amazed by what you see.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bambach follows:]

Statement of Dorothy Bambach, Conservation Chair,
Friends of the Savannah Coastal Wildlife Refuges, Inc.

My name is Dorothy Bambach. I represent the Friends of the Savannah
Coastal Wildlife Refuges, Inc. (``FSCWR'') and also have the support of
Georgia Ornithological Society, National Audubon and the National
Wildlife Refuge Association. I appreciate this opportunity to submit
testimony to the House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and
Insular Affairs.
FSCWR is a non-profit organization whose mission is to support and
advocate for the seven refuges within the Savannah Coastal Refuge
Complex (which includes Harris Neck NWR) and to promote public
understanding of the need to protect and preserve wildlife and wildlife
habitat. We fund special projects, provide volunteer labor, and conduct
public outreach programs. We are proud to boast 281 dues-paying members
after only 4 years of existence. Our membership is diverse and includes
educators, hunters and fishermen, medical and business professionals,
blue-collar workers, scientists, and retirees, among others. The one
thing that all of us have in common is that we care about our local
national wildlife refuges with sufficient passion to be willing to
invest our time, money and sweat to maintain and protect them.
Visitors come to Harris Neck with a wide variety of interests. The
refuge is used by hunters and fishers, crabbers and shrimpers,
cyclists, paddlers, scout troops, birders, butterfly and garden clubs,
photographers, nature- and wildlife-watchers, hikers and joggers, and
school groups.
The refuge's man-made Woody Pond is a particular
favorite with birders, photographers and wildlife watchers;
wingsoverga.com comments: ``try not to let your jaw hit the
ground at the sight you will behold. . .perhaps the most
amazing wader rookery in the state.''
Local resident Janet Ritter Yeager, told me, ``We
decided to move to the Harris Neck area because of the
opportunity to hike and ride bikes in the refuge's unique
natural environment.''
Fisherman Jim McMahon says he visits the Harris Neck
fishing docks at least once a week, because ``the peace, quiet
and wildlife are just unbelievable.''
``The refuge has been a source of beauty, family
recreation, and outdoor education for us over the years.''--
Jessica Aldridge, St. Marys, Georgia
``A highlight of any visit to Harris Neck is meeting
people from all over the East Coast who have stopped in with
their cameras, tripods and binoculars.''--Hunter Hurst,
Shellman Bluff, Georgia
Harris Neck NWR is located in McIntosh County on the Georgia coast,
about 20 miles south of the city of Savannah. A brief summary of how
Harris Neck came to be a refuge is in order. Most of the land on which
the Harris Neck refuge is situated was purchased by the military early
in World War II for use as a pilot training facility by the Army Air
Corps. I can understand why this particular location might have been
attractive for an airbase. The site stood on a point of land that was
surrounded on three sides by waterways and extensive, low-lying
saltmarsh, thus giving unobstructed approach and take-off routes for
pilot trainees. The property also contained a Civil Aeronautics
Authority emergency airfield and a deep-water dock, which might have
been considered helpful to transport men and supplies during
construction of the base. And there was a 28-room mansion (the old
Lorillard estate) on the property that could provide immediate shelter.
After the war ended, when the military decommissioned the base it
was required, based on my understanding of federal surplus property
disposal rules, to seek a viable public use for the site. The property
was therefore conveyed in 1948 to McIntosh County for a municipal
airport facility. When the county failed to fulfill its agreement to
operate the airport, the property was taken back into federal custody
in 1961 and once again designated as surplus property.
Federal rules for property disposal specify that surplus land be
offered first for use by other federal executive agencies. The
Department of the Interior expressed interest in acquiring the land as
a wildlife refuge and the property was transferred for that purpose in
1962. It should also be noted that GSA Regulation Sec. 102-75.25
requires that a federal agency ``fulfill its needs for real property so
far as practicable by utilization of real property determined to be
excess by other agencies. . .before it purchases non-Federal real
property.'' In other words, the refuge system should not purchase
nearby privately held land for use as a refuge as long as surplus
federal land is both available and suitable in the same general area,
which it was in the case of Harris Neck.
Subsequent to 1962, The Nature Conservancy purchased and
transferred several additional parcels of land to the refuge system,
thus expanding the Harris Neck footprint to what it is today. Of
course, the area looks very different today from its pre-war
appearance: several docks have been added; six shallow ponds were
constructed for use by waterfowl and wading birds; long-leaf pine and
bald cypress have been planted; and areas once cleared have been
allowed to re-forest.
I know Harris Neck well because I am a frequent volunteer there.
After retiring from our work careers, my husband and I moved to
Savannah, Georgia in 1999. I believe that everyone, especially those of
us who have been fortunate in life, have an obligation to give back to
their community in meaningful ways. That philosophy, combined with a
lifelong interest in nature, led me to offer my services as a volunteer
to our refuge complex. In the past eleven years I have accrued in
excess of 3300 volunteer hours, most of them at Harris Neck, and have
put over 30,000 miles on my car in service to the refuge. I have pruned
shrubs, removed invasive plants, given presentations about the refuges
to various groups, organized and conducted bird surveys, monitored
nesting bird colonies, served as a docent in the visitor center, led
field trips and tours, and interpreted the refuge for visiting groups
of children and adults.
My experience as a volunteer has allowed me to see first-hand what
a valuable and enduring asset Harris Neck is for the local community
and the nation. While I empathize with the families of the Harris Neck
Land Trust for the sacrifices they made during this country's World War
II efforts, I strongly support the refuge and do not wish to see it
diminished by converting any part of it to residential or commercial
use.
Let me explain why Harris Neck NWR is a valuable asset worth
retaining under the ownership and control of the federal refuge system.
Harris Neck is a superb oasis for wildlife and
natural habitat within a geographic area that has undergone a
very high rate of development in the past decade. It offers a
great variety of habitat types for a relatively small refuge:
weedy fields, shrub/scrub, shallow freshwater ponds, mudflats,
saltmarsh, bottomland woods, pinewoods, and maritime forest. As
a result, it boasts an impressive list of mammals, birds,
reptiles and insects that use the refuge, including such
charismatic species as bobcat, white-tailed deer, bald eagle,
wood stork, painted bunting, gopher tortoise and swallowtail
butterfly. The refuge has been designated as an Important Bird
Area by National Audubon and is one of only 18 sites on
Georgia's Colonial Coast Birding Trail.
The refuge has contributed a great deal of data and
insights to the scientific community through the staff's work
with nesting wood storks, painted buntings and loggerhead sea
turtles. For example, Harris Neck pioneered the use of
artificial platforms and water level management to provide
nesting habitat for wood storks. The refuge's wood stork colony
is now the largest and most productive in Georgia and the most
consistently and intensively monitored in the nation. The data
gathered (entirely by volunteers and interns) from the wood
stork colony is used to document the recovery of the species,
which was once critically endangered and now appears to be on a
stable path toward de-listing.
Refuges are economic engines in local communities;
when people visit Harris Neck, they buy gas, stay at local
hotels, eat at local restaurants and frequent area tourism
facilities. For every $1 appropriated by Congress to run our
national refuges, they return on average $4 in economic
activity to the local economy. The numbers are probably even
more impressive in coastal Georgia refuges; for example, the
not-too-distant Okefenokee NWR has been found to generate over
$34 for every $1 appropriated.
Although the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service was not
involved in the original condemnation of the land in 1943, it
has demonstrated excellent stewardship of the property since
taking possession in 1962. A staff of only four employees
delivers a big bang for each tax buck by managing three
national wildlife refuges comprising nearly 14,000 acres in
three discrete locations: Harris Neck, Blackbeard Island, and
Wolf Island. With the help of volunteers, staff maintain roads
and trails, control invasive species, manage water levels,
provide interpretation to the visiting public, conduct wildlife
surveys and studies, operate bird banding programs, organize
hunts, and research and document historical and archaeological
artifacts.
Harris Neck hosts between 85,000 and 90,000 visitors
per year, demonstrating sustained usage by both local residents
and a large number of out-of-state visitors (of the visitors
who sign in at the refuge office, 60% are from out-of-state or
a foreign country). The web site Listasaur.com, which publishes
``top five'' lists on a variety of topics, mentions Harris Neck
as ``a location worth stopping to enjoy for a few days.''
The refuge is noted for its ease of access. It is
located only 7 miles from Interstate I-95 and has a paved 4-
mile Wildlife Drive that winds through the refuge. Interpretive
panels have been installed at key locations along the drive.
Woody Pond and the remnants of the airfield runways are
wheelchair accessible. And short walks off the main drive lead
to other scenic and wildlife-rich observation areas.
Harris Neck protects a number of historic and
archaeological sites and traditions, including Native American
villages and burial grounds, remnants of the Peru Plantation,
vestiges of the Lorillard estate and the Gullah-Geechee culture
and, of course, the World War II airfield. Descendants from all
of those eras--Native Americans, local families, and military
veterans--can be assured that future generations will be able
to experience and gain understanding of the land and natural
environment on which their ancestors once lived.
My greatest concern is that the introduction of private residences
to Harris Neck will damage or destroy what has been accomplished there
over the past 50 years. For example, the refuge is closed entirely at
night to avoid disturbance to the many nocturnal species that flourish
there. During spring and summer, the public is kept at a safe distance
from the nesting colony so that birds are not startled into abandoning
their nests. Pets are prohibited, as are livestock. Freshwater
resources, which are limited, are carefully marshaled to where they are
most needed. Wastewater generation is kept to a minimum. Trash and
litter are removed daily. And prescribed fire is used every few years
to maintain desirable habitats. Private residential use is completely
incompatible with all of these protections.
In closing, I'd like to emphasize that losing Harris Neck NWR to
development would be an economic, cultural and environmental tragedy.
It would also establish a troubling precedent regarding the sanctity of
federal lands held in trust for the millions of citizens who use and
enjoy them. We ask this subcommittee to ensure that this trust is not
violated and that Harris Neck remain intact, undisturbed, and under its
current ownership and control by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
Thank you for allowing me to testify today. I invite each of you to
come for a visit to Harris Neck to experience first-hand the rich
natural environment that it offers. You will be most welcome and amazed
by what you see.
______

Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Ms. Bambach. And perfect timing on
the ending of your statement there. You get a prize for the day
for your accuracy and preciseness.
I will remind panel members, for those whose statements may
go past the 5 minutes, that your written statement will be
printed in the record. So if your statement is more than 5
minutes, please summarize or somehow abbreviate your statement.
Next, we have Mr. Kelly. Sir, you are recognized now for 5
minutes.

STATEMENT OF DAVID M. KELLY, PROJECT COORDINATOR, HARRIS NECK
LAND TRUST

Mr. Kelly. Chairman, I think your last comment was directed
at my testimony.
Thank you all for the opportunity of being before you
today. We also want to thank Mr. Kingston very much for his
efforts and those of his staff, starting in our first meeting
in late 2005.
I am sure we have all heard the expression, ``Speak truth
to power.'' We from Harris Neck wish to speak truth today to
all the misinformation, misconception, rumor, inaccurate and
disingenuous statements that have been made and continue being
made about the Trust, our plans, and this movement for justice.
We respectfully come before you today to help set the record
straight.
We were asked to address five issues, at least, in your
letter of invitation, and I will try to get to at least four of
them.
The taking of Harris Neck in 1942 occurred because of a
conspiracy among McIntosh County officials, who led
representatives of the Federal Government directly to Harris
Neck, right past more than 3,500 acres of virtually uninhabited
land. This other available property had been owned by E.M.
Thorpe, who had acquired much of his property in Harris Neck by
underhanded and unethical practices and by 1942 was the largest
land owner in Harris Neck, though he did not live there, white
or black.
The original taking via eminent domain was highly illegal,
with the people's Fifth Amendment rights to due process being
violated in a number of ways through its hurried and carelessly
executed implementation of eminent domain. A list of these
violations has been provided by our attorney, who unfortunately
can't be here because of the short notice, but you have that.
Number two, the key word in the law regarding compensation
is that it be ``just.'' The taking of Harris Neck was not just,
not by a long measure, because, first, not everyone was paid;
people still have their deeds.
Second, white families who owned property but did not live
on Harris Neck and had no improvements to their property--with
the exception of Lilly Livingston's house, and she had died
without children before the war--were paid 40 percent more than
all the African American families, who, over the decades since
the end of the war, the Civil War, had created a thriving
community with houses, barns, outbuildings, seafood processing
plants, general stores, churches, and more.
Third, not a single African American family was paid for
anything but their property. There were no payments for any
improvements, the second most important word in eminent domain
takings.
Fourth, payments from the Federal Government did not go
directly to the African American families and not in time, as
required by statute. They went through E.M. Thorpe, who may or
may not have distributed all moneys correctly or fairly. He was
no friend of the community.
Number three, regarding the promise made to return the
property after World War II, I would like to cite the 1934
decision of Olson v. The United States. In this case, it was
rightly stated that the owner of condemned property should be
placed, quote, ``in at least as good a position as if his
property had not been taken,'' unquote. The community was
destroyed. An entire way of life was destroyed. People died,
literally, heartbroken, months later. The people were greatly
harmed and left in a much worse off position than they were
before.
It was the government's responsibility by law, contrary to
what has already been said, after the law to contact members of
the former Harris Neck community, whether or not there was a
promise to return the land--which, all the living elders and
others, including the infamous Sheriff Poppell, who you have a
letter from in 1975, will attest to the fact that there was,
indeed, such a promise made.
Many families from Harris Neck were then living within two
miles of their homeland. They stayed close by because of this
promise. However, after the war, the government did not talk
with the original owners, did not contact them, and the land
went to the county. Then again in 1961, when the Department of
the Interior took title, in both of these instances the people
of Harris Neck knew absolutely nothing about official
proceedings and conversations until the deals were well done.
It does not matter, also, how Fish and Wildlife came to
control Harris Neck. What matters is that the original taking
was illegal, and, therefore, each transfer of title since,
according to our attorney, is invalid.
Number four, to speak briefly about the lawsuit that was
filed on behalf of the people of Harris Neck and the decision
rendered by Judge Edenfield in 1980, both are irrelevant today
since there never was any legal remedy to Harris Neck. Justice,
equity lies only with Congress. And as Congress showed just a
few years ago during President Bush's Administration when it
legislated the return of more than 15,000 acres to the Colorado
River Indian Tribes--one of our partners, by the way--taken
long before Harris Neck, there is no statute of limitations on
justice.
Nothing much happened from----
Dr. Fleming. Mr. Kelly?
Mr. Kelly. Yes?
Dr. Fleming. Yeah, you are well past your time. I
apologize, sir.
Mr. Kelly. All right. Thank you.
Dr. Fleming. And, again, this will be entered in the record
in its entirety. We want to be sure and hear from all of our
witnesses today.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelly follows:]

Statement of David M. Kelly, Project Coordinator, Harris Neck Land
Trust

Honorable members of this subcommittee and others who may be in
attendance at this hearing, we thank you for your invitation to testify
before you on December 15, 2011. We would also like to thank our
Representative, Congressman Jack Kingston, for all the support and
advice he has provided us during the six years of the Harris Neck
Justice Movement.
I will speak to the following issues that we were asked to address
in your December 7, 2011 letter of invitation.
1. A brief history of how the Federal government obtained
Harris Neck.
2. How were the owners compensated?
3. Whether assurances were given that the community could
reclaim the property.
4. What steps have been taken by the Federal government and
community to address this issue during the past 70 years?
5. Has the Federal government offered to compensate anyone
represented by the Harris Neck Land Trust?
I am sure we have all heard the expression ``Speak truth to
power''. Well, we from Harris Neck, wish to speak truth to
misinformation, misconception, inaccurate statements, rumor, and
outright lies that have been, and continue being, spread about the
Harris Neck Land Trust and our plans for a new Harris Neck community.
We, respectfully, come before this subcommittee to set the record
straight about Harris Neck. In that regard I will address five issues
listed in your December 7th letter, one by one, and make some
additional relevant comments.
1. The history of the taking of Harris Neck: The taking of Harris
Neck--located in northeast McIntosh County, on the coast of Georgia
some 40 miles south of Savannah--in 1942 occurred because of a
conspiracy among McIntosh County officials who intentionally led
representatives of the Federal government to Harris Neck, right past
more than 3,500 acres of virtually uninhabited land, just a good stones
throw from the southwest border of the community. This other available
property had been owned by E. M. Thorpe, one of the largest landowners,
at that time, in McIntosh County. According to many families in Harris
Neck, E. M. Thorpe had acquired much of his property in Harris Neck by
underhanded and unethical practices, and by the time of the taking in
1942, he was the largest landowner in Harris Neck--white or black.
The original taking via Eminent Domain was highly illegal, with the
people's Fifth Amendment rights to Due Process being violated in a
number of ways through its hurried and carelessly executed
implementation of Eminent Domain. A list of these violations is being
submitted with this testimony.
2. Compensation: The key word in the law, regarding compensation,
is that it be ``just''. The taking of Harris Neck was not just, not by
a long measure, because first, not everyone was paid. Second, white
families, who owned property but did not live on Harris Neck and had
not made any improvements to their property (with the exception of the
two single white women who lived in the community), were paid 40
percent more than the African American families who, over the decades
since the end of the Civil War, had created a thriving community with
houses, barns, other out-buildings, seafood processing buildings,
general store, churches and more. Third, not a single African American
family was paid for anything but their property; there were no payments
for any ``improvements'' as required under Eminent Domain. Fourth,
payments from the Federal government did not go directly to the African
American families; they went through E. M. Thorpe, who may or may not
have disbursed monies correctly and fairly.
E.M. Thorpe may have been designated as an agent for these Harris
Neck transactions by the government, but he was no friend of the people
from Harris Neck. Rev. Thorpe and Wilson Moran will speak better and
more personally to this.
3. Assurances to the community about reclaiming its property:
Reverend Thorpe will speak more personally to this. However, regarding
assurances or a promise made to return the property after World War II,
I would like to site the 1934 decision of Olson v. United States. In
this case it was rightly stated that the owner of condemned property
should be placed ``in as good a position pecuniarily as if his property
had not been taken. He must be made whole, but is not entitled to more.
It is the property and not the cost of it that is safeguarded by state
and federal constitutions.'' The community was destroyed. Their entire
way of life--their livelihood--was destroyed. People died heartbroken
months later. The people were greatly harmed and left in a much-worse-
off position than they were before the taking.
It was the Federal government's responsibility after World War II
to contact members of the former Harris Neck community, whether or not
there was a promise to return the land, which all the living elders
will swear to the fact that there was, indeed, such a promise made.
Many families from Harris Neck were then (after the war) living within
two miles of their homeland; they stayed close by because of what they
had been told by the government: Don't go far; the land will be
returned to you after the war. However, after the war the government
talked only with McIntosh County officials, and even though the county
commission did some good public talking, at that time, about
reacquiring the land on behalf of the former community members, the
county got the land for itself in 1947.
Over the next 14 years, county officials used Harris Neck for a
number of illegal ventures--including prostitution, gambling and drug
smuggling--while the contract with the War Assets Administration said
the land was to be used only for a county airport. But this was how
things went in the 1940s in McIntosh and neighboring counties. This
section of Georgia was run by what was referred to as the ``Big Four'',
a small group of corrupt and very powerful men that included the
infamous McIntosh County Sheriff Tom Poppell. To deny the reality of
life for African Americans in this region in 1942 or not to consider it
in this matter creates an opening for continuing injustice.
Because of all the county's abuses of its contract, the Federal
government took the land back in 1961. It then had another chance to
bring justice to Harris Neck, but instead it once again did not contact
anyone from Harris Neck and chose, instead, to transfer title to the
Department of Interior. Since 1962, the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) has used Harris Neck as a National Wildlife Refuge.
In both instances (after the war and in 1961-62) no one from Harris
Neck knew anything about official proceedings regarding their property
until well after the deals were done and the property was in the hands
of McIntosh County and FWS, respectively.
It does not matter how FWS came to be titleholder of Harris Neck or
that, as personnel from FWS have told us, they are just carrying out
their mission as mandated by law. What matters is that the original
taking was wrong and it was illegal, and, therefore, we contend, each
transfer of title since the original taking has been invalid and,
therefore the property still belongs to the original families.
4. Steps taken over the past 70 years to address this issue: The
government has not initiated any such steps. The community has made
them, starting in the late 1970's, and the government has responded. To
speak briefly about the lawsuit that was filed on behalf of the people
of Harris Neck and the decision rendered by Judge Avant Edenfield in
1980, both are irrelevant today, since there was never any legal remedy
available to Harris Neck; justice (equity) lies only with Congress. And
as Congress showed in 2005, when it legislated the return of more than
15,000 acres to the Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT), there is no
statute of limitations on justice, thus speaking to Judge Edenfield's
main point in his decision--that, by 1980, too much time had passed on
this issue. (CRIT's land was taken before Harris Neck was taken--during
Woodrow Wilson's presidency.) And on the issue of equity, I would like
to state that everyone from Judge Edenfield to Secretary of Interior
James Watt has said that the equity with regard to Harris Neck belongs
with the community, not the government. There was also legislation
drafted in this time period, but due to lack of support, H.R. 4018
never made it out of committee.
Nothing much happened, regarding the property, from the early 1980s
until 2006, when community representatives first met with Congressman
Jack Kingston to speak about the issue of Eminent Domain and other
concerns. Since then, representatives of the Harris Neck Land Trust,
which was formed in 2006, have been working with Mr. Kingston and
several other members of Congress. In December 2009 we met with Mr.
Kingston, Congressman John Lewis, legislative staff of other
congressmen, and high-ranking officials of FWS. At that meeting,
everyone in Congressman Kingston's office agreed to find what Mr.
Kingston called for--an ``equitable solution'' to this issue. In March
of 2010 we had a follow-up meeting, with most of the same parties in
attendance, at the Savannah regional headquarters office of FWS. A few
months later Board Chair, Rev. Robert Thorpe received a letter from
FWS, offering us 1) a homecoming day and 2) a kiosk. This is FWS's idea
of an equitable solution.
We have dealt honestly and openly with everyone involved during the
past six years of the Harris Neck Justice Movement, but we do not feel
FWS has acted honestly or professionally. For example, at the March
2010 meeting a FWS archeologist said that another reason the land could
not be returned to the people is that Harris Neck is ``wall-to-wall''
archeological/cultural sites. The scientific literature shows that
there are only a handful of such sites. (Please see our map, being
submitted, of these sites--north of Harris Neck Road.) We have met with
one of the premier archeological/cultural resource management firms in
the southeast, and we plan to have them conduct the first-ever,
comprehensive, acre-by-acre site analysis. We will protect and preserve
whatever is found, as well as the few presently identified sites, and
we plan to sign these sites and make them part of one of our many
educational programs in the new Harris Neck.
5. The government's offer to compensate anyone represented by the
Trust: Aside from the kiosk and homecoming day that FWS has offered
(mentioned above), the Federal government has not made any offer of
compensation to any individual represented by the Harris Neck Land
Trust. Regarding compensation, the Trust does not want any financial
compensation; the Trust wants the land of Harris Neck (all 2,687 acres)
to be returned to the rightful owners--the white and black families/
individuals that owned property on Harris Neck in 1942.
Additionally, I wish to make the following comments:
The Harris Neck Land Trust is comprised solely of the previous
rightful and legal owners, black and white, of property in Harris Neck.
It represents all living members of the original community and their
legal descendants. Each family has appointed a family representative to
the Trust, and most of the original families have been located and are
represented. This is a democratic, grassroots and bipartisan movement.
Although perhaps the majority of those in the movement are Democrats,
the Chair and Co-chair of the Trust's Board of Directors, as well as
many other members of the Trust, are Republican. The members of the
Board of Directors are all from Harris Neck. The Trust's membership has
been meeting monthly for the past six years to think about, discuss,
research, and vote on all the key issues involved in Harris Neck and
our plans for a new community.
We have a scientifically based community development plan, put
together after more than two years of thoughtful dialogue and careful
planning. In developing this plan we had the assistance of a natural
and cultural resources consulting firm and an architectural design
company. We feel our plan is not only environmentally and culturally
sensitive but that the new Harris Neck could very well become a model
of sustainable community living for rural America. We have reached out
to a large number of individuals, organizations, academic institutions,
and government agencies, and we have formed partnerships with many of
these. Our community plan includes the maximum possible use of wind and
solar energy and other renewable energy sources as well as the
comprehensive analysis of cultural/archeological sites on Harris Neck.
Regarding this analysis and the issue of protecting the cultural sites
and the wildlife, land and waters of Harris Neck, Harris Neck was a
Gullah community where many people also had Native American ancestry.
Therefore, the ethic of cultural and environmental preservation and
stewardship could not be stronger, and the Trust has made the strongest
possible commitment to have this ethic be the guiding force in the new
Harris Neck.
Regarding the wood stork and the other migratory birds that come to
Harris Neck seasonally, there are many successful rookeries close, and
in some cases extremely close, to human settlements/activities in the
southeast. The claim by FWS that the wood stork, ibis, herons and
egrets cannot coexist with human beings is completely unfounded and
disingenuous. FWS's claim contradicts the experience of former
community members, who lived harmoniously with the wood stork and all
the wildlife in Harris Neck, our research, and that of ornithologists
who study these birds.
Our community plan will protect and preserve the wildlife, land and
waters of Harris Neck. It sets aside, for permanent protection, all the
ponds created by FWS and puts a buffer zone around Woody Pond, the main
bird nesting pond, that is twice the setback distance recommended by
the scientific studies. This pond is also surrounded by dense forest,
providing even greater protection for the birds during their critical
nesting season.
Our plan will also place more than half the total acreage in
permanent conservation easements. People will be able to return to the
organic farming that it once did in a community that was sustainable
and ecologically sound long before such terms became a common part of
our lexicon.
We feel that FWS's stated opposition to the return of Harris Neck
to its rightful owners has little or nothing to do with the wood stork
and other birds or the alligator or any of the other wildlife or their
habitat or the cultural sites. This issue, in our experience, is about
FWS's refusal to give up a single acre in its 150 million-acre national
system, of which the Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge represents
less than .0001 percent of that total. We fully recognize the need for
this refuge, but there is no substantiated reason and no scientific
evidence to say that the birds and other wildlife in Harris Neck cannot
coexist with people and the human activities we anticipate via our
community plan.
Furthermore, it is our desire to have FWS continue its presence in
Harris Neck and to have its staff continue doing the work they have
been doing on the refure. Our vision of the future in Harris Neck is
one of a good working partnership with FWS. We have approached FWS
about this, but to my knowledge they have not responded. Nor have they
responded to our community development plan, except to say it lacks
specificity. Also, we do not want any FWS personnel to lose their jobs,
and with our plan there is no reason they should.
Regarding the idea or contention that by returning Harris Neck a
precedent may be set that would result in efforts by communities around
the country to reclaim other property, now in one form of Federal or
State protection or another, we think the Harris Neck case is unique--
from the 1942 taking to the present. The return of Harris Neck to the
Trust will not displace or adversely affect anything in the present
wildlife refuge. In addition, the economic stimulus and job creation
(from professional to semi- and low-skilled positions) that should
result with the implementation of our community development plan will
help a county, which is one of the poorest in Georgia. While fully
protecting and preserving what is now in the refuge, the return of
Harris Neck and the implementation of our plan will also put this
valuable property back on the tax roles for the first time in decades,
and this may all be accomplished without any Federal funding. Also,
public access to Harris Neck will not only be maintained, but our plan
calls for creating many educational and other related programs that
will greatly enhance the public's experience in Harris Neck.
We respectfully urge this subcommittee to do all in its power to
begin, and move forward, the congressional process that, hopefully,
will lead to justice being done for the people of Harris Neck.
Note: Our Eminent Domain attorney is unable to be with us at this
hearing, due to the short notice we received. Perhaps this subcommittee
would consider submitting questions to our attorney and he could
respond to them.
______

Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Kelly.
And now, Mr. Moran, you are up for 5 minutes, sir.

STATEMENT OF WILSON W. MORAN, BOARD MEMBER, HARRIS NECK LAND
TRUST, DIRECT DESCENDENT OF MR. ROBERT DELEGAL

Mr. Moran. Thank you, sir.
I guess what I will be talking about this morning is about
the history of the Gullah-Geechee people.
A sidenote: My great grandfather, he refused to be called
``Indian,'' but I guess he was native or indigenous, because I
can prove that I am very much part of the Cherokee Nation.
For us, the Gullah-Geechee people, it really started with
us in 1863. That is when President Abraham Lincoln issued the
Emancipation Proclamation. But for a person that has been
enslaved for over 200 years, what is freedom? It has to be more
than the Emancipation Proclamation.
So General William T. Sherman, his march from Atlanta to
Savannah, after some difficult situation he encountered, issued
Field Order 15. And I am quite sure all of you are familiar
with Field Order 15. And Field Order 15 gave every outlying
island from the southern tip of North Carolina to the northern
tip of Florida and some places 30 miles inland on the mainland
to these recently freed enslaved people.
So what is freedom? What is this tied to? Well, given a few
mules and some plows and some seeds, these people began to
realize what freedom meant. So they began to enjoy freedom
closely tied to economics.
My great grandfather--whose father, Edward Delegal, a white
man--his name was Mustapha Delegal. He changed his name to
Shaw. You go to U Street and you look up the 33rd Infantry and
you will find his name there, because he fought in the Civil
War. He was injured in Savannah, mustered out in Beaufort,
South Carolina. But he jumped at the chance for this Field
Order 15, and so he went to Ossabaw Island and he began to
understand what this was all about.
But the unfortunate thing that happened for us was
President Abraham Lincoln got assassinated. President Johnson
took over and was convinced by the powers that were at that
time to rescind Field Order 15. So my great grandfather
Mustapha, he was at zero again.
Even though he was a Civil War veteran--and I might add, he
was never commendated for it--he was forced off of Ossabaw
Island because he refused to be a sharecropper, and he
disappeared. He wound up near Harris Neck at his grandfather's
old plantation.
But Margaret Ann Harris, being an heir of the older
plantation owners, Peru and Muller and all these other places,
she was given ownership of the land all over again. And because
of her white overseers cheating her, she asked Robert Delegal,
my grandmother's cousin, to oversee her property, with a
promise that he would take care of her, because she was old,
and her son, who was an invalid, and which he did.
So now we began to enjoy all this prosperity all over
again. And by the late 1800s, we had everything--the school,
the fire station, the factories. We bought, and we sold. We
were having a great time.
But in 1942 we wound up at zero again because our Federal
Government needed our land. We gave it, and it was never
returned to us. It is wrong. And I pray that my government, who
is of the people, by the people, for the people, will give us
the opportunity to have those things that my ancestors had. And
we lost our culture because there are certain people in the
government that refuse to allow us the opportunity to do it
again.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moran follows:]

Statement of Wilson W. Moran, Board Member,
Harris Neck Land Trust LLC

It really started for us in 1863. General William T. Sherman issued
Field Order 15, giving us ownership of all the islands starting from
the southern tip of North Carolina, through South Carolina, Georgia and
to the northern tip of Florida. Including some land up to 30 miles
inland on the mainland. My great grandfather Mustapha D. Shaw son of
Edward Delegal, a white land owner, having been injured while fighting
in the Union Army, jumped at the opportunity to own land. Owning land
was a form of freedom. He went to live on Ossabaw Island, just
southeast of Savannah, GA. He did well utilizing his skills as a farmer
and fisherman but it was short lived as President Lincoln was
assassinated during this period in Mustapha's life. President Johnson
became the new President. The power people convinced President Johnson
to rescind Field Order 15. Thus my people lost everything. My
grandfather refused to become a sharecropper. A warrant was issued for
his arrest. Armed with his army issued Revolver, Rifle and Bowie knife,
he fought his way off Ossabaw Island, got into a boat and disappeared.
He escaped to his grandfather's old plantation which was situated near
Harris Neck. Once again he was back to zero. Then another strange thing
happened. Margaret Harris, an heir, was given ownership of most of the
old plantation homes. She was elderly and her son was mentally ill.
Because her white overseers were cheating her, she employed a black
man, Robert Delegall to be her overseer. She made a will and testament.
In this Will, Robert would agree to take care of her and her son. In
turn he could sell land to the black people already living on said
property. Eventually, Robert sold most of the land to about 75 black
families. Now we have to start again. By the late 1800's, we are doing
extremely well. We have a church house, firehouse, school house, crab
factory and oyster factory. We are buying and selling. We are quickly
learning that freedom is closely tied to economics. After much blood,
sweat and tears we are beginning to reap some of the benefits of our
hard labor. After many years of hopelessness we now have hope. In 1942
it happened again. It's World War II and the German U-Boats are blowing
up our merchant ships. The war department needed a place in which to
build an airbase. Our white county leaders steered them to the
community of Harris Neck. Our government claimed Imminent Domain,
giving us two weeks to move out. In a blink of an eye, we were wiped
out. We lost everything, including our culture. Now we are back to zero
again.
______

Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Moran.
Next, Reverend Thorpe, Mrs. Greer, and Mr. Relaford, I
believe you are dividing the 5-minute time period.
And so we will now recognize Reverend Thorpe.

STATEMENT OF REVEREND ROBERT H. THORPE, PASTOR, PEACEFUL ZION
CHURCH, SAVANNAH, GEORGIA

Rev. Thorpe. To the honorable members of the Subcommittee
on Fisheries, good morning. My name is Reverend Robert H.
Thorpe, the Pastor of the Peaceful Zion Baptist Church,
Savannah, Georgia.
I am here concerning the house that I was brought up in,
raised by Robert and Amelia Dawley. Was born April 3rd, 1931.
In the year of 1942, the government sent surveyors into Harris
Neck--no representative, no notice, or no question. They sent
them in surveying our property, knowing nothing about what is
happening. But a week later, there is a gray 1942 brand-new
station wagon, Pontiac station wagon, came up to our house. And
my grandfather, Robert Dawley, went out to speak to him, and I
went along with him.
He introduced himself as being Mr. Banks, a representative
from Washington, D.C. And my father and grandfather asked him,
``What's going on?'' And he said, ``The government needs this
land for an Army airbase.'' And so my grandfather said, ``Well,
now, if y'all going to take it, when we gonna get it back? Are
you gonna give it back?'' They said, ``Yes.'' ``When,'' my
father and grandfather said, ``When are you going to give it
back?'' They said, ``After the war is over. After we finish
with it, we will return it to you.''
So my grandfather asked him, said, ``Well, now, where will
we go? Where are we going?'' He said, ``I don't know. I don't
know nothing about where you're going. All I know, you got to
go. In a few days, you're going to have to leave here.'' And he
said, ``Well, are we going to get any help or anything?'' He
said, ``That's not in my hands. I don't know nothing about
that. And if you don't move, this place will be destroyed,
pushed down, and burned.'' After the 2 weeks' notice that he
gave us.
So, therefore, we found a man to move us, Mr. Irvin Davis,
McIntosh County. He had some 32 acres of land just about 2
miles out from our home. And he shared those 32 acres among us,
which we got about an acre and a half of land to all that we
had in Harris Neck. Our farming, and you know what happened to
that, it was over. We would plant a little garden and did the
best that we could.
And it was in the season of maturity of our crops, July.
All of our stuff that we had planted--our corn, potatoes,
tomatoes, fruit trees, and everything that we would depend on
for a living--because we made our living from the land to the
rivers, which in we fish for craps, shrimps, and we gathered
oysters. This was our living. But we were pushed out. Not asked
out, we were pushed out. ``You've got to leave.''
And another thing come to me, that all of this 35 acres of
land adjusted to us had one house on it--one single house. And
here go a community of people trying to live on that 35 acres
right there. Why? They took our land.
It just was an injustice at that time, but now, after
explaining this to you all, you know right from wrong. It is
time for justice. That is all we want, justice. We want to go
back to our home. Somebody say, ``You an old man over 80 years
old.'' I have children, grandchildren, great grandchildren to
go back to that land. And we just asking for peace. We looking
for mercy. We looking for justice. That is all.
[The prepared statement of Rev. Thorpe follows:]

Statement of The Reverend Robert H. Thorpe, Former Board Chairman of
the Harris Neck Land Trust and Harris Neck Elder

I was born on Harris Neck April 3rd 1931 in this house, where I was
raised by my grandparents, Robert and Amelia Dawley. In 1942 the
Federal government sent surveyors in to Harris Neck to survey our land
without any notice or questions, and about a week after they sent in a
government representative from Washington, DC whose name was Mr. Banks.
Mr. Banks came to our house, and my grandfather went out and spoke with
him and I went along. Mr. Banks said he represented the Federal
government and that the government needed our property for an army
airbase, and that we would have to move out in a few days. Then my
grandfather asked him, ``If you take our property are we going to get
it back?'' And Mr. Banks said, ``Yes, when the government is finished
with it they will return it back to you. My grandfather asked him, ``If
we have to move where should we go?'' He said: ``I don't know anything
about that. All I know is you have to move in a few days, and if you
don't move your house and everything will be destroyed--pushed down or
burned.'' So, my grandfather asked him if we were going to get any help
for moving. He said, ``No, you'll have to move on your own.''
So, my grandfather took his crowbar and hammer and went to the
front door first and started taking the facing off the door. And piece
by piece he tried to save all the lumber on the house, because he had
no money to buy materials to build another house at that time or to
move. At that time our crops were just maturing, and we had to leave
all that behind us. And that was part of our living. Corn, potatoes,
beans, tomatoes, all our fruit and nut trees. All that was left behind
and destroyed.
We were offered a piece of land a couple of miles away by Mr. Irvin
Davis of McIntosh County. We had to purchase this land, which was in
Eagle Neck, from Mr. Davis. It was an acre and a half, much less than
what we had on Harris Neck. We planted a small garden, which again was
nothing like what we had on Harris Neck. After the war ended, the same
Irvin Davis came out to our church, First African Baptist--which we had
taken down on Harris Neck and rebuilt on Eagle Neck--with his lawyer
who spoke for him. He told us that the government is not using the land
anymore now, but they're not going to return it back to us right yet.
He asked us if we would agree to let Mr. Davis use the land as a cow
pasture for his cows. We said, ``Yes, Mr. Davis is welcome to use the
land.'' It was years later that we found out that the Federal
government had given the land to McIntosh County. We never knew
anything about any proceedings that had taken place between the Federal
government and the county about this.
Then again, years after that, we found out that the Federal
government had taken the land back from the county and again, without
our knowledge or any word from the government or anyone else, it gave
the land, this time, to Fish and Wildlife.
Justice for us from Harris Neck can only come from the return of
our land. However, we have offered Fish and Wildlife to be partners
with us in the new Harris Neck community. We would like them to
continue doing their job of monitoring the ponds and protecting
wildlife, which we will be setting aside and protecting in our plans.
But we feel it is only just that our land be returned to us.
______

Dr. Fleming. I thank you, Reverend, for your testimony.
Now, you have used the entire 5 minutes of all three, but
the Chair will indulge the other two Members another minute
each if you would like to offer a statement? Or if that is
the--would you, Ms. Greer, like to have a minute to offer a
statement?

STATEMENT OF EVELYN GREER, BOARD MEMBER,
HARRIS NECK LAND TRUST

Mrs. Greer. Good morning. My name is Evelyn Greer.
And I just want to say this afternoon to you all that I am
84 years old. I was 15 when the government took my home, and I
told them--they told us as Reverend Thorpe said. I was there.
We didn't get no kind of compensation, please believe it--none.
My home burned, and everything I saw. There was no place to go.
You know, so I just--I was trying to get some time, but he
got it. So, anyhow, I just want to say that it is time now, as
he said, for justice. We are here today not as beggars. We are
here to see and ask you all to let justice prevail. We need the
property. God made arrangement for the birds and the bees, but
he said the son of man has no place to lay his head.
And we thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Greer follows:]

Statement of Evelyn Greer, Harris Neck Land Trust, Resident of Harris
Neck Community in 1942, Member of Harris Neck Land Trust, and Harris
Neck Elder

Good morning. My name is Evelyn Greer. And I. . .I just want to
say, this afternoon, to you all, that I'm 84 years old. I was 15 when
the government took my home, and I told them. . ..They told us, as
Reverend Thorpe said, (unintelligible). I was there. We didn't get no
kind of compensation. Please believe it. None. My home burned, and
everything I saw. There was no place to go, you know. So I just. . ..I
was trying to get some time, but my, I got so. . ..anyhow, I just want
to say that it is time now, as he said, for justice. We are here today
not as beggars. We are here to see and ask you all to let justice
prevail. We need the property. God made arrangement for the birds and
the bees, but he said the son of man has no place to lay his head. And
we thank you.
______

Dr. Fleming. I thank you, Ms. Greer.
And, Mr. Relaford, I will offer you a minute, as well.

STATEMENT OF WINSTON B. RELAFORD, SR.,
BOARD MEMBER, HARRIS NECK LAND TRUST

Mr. Relaford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am Winston Relaford, the son of Anna Shaw Overstreet, a
descendant of the original Harris Neck community. My appearance
before this august body today has one goal, and that is to urge
this Committee to correct an obvious wrong. I appeal to you
today to ensure that history correctly records and reflects the
Congress that dared to do the right thing by upholding the
constitutional rights of its citizens.
What was done to the Harris Neck community in 1942 was an
injustice, a wrong that must be righted. And this Committee has
within its power to move on behalf of a neglected portion of
America's citizenry. Let history show that you stood up today
and began the process of making right an awful wrong.
As you ponder the right and wrong, please remember the
humanity of it all. You have heard the testimony of an
impassioned and embattled people asking a government to honor
them as they honored the government by giving in to the demands
that the government asked.
In closing, I would simply like to say that those families
that have been displaced for so long, return the land back to
the rightful owners, and that is the descendents of the Harris
Neck people.
God bless this Committee, and God bless the United States
of America.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Relaford follows:]

Statement of Winston B. Relaford, Sr.,
Current Vice Chairman of the Harris Neck Land Trust

I am Winston Relaford the son of Anna Shaw Overstreet, a descendant
of the original Harris Neck community. My appearance before this august
body today has one goal; and that is to plea to this committee to
correct an obvious wrong. I appeal to you today to ensure that history
correctly record and reflect a Congress that dared to do the right
thing by upholding the constitutional rights of all of its citizens.
What was done to the Harris Neck community in 1942 was an injustice
or wrong that must be righted and this committee has within its power
to move on behalf of a neglected portion of America's citizenry. Let
history show that you stood up today and began the process of making
right, an awful wrong. As you ponder the right and wrong, please
remember the humanity of it all. You have heard the testimony of an
impassioned and embattled people ask of a government to honor them as
they honored the government by giving in to demands that turned out to
be way to costly. Our forefathers trusted the government because they
loved this country and wanted it to succeed against our foreign
enemies, but little did they know that the enemy from within posed a
far greater threat to their constitutional rights and freedoms than
that of a government that betrayed their trust.
In closing, I simply ask on behalf of the families that were
displaced so long ago that you return the land back to its rightful
owners and they are the descendants of the Harris Neck people. To this
committee, may God bless each of you and may God bless the United
States of America.
______

Dr. Fleming. Well, I thank you, Mr. Relaford.
And I, again, appreciate your indulgence on that. And,
again, one of the reasons to try to keep our testimonies brief
is we want to have the opportunity to ask questions and give
you an opportunity to respond and enlighten us even further on
these very important issues.
At this point, we will begin Member questions. To allow all
Members to participate and to ensure we can hear from all of
our witnesses today, Members are limited to 5 minutes--so, see,
we are fair; we get 5 minutes, you get 5 minutes--for their
questions. However, if Members have additional questions, we
can have more than one round of questioning.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
On December 7, 1979, Director Greenwalt of the Fish and
Wildlife Service stated that, and I quote, ``It is premature to
make a judgment or talk in terms of support or nonsupport. We
prefer to withhold our recommendation on the preferable
remedy.''
Ms. Dohner, that has been 32 years. Is the Service ready to
share its opinion?
Ms. Dohner. Sir, as I said in my oral testimony and my
written testimony, that the information that we have to date--
the Federal rulings and the GAO report--indicate that there is
no evidence of improper procedures when the DOD condemned the
lands. We do not have the information from the DOD
condemnation.
I will tell you that the Service is open to future dialogue
and working together if new information is brought forward. We
have requested information from the different parties,
including the Land Trust, as far as this issue, and we have
done legal reviews of that information.
Dr. Fleming. Thank you.
Does the Service believe a remedy is required?
Ms. Dohner. Sir, we believe that the land and the DOD
condemnations were done correctly and that there was
compensation provided to the families. And, again, until there
was additional information provided that would indicate
otherwise, we would have to take that and work with not only
Congress but do the reviews, liked I talked to you.
Dr. Fleming. OK. So you feel--I understand from your answer
that you do not feel any further remedy is necessary. Is that
correct, yes or no?
Ms. Dohner. Sir, at this time, the Service, I as the
regional director, cannot administratively make a change in
the----
Dr. Fleming. But that is not my question. And I am not
trying to be confrontational; I am just trying to make sure we
have a clear answer. So, in your opinion, or in the opinion of
your Service, you don't believe any further remedy is necessary
at this point.
Ms. Dohner. Over and above what I am allowed to do to work
with the Land Trust, over and above allowing them to use the
property, no, sir. I believe, as in our written testimony it
said, the court rulings upheld the decision that was done in
the 1940s, and the GAO report upheld that and found, again, no
evidence----
Dr. Fleming. But, also, did I not hear you say that you
don't have all the information necessary?
Ms. Dohner. Sir, we have as much information from the court
rulings and the DOD. And, again, we have asked the Land Trust
for everything. And the evaluation of all that information
indicates there has been no--there is no evidence of improper
process that was done.
Again, the Service is willing to go forward if new
information is brought forth, and we will have that
conversation.
Dr. Fleming. So you feel that the information has been
adequate to come to the conclusion that there is no further
remedy.
Again, this is not a trick question. I just want to
establish kind of a baseline here of where the Wildlife Service
stands on this issue.
Ms. Dohner. So the Fish and Wildlife Service administers
these lands as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. And
the Refuge Administration Act that mandates how we manage these
lands, I administratively cannot let these lands go. There are
other ways that they can be done. Congress can do that. At this
time, we believe----
Dr. Fleming. Yeah, but, again, you are answering in terms
of what you can and cannot do, the powers you have or don't
have. That is not my question. My question is, assuming that
you have all power and all resources, do you feel that there is
any further remedy that is necessary in this case?
Ms. Dohner. Again, sir, based on the law and the records
and the court rulings and the GAO report, the further remedies
that I can offer are things that I can do within the bounds of
those laws.
Dr. Fleming. Do you feel that--well, first of all, do you
feel that the case being made here today is a compelling one?
We hear reports of payments made to a person who didn't
properly represent the landowners. We hear where people lost
their land, they lost their livelihood. Do you find that a
compelling case on a human level rather than on a legal level?
Ms. Dohner. Sir, I would tell you that on a human level I
believe that justice has to be served. And I would tell you
that the Service believes that we have evaluated--and, again,
the court rulings--that what was done in the 1940s followed the
proper procedures.
I can't tell you what actually happened. I don't know the
specifics of the things that they reference about McIntosh
County and the other gentlemen. I don't have that information.
Dr. Fleming. Well, do you feel the Service has any
obligation, or any further obligation, in this matter?
Ms. Dohner. I believe that the Service can offer additional
things to the community, things that we could allow them to do
things, things like a national heritage day. We can work with
them for use of the refuge and use of the land. But the Service
doesn't have the authority to administratively give these lands
back.
Dr. Fleming. Yeah, I just want to make a summarizing
comment to that. It is interesting, we have had prior hearings
with regard to the fact that the Service actually has the power
to create refuges without consent of Congress, but it is very
interesting and sometimes convenient that the Service cannot
end a refuge and seems to argue and hide behind the argument, I
think, that we have plenty of power to create refugees, but
when time comes to discuss perhaps changing or ending them,
that the Service doesn't have any power at all in that regard.
You don't need to answer that. My time is up. Thank you.
I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Sablan.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I come from a place where, by accident of being lost at
sea, Ferdinand Magellan claimed that they owned the islands I
live on. But here we are 500 years later, and we are very happy
to be part of the United States. We also only had access to
legal services the past 30 years. Now I also think we have too
many lawyers, actually. But I am not taking sides here. I do
hear--and I am very curious in the conversation we are having.
But let me ask, also, Ms. Dot Bambach, because I am a
supporter of wildlife refuge also. It is very important to the
islands I live in. But would you please provide us some example
of how volunteers--and I love volunteers--such as yourself,
support Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge, please?
Ms. Bambach. Certainly. I would be happy to.
Let me tell you, just from the people that I have worked
with directly, we have pruned shrubs, we have cleared trails,
we have removed invasive plants, we have given presentations
about the Refuge to various school and civic groups, we have
organized and conducted bird surveys, we have monitored nesting
bird colonies, we serve as docents at the visitor center, we
lead field trips and tours, we interpret the Refuge for
visiting groups of children and adults.
Personally, three times a week, all day long, three times a
week, from March through most of August, I drive 110 miles
roundtrip, I get out with my two artificial hip joints, I climb
a straight-up, vertical 60-foot ladder into an observation
blind, and I sit up there with the heat and the bugs for 4 to 5
hours at a time monitoring our wood stork colony. And I am
typical of our volunteers. We support the Refuge, and we value
it highly.
And I would like to add that I need to think because of its
value, both to the community and to the wildlife that it is
supposed to be protecting, that we need to set the bar pretty
high before we second-guess the original transactions that went
on and that have been upheld by both the courts and the GAO
report. I don't think we should be looking at changing that
based on anecdotal evidence.
And we have been trying to look at hard evidence, stuff
that we can document, and there isn't much of it, but what does
exist indicates that there was due compensation paid here and
the transactions to condemn the property were properly made.
Mr. Sablan. And I will leave that to other Members to ask.
But, Ms. Dohner, would you please describe how the
Service--your efforts to support the tens of thousands of
visitors who come to the Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge
every year?
Ms. Dohner. Sir, the Fish and Wildlife staff, it is a small
staff. There are only about four people at the Refuge. But what
they do is they have, one, the technical expertise to ensure
that they can manage not only the land to support the fish and
wildlife, but they also work to make sure the trails are clear.
There are opportunities for the public on the auto trail that
people can go on. They provide educational opportunities to the
public for the schools to come. So, between the fishing and the
hunting--there are two annual hunts that the staff administer--
there are many opportunities that the public can come. And as I
said, there are about 90,000 visitors that go to the Refuge.
So we have the staff that are capable to not only manage
the fish and wildlife aspect and what is needed on the lands to
support those populations like the endangered wood storks, but
we ensure that the public are safe when they do come and take
these opportunities.
Mr. Sablan. I yield back for now, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Fleming. The Ranking Member yields back.
I now recognize Mr. Kingston--oh, I am sorry. I apologize.
Ms. Hanabusa, you have been somewhat quiet today, so we almost
overlooked you. I apologize.
So I now recognize Ms. Hanabusa.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
And I know Mr. Sablan didn't mean anything when he said we
have too many lawyers, and he didn't mean me, right? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Sablan.
Ms. Dohner, I am an attorney, so of course when you say
that your two court cases that you rely on, plus the GAO
report, my first request to the Chair would be that you provide
this Committee with copies of the two cases as well as your GAO
report.
And I would like to ask you, are any of those cases United
States Supreme Court cases?
Ms. Dohner. Ma'am, they are the 11th Circuit Court----
Ms. Hanabusa. The 11th Circuit Court.
Ms. Dohner.--but they are not Supreme Court cases. And we
will make sure that you get that information.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you very much.
And as you probably know, during the same timeframe,
Japanese Americans were relocated. And there is a U.S. Supreme
Court case that said that there was nothing wrong with that, as
well. And it took congressional action to give them a form of
compensation. So simply because the courts may say that there
is nothing wrong with it, it doesn't necessarily then say that
the injustice that was committed is somehow right. But that is
why I would like to have that information from you.
It seems to me, from listening to your testimony, Ms.
Dohner, that what you are saying is that, because of the two
cases and because of the GAO report, the Service is not going
to look any further, that that is your authority and that is
what you are relying on. Am I hearing you correctly?
Ms. Dohner. No, ma'am. We said that if there was additional
information that would come forth that we would have that
conversation, that discussion and that review. We have done
legal reviews in the past. When we met with the fund in the
past, they said they did have additional information. We asked
and were provided information, and we have done legal reviews.
We would, as we go forward, continue to do that type of
analysis and discussion.
Ms. Hanabusa. Is there anything in writing of the results
of these legal reviews that you have done?
Ms. Dohner. We do have some of that information, yes.
Ms. Hanabusa. Can you also provide us with that?
Ms. Dohner. Yes.
Ms. Hanabusa. Because what I don't want to see is another
generation go by and you are still in review. We would like to
have some kind of an understanding of what exactly the
Service's position is. So I would appreciate that.
Ms. Dohner. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you.
Mr. Kelly, you are the Project Coordinator for the Harris
Neck Land Trust, and you have been that for 6 years, or the
movement has been in place for 6 years?
Mr. Kelly. Yes. The movement started in December of 2005.
Ms. Hanabusa. December of 2005.
Mr. Kelly. And the Trust was formed in 2006.
Ms. Hanabusa. In 2006?
Mr. Kelly. Yes, the Trust was actually formed. The movement
began a few months before the Trust was formed.
Ms. Hanabusa. In listening to the testimony of the
descendants, I would like to understand--and your testimony--
there seems to be somewhat of a discrepancy as to the word
``compensation.'' Is the compensation that you are seeking
monetary compensation, or is it the return of the lands?
Mr. Kelly. The compensation we are seeking and the
community has been for a long time is the land, and that it is
not financial. And the whole issue of compensation, again,
revolves around the word ``just.'' This is not just.
Ms. Hanabusa. No, I don't take any exception to that. I am
just trying to understand what it is.
So the lands--I assume that in the information that Ms.
Dohner would provide to us we would have some kind of a list of
the members of your Land Trust and the portions of the land
which they are claiming. Would that be correct?
Mr. Kelly. Yes. And we have a--we have developed a
community plan, with the help of a scientific, cultural, and
natural resources consulting firm and many others. We spent 2
years on it. We invited the public. We considered every
possible aspect. And our plan sets aside more than half of the
total acres in permanent conservation, where the only thing
that could be done is organic farming.
And the rest of the acreage is going to be protected in
similar fashion. We are going to protect all the ponds,
especially Woody Pond. We are putting a huge buffer zone around
Woody Pond, which is already densely wooded. And the buffer
zone we are going to have is twice what all the ornithological
studies call for.
So we are going to protect what is there, and the
development of the community is going to be environmentally
sensitive to the nth degree.
Ms. Hanabusa. Do you have your plan in writing?
Mr. Kelly. Yes. It has been submitted to the Committee.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back the remainder of my
time.
Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentlelady.
Next, I will recognize Mr. Kingston from Georgia.
Mr. Kingston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I wanted to continue along the lines of Mrs. Hanabusa's
questions. And, Ms. Dohner, what I don't understand--I really,
as I opened up today, said I felt that everybody has been
bargaining in good faith. But I have to tell you how extremely
disturbed I am that Fish and Wildlife today are really not
hitting any of the compensations in the original intent issues,
yet you have said that you have not seen--your conclusion is
that there has not been any evidence that has changed your
mind. But you haven't shared with us what your evidence is. And
the Committee, I understand, has requested that.
And in our office, many years ago, it was my understanding
that we would move beyond the emotional and the superficial
dialogue into the weeds of, OK, here is who was compensated and
here is how much they were compensated. And I have actually had
friends of the Refuge present that to me in a very compelling
way, but I am baffled, very baffled, why you are not showing
that today.
No one would argue the beauty of Harris Neck. No one would
argue the ecological importance. No one would say Woody Pond is
a bad idea. That is not relevant right now. What we are talking
about is, was the process followed, were the procedures as good
as they should have been, and what was the compensation. And I
have been asking you guys that for many years now. And so I
don't understand why, today, under oath, in front of the U.S.
Congress, that that information has not been presented by Fish
and Wildlife.
I am not picking on you, because I know many years ago--I
know that, you know, everything you respond to has to kind of
be, you know, filtered and your lawyers have to sign off on it.
So I understand that constraint. But I don't understand why you
don't have a package of information saying, you know what, what
they are saying is not true.
And so, that is my question to you. Because I think Mr.
Kelly is here with some, you know, kind of--wants to go point
for point, and that is what I was hoping was going to happen
right now. But it seems like Fish and Wildlife is still on
that, ``There is no evidence,'' but not sharing with us how you
came to that conclusion.
So what I want you to say is, ``Here is the compensation
answer.'' Here is what--you know, just--and do you know why
Fish and Wildlife has not given that information to the
Committee yet?
Ms. Dohner. No, sir, I don't. But trust me, you will get it
very soon.
The information that we have is based on the DOD. DOD
condemned these lands. The Fish and Wildlife Service didn't.
You have already heard that. You know that.
Mr. Kingston. Yeah.
Ms. Dohner. We will ensure that you get that information,
what we have, based on, again, those court records or that GAO
investigation and then their follow-up report that does talk
about what compensation was given, how much was given, and as
they went forward what was done.
Mr. Kingston. It absolutely has to be there. And I have to
say that I am very disappointed, again, just because I thought
that is what we were going to be seeing and hearing today. And
some in the room might not like the answer, but, you know, the
truth is the truth, and we are trying to get to justice.
Now, let me ask you this, Mr. Kelly. The ongoing dialogues
which we have had, I thought there was a little bit more
discussion back and forth with your group and Fish and
Wildlife. And Ms. Dohner says that the efforts have not led to
any discovery of new documentation. Have you not shown them all
of your documentation? Have you shown them what would be
considered new documentation that would, you know, maybe reveal
a new light on it, new angles?
Mr. Kelly. Well, we met in your office in December of 2009.
Then we met with--and Fish and Wildlife was there. Then we met
again with most of the same parties, and Cynthia Dohner was
there, in March. And after that meeting, the offer by Fish and
Wildlife to us for what you asked for in your office, which was
an equitable solution to this, their offer was a kiosk and a
homecoming day.
And Reverend Thorpe, as Board Chair then, answered the
first letter that we got from Fish and Wildlife. But the Board
and the community decided that that letter was so insulting
that we chose not to answer it. And since then, the dialogue
has broken down. Because that is not our idea of an equitable
solution.
And I told Ms. Dohner twice, at two meetings, that there
are, depending on which archives--the first archives that I
went into was closed, and the new archives was opened. So,
originally, I went through 13 cardboard boxes of documents,
most of which, or maybe all of which, hadn't been looked at
since the 1940s. And I have in my office a couple of thousand
pages of documents from all kinds of things, not only the
archives.
But I shared with them what I thought was the most
appropriate. We have also given them the community development
plan. Their only response to that is it lacks specificity. And
if it lacks specificity, it is only because, you know, we don't
have the access to the land that we really need. But it was
developed with a scientific background. We are also willing to
work with Fish and Wildlife to, you know, refine that.
We have also--I want to make very clear that we have asked
Fish and Wildlife to be partners with us when the land is
returned. We don't want anyone to lose a job. We want them to
stay and do the work that they are doing now, which is to
protect and monitor the ponds and the other wildlife. And we
want them to maintain the presence that they have right now,
even to continue working on the other island.
So we see this as a win-win partnership. But the land needs
to be returned. That is justice, in this case.
Dr. Fleming. Thank you for that testimony.
We will have a second round, if our witnesses will indulge
us in this. And I will lead off with a second set of questions.
I want to revisit--we have talked about this, and I want to
maybe bring this into better focus. What I believe I am hearing
from our witnesses today who are, for lack of a better term,
the aggrieved party, those who are descendants of the owners of
this land, the former owners--clarify for me this.
So, as I understand it, you are not looking for financial
compensation; you are not looking to actually control the land,
in the sense of building homes or developing or anything like
that, although you do want the ownership back. So what you are
saying today is that what you would like to see as a resolution
of this is that the ownership is given back to you, I guess the
deed or title or whatever, and that you would keep it in
exactly the same form that it is today.
I would love to hear responses from all the members here.
Mr. Kelly. I am just going to say one quick thing and then
pass it on to the others.
The plan does call for the construction of low-impact
houses and some other development, which is all based on what
the community used to do back in the day. And, again, the
partnerships that we have created with wind specialists, solar
specialists, the use of the latest in wastewater treatment, et
cetera.
But Wilson and the others will speak to the rest.
Dr. Fleming. OK.
Mr. Moran. To continue with that, our great grandparents
were--I guess you could call them ecologically inclined long
before my country, this country, superimposed on it. Oysters,
the crabs, the shrimp, the fish, the different species. They
already had a plan in place for us, had we continued to live on
this 2,687 acres of land. And the farming--all the farming they
did was organic. So they built their own houses; they had the
skills. They built their own small boats. They made their own
nets, the cast nets. We were the custodians of that region. We
knew about pollution long before my country started doing this
pollution thing.
If we had the opportunity--you have to recognize, even our
cemetery, we don't own it. We are allowed to go bury people.
Well, we only got about 20 spaces left. And the other cemetery
that we did own was completely destroyed. And Sister Evelyn
will tell you that the story about that is still yet to be
told, of what happened to that cemetery.
But the point here is, those people were highly successful
in the 1800s living a simple life. And we could duplicate the
same thing using modern technology, like wind power, solar
power, leaving less of an imprint on the environment.
And, plus, about the wood storks, I need to explain to you
that the wood storks were always here. And more of them were
here then than they are now, and we didn't have to lure them to
stay here.
Now, my grandfather would laugh and smile about some things
that was happening----
Dr. Fleming. Excuse me just a moment. I didn't catch--the
who?
Mr. Moran. The wood storks.
Dr. Fleming. What is that? The wood stork. OK, I am sorry.
Mr. Moran. My Geechee comes out every once in a while.
They were always here. There were more of them here during
my uncle's time than my time.
But my grandfather would laugh after the land was taken
from us, and he says, ``These people is going to destroy that
land.'' And that was the part about Fish and Wildlife. He said,
because once you lure a species to stay, you disturb their
migration period. Like, if you were to keep a geese in one
place, it would pollute the area, because a geese has to
migrate. If you clip his wings and teach him to stay, then he
will destroy another species. We knew this long before.
So, yes, we can go back there. Our imprint would be so
small you wouldn't even know that we were there. And, plus,
even though our culture were destroyed, we still remember the
ways that they lived. The forest, the sassafras tree, the
snakeroot bush--all these natural medicines, we knew what they
were----
Dr. Fleming. I am sorry----
Mr. Moran.--and we used them.
Dr. Fleming.--my 5 minutes is up. We have to be just as
strict on the Chairman as we do everybody else here. So I thank
you.
I now recognize Ms. Hanabusa.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Something along those lines. Mr. Kelly, you seem to be very
familiar with the plan. You were talking about maintaining--in
your prior testimony, you were talking about maintaining it
with different kinds of, I guess, particular parts of the
Refuge that you are talking to.
Are you using conservation easements, or are you, you know,
I guess, ready to consider conservation easements in that
process?
Mr. Kelly. Yes. Long ago, we settled that issue. So more
than half the acreage, total acreage, is going to be put into
permanent conservation. We don't know what trust will manage
that; that is a small detail. But that is going to be put into
permanent conservation.
And then the rest of it is going to be managed--and we are
willing to work, again, as I said, in the future with Fish and
Wildlife on the management of that.
Ms. Hanabusa. You know, the problem with situations like
this--and, you know, being from Hawaii, we have the Hawaiian
Homes Commission Act, for example, we have had things that have
happened over the time. The problem is you can never really
turn back the clock all the way. You can't undo--irrespective
of the injustice. It is just a difficult thing to do.
So the question that I have is, you have formed a Harris
Trust. So is it anticipated that that Trust will continue to
manage, assuming a settlement is reached, into the future?
Because the concern would be that you can't do all of these
things if there isn't some kind of an organization that
oversees everything. Because once you get to the returning of a
particular parcel to a particular person, then their rights to
alienate the lands come into question, as well.
So how did you envision or how did the plan envision
anticipating those kinds of situations?
Mr. Kelly. Yes. And, again, it is the Harris Neck Land
Trust. And the request is that the land be returned to that
trust, which will manage and protect the lands in perpetuity.
And then, under that umbrella, if you will, there will be
strict covenants put in for resale, for example, a 10-year
moratorium on no resale whatsoever; the property has to go
under that umbrella to the original families.
And I would like to remind everyone that those are not just
the black families but there are white landowners involved,
some of whom were a part of this movement. We have approached
them all. E.M. Thorpe's granddaughter--he was the largest
landowner--she is part of the movement.
Ms. Hanabusa. Now, I would also like to point out to you
that, for example, with the native Hawaiians--and 1921 was when
the law passed. It is the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of
1920. What that does is it prevents the alienation of lands.
You have 99-year leases to a family, but they cannot ever
alienate the land. In other words, it comes back to the
Commission, to basically a form of a trust. And that is the
idea, that those lands will always be there for native
Hawaiians. And these are defined as people with 50-percent-plus
blood quantum.
But you seem to be indicating that there is an anticipation
that people would be able to sell. Now, would that be a sale
back to the Trust first----
Mr. Kelly. Yes.
Ms. Hanabusa.--or a sale to anyone?
Mr. Kelly. Back to the Trust. And the Trust has to approve
all future sales. So, for example, you know, this cannot go up
to the highest bidder. There is not going to be the Hyatt
Hotel.
And just to remind the Committee, the two premier cultures
in America regarding stewardship are the Native American
cultures, you know, the 500 nations that were here, and the
Gullah. And these two, this blood is in this community. And
that is the guiding ethic within the Trust.
Ms. Hanabusa. I hear you very clearly. And I anticipate you
will provide that all in the plan. So the anticipation is that
this will be held in trust, in perpetuity, for the benefit of
all who were the original people there--the descendants of the
original people that were there.
Mr. Kelly. Yes. And we are going to--this is another rumor
that has been spread, we are going to close down the community.
That could not be farther from the truth. The experience the
public will receive in the future will be greatly enhanced.
I spend hundreds of hours in Harris Neck. I have never
talked to a single birder--and I am one of those--who knows
anything about the history.
So, for example, one of the other objections that Fish and
Wildlife has raised--and I am speaking word for word: ``We
cannot return this land to you because Harris Neck is wall-to-
wall archeological/cultural sites.'' Do you know how many there
are? Six. Four of those are in the wetlands.
So we have hired the premier archeological consulting firm
in Georgia to do the first ever comprehensive, acre-by-acre
site analysis. And every piece of pottery, et cetera, that we
find we are going to protect, preserve, sign, and turn into an
educational component. So the public's experience of Harris
Neck will be greatly enhanced.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Our time is up.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentlelady.
And, Mr. Kingston, you have 5 minutes.
Mr. Kingston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Reverend Thorpe, I wanted to ask you about your
grandparents, Amelia and Robert Dawley. Were they college-
educated? Were they educated people?
Rev. Thorpe. No, sir.
Mr. Kingston. What was their educational level, to your
knowledge?
Rev. Thorpe. My grandfather, Robert Dawley, had a 5th-grade
education.
Mr. Kingston. Is that typical of the Harris Neck residents
in the 1940s?
Rev. Thorpe. That is right.
Mr. Kingston. So you would say we could assume there were
no lawyers.
Rev. Thorpe. No lawyers.
Mr. Kingston. No college graduates.
Rev. Thorpe. Right.
Mr. Kingston. Anybody who attended college?
Rev. Thorpe. No.
Mr. Kingston. Anybody who graduated from high school?
Rev. Thorpe. No.
Mr. Kingston. Not certain, maybe.
Rev. Thorpe. Not certain.
Mr. Kingston. So Mr. Banks comes down from Washington,
D.C., gives them 2 weeks to move out?
Rev. Thorpe. Yes.
Mr. Kingston. And basically says they are gone.
Rev. Thorpe. Gone, yes.
Mr. Kingston. Do you happen to know if the City of Clyde or
Taylor's Creek--and, Mr. Chairman and Members, Clyde and
Taylor's Creek were cities that were dismantled for the
construction of Fort Stewart, leaving only their cemeteries.
Do you know if Clyde and Taylor's Creek had been dismantled
by then?
Rev. Thorpe. No, I don't know.
Mr. Kingston. I actually think that they had. And it would
stand to reason that there would be a precedent for, you know,
the folks at Harris Neck to say, ``Well, we don't have any
choice.'' But if they were against it, where would they turn
to? Who was running the county at that time, for example?
Rev. Thorpe. Tom Poppell.
Mr. Kingston. And if they had turned to him, would he have
been sympathetic to them, in your opinion?
Rev. Thorpe. Well, I guess yes and no.
Could I bring this in? Could I bring this in?
Mr. Kingston. Sure.
Rev. Thorpe. You see, the same person who sold us that
property, Irvin Davis, in 1947 he called for a meeting at the
First AB Harris Neck Baptist Church. He brought along with him
his lawyer. And we met at the church, 1947, and his lawyer was
the spokesman. And his lawyer got up and said, ``Now, Harris
Neck, the government has not--are not going to release Harris
Neck to you as of this time. But we are here to ask if you
would allow Mr. Davis to have it for a cow pasture until that
time.'' Everybody knowing Mr. Davis as a good man, we didn't
know it was a trick. Everybody said, yes, let Mr. Davis have
it. And that is what happened.
We didn't know the land had been ordered returned to the
county to give to the--they promised to give it back to us.
Mr. Kingston. Ms. Bambach, I think it is important for
you--well, maybe on a personal basis--you are not from that
area, correct? You moved in 1999?
Ms. Bambach. That is correct.
Mr. Kingston. And so, just kind of as a scene setter, I
wanted to make sure that you and the Friends sort of understood
that this was a group of people who really weren't able to
defend themselves. And when Washington comes down and says,
``They need your land,'' it is taken from them.
And the reason why I want to address this to you is you
have a little more flexibility in what you say than Ms. Dohner
does. But I think it is very important for us to look at the
cultural, historic perspective of African Americans not getting
equal justice in the court system and the political
infrastructure.
Switching back to Mr. Thorpe, do you know if they voted or
not in the 1940s? Were they organized in terms of voting?
Rev. Thorpe. No, we weren't really organized. And we didn't
have a voice no way.
Mr. Kingston. Did they vote at all, do you know?
Rev. Thorpe. No. And we didn't have no kind of voice, and
we couldn't have had no question, we couldn't ask no question.
It was just, yes, sir, no, sir.
Mr. Kingston. And, Ms. Bambach, the reason why this is an
important issue to us in Congress--and I want also you and the
Friends organization to know, this is the political equivalent
of me walking in a gasoline factory smoking a cigarette. It is
a lose-lose in terms of the politics of this stuff. I
understand two highly energized groups are in conflict here.
But, as Americans, we can be united on the central question
of fair compensation. And if the compensation was fair at that
time, that is what we need to know. And people might not like
that answer, one side or the other, but, to me, that is the
empirical question.
And that is why, you know, I really want to get that
information from Fish and Wildlife so that we know and we can
proceed accordingly.
Ms. Bambach. I absolutely agree, Representative Kingston.
I would also like to see it parsed a little bit differently
than the data was previously analyzed in the GAO report.
Because what they used is, they went over all the individual
properties and they gave us the average pay to whites and pay
to the Harris Neck community.
By the way, white landowners owned more than 50 percent of
that property. And I don't believe that they all had a 5th-
grade education. So there were people there who, if they had
wanted to protest it, could.
But the price--my understanding, and I have not seen the
original data, but my understanding is that when you have what
are called outliers in your data set, some that are way higher
than most and some that are way lower, an average does not give
you good statistical predictive power. What you should be using
is median, mode, and range. And GAO did not do that. And I
would love to see that done, because I think it is going to
show--even the Olympic diving champions throw out the highest
and lowest score before they do an average. That is an
imperfect solution to the problem. But, statistically, we
should be doing a better job in analyzing this.
Mr. Kingston. And I agree with you, because, also, the
higher land probably got a better compensation rate than lower
land. I am guessing. I don't know.
Ms. Bambach. That is correct. The Livingston-Lorillard
estate was 225 acres. It occupied most of the high ground and
had the deepwater access, abutted the emergency airfield that
was already there. And it definitely did get more than anybody
else. And, also, it had a 28-room mansion with an in-ground
swimming pool that was utilized by the military during the war.
But, nonetheless, I absolutely agree that the members
represented by the Land Trust suffered terrible misfortune
during the war. The question for me is, were they unique? I
think you will find many, many thousands of other families
around the country that were asked to make similar sacrifices
and half a million that made the ultimate sacrifice. We were at
war, and things were sort of done in a hurry.
Dr. Fleming. OK. I have a follow-up question, and I will
invite the other panel members if they have a wrap-up question
as well. Because this is an important follow-up to the line of
questioning that Mr. Kingston had.
Is it your understanding that the--first of all, my
understanding is that--and I think you alluded to this
briefly--is that the compensation to the white landowners was
significantly higher than that to the black owners, or there
was some differential there.
Mr. Kelly? Either one.
Mr. Kelly. I am sorry. I thought you were directing it to
her. What was the question?
Dr. Fleming. Well, the question was--and, again, just a
``yes'' or ``no'' is fine. My understanding is the white
owners--and this is going to lead up to another question that
is even more important--the white owners, all things being
equal, received a higher compensation than the black owners
did.
Mr. Kelly. Yes. And to remind you also, they had only Lilly
Livingston and Nellie Clapp, who died in the 1930s, had any
improvements. The rest of the landowners--Ian Thorpe--and Ms.
Bambach was right--he did turn out to be the largest landowner
in the county, most of it acquired by hook or crook. But none
of the other families even had a chicken coop on the land--no
housing, nothing. They just had property. Every family had all
that you can imagine to have a successful community. So, you
know, that even further----
Dr. Fleming. Right. Underscores.
Mr. Kelly. Yeah.
Dr. Fleming. What I think you are saying is that, if
anything, some, if not all, of the black owners had more
improvements on their land, therefore a higher value on the
land, than whites did, but yet it was a reversal in pay.
What I have here is the uniform appraisal standards for
Federal land acquisitions. Quite thick, as you can see. And it
calls for the fact that whenever there is compensation for
condemnation that you had to go far beyond just the land
itself--the improvements, business. We heard testimony that
there were business enterprises that were functioning, having
to do with farming as well as food processing and so forth.
Is it my understanding that none of that--and, again, I
would like for Ms. Bambach, as well as Mr. Kelly, to respond to
this. Is my understanding correct that there was no
compensation for any of those factors?
Mr. Kelly. You are absolutely correct. Reverend Timmons,
who is the pastor of the church now, his grandfather ran a
seafood factory that employed Evelyn Greer's mother and 49
other women. No compensation for that or for any other
business.
Dr. Fleming. Ms. Bambach, would you like to respond?
Ms. Bambach. I was just looking for my copy of the GAO
report, which shows that some white landowners, Mrs. Livingston
in particular, who owned the estate, received more than some
black owners, but some black owners received more than some
white owners.
So it is not like everything got appraised and then they
said, ``All right, now we will add on a 40 percent margin if
you are white.'' That is not what happened, and the statistics
will bear me out on that.
Also, the prices that were paid were set. And the reference
here is the GAO report. They were set by the Circuit Court.
Ms. Dohner. Right.
Ms. Bambach. And the Circuit Court said that it considered
the improvements as well as the value of the land. Now, we
don't have the data that those courts used, so all I have to go
on is their statement.
Dr. Fleming. Well, let me be clear on this. So you are
saying that Mr. Kelly's assertion is incorrect and, in fact,
that there was no differential based on race and that, in fact,
improvements were considered and were compensated for.
Ms. Bambach. I am saying that the court that made the
prices made that statement. I can't say what was on their mind.
But they said that is what they did in 1948. And it was the
Circuit Court that did that. And I am saying----
Dr. Fleming. Mr. Kelly, can you clarify that?
Ms. Bambach. In terms of the differential, what I am saying
is that there are other explanations.
Dr. Fleming. OK.
Ms. Bambach. And, you know, I haven't done a regression
analysis on this, but things like location and amenities,
locational amenities, could have been a factor.
Dr. Fleming. Right.
Do you have any rebuttal to that?
Mr. Kelly. I don't know about that Circuit Court decision,
but, you know, we stand by what we have already said and that
we know to be true.
Dr. Fleming. Sure.
Oh, Ms. Dohner, do you have a comment?
Ms. Dohner. Sir, I would just like to add one thing. That
information is in the report. We will make sure everyone that
has been at this hearing gets that information.
You also have to look at--Congressman Kingston talked about
the Fort Stewart area. And they also looked at the differences
between what was paid for those people, and there was also a
difference in that. And, again, it is based on not only what is
on the lands but the overall land, like Ms. Bambach said, about
the deepwater docks and things like that, the coastal area.
Mr. Kelly. If you read after page 4 of the GAO report, page
4 has the average price paid per acre. If you read the rest of
that report closely, you will see that it makes very little
sense. When they compare what happened in Fort Stewart to what
happened in Harris Neck, read it closely and you will see that
they are comparing apples to oranges.
Dr. Fleming. Yeah. I have this in my hand. It says that the
average for black owners was $29,653; white, $57,153. Again, by
itself, that doesn't prove anything, but certainly that is a
disturbing number and a disturbing trend.
And, also--and this is one of the problems we have in this,
is making judgments based on information--it also says, GAO
report, page 4, ``As a result of the absence of land and
property tax assessment records, we were unable to evaluate:
one, the acquisition payments to the former Harris Neck
landowners for their land, including improvements; and, two,
whether there was racial discrimination in determining this
compensation.''
So the GAO still leaves it as a significant possibility
that that did happen. So I don't--and that was after the court
case. So I don't think the court case, certainly, is the end-
all or the final answer.
And, with that, I am going to open to the panel. Do either
one of our other Members have any follow-up questions?
OK, Ms. Hanabusa?
Ms. Hanabusa. Mr. Kelly, something that I have been curious
about, when you gave me the two dates on when, basically, the
Harris Neck Land Trust was created, 2005-2006. Now, why such a
long period of time? Why 2005-2006 before the Trust is actually
created?
Mr. Kelly. There was a strong movement starting in the mid
to late 1970s. The reason that nothing happened after the war
is you are talking about a different culture in Reverend
Thorpe's generation--the acceptance, the patriotism, the lack
of a formal education. So when Wilson and Reverend Timmons and
Chester Dunham's generation came up, that is when the first
movement started.
And it was basically a legal avenue that was approached.
However, there was a bill that they tried to get at the time,
through Representative Bo Ginn. And the effort then died in the
very early 1980s even though the ``60 Minutes'' piece on Harris
Neck came out in 1983.
So for, you know--if the Committee puts itself in a similar
position, it is about people putting a lot of effort, blood,
sweat, and tears into a movement after their land was taken
already from their parents and having the result that occurred
in 1979 and in 1980.
And then, fortunately, or unfortunately, I heard the story
on National Public Radio when I was working in California in
2007, and that is when my involvement started. And Reverend
Timmons, Wilson Moran, and myself had a meeting that led to
many more meetings, that led to the formation of the Trust. So
I guess it is an answer of a couple of evolutions through the
time.
Ms. Hanabusa. I thought you said the Trust was formed in
2005-2006.
Mr. Kelly. The Trust was formed in 2006. The movement
actually began in 2005, but the legal Trust was formed in 2006.
Ms. Hanabusa. But you said you heard about it in 2007?
Mr. Kelly. Yes. I am a slow learner. I heard about it in
2007 and came to Harris Neck to hang out with Wilson. And I
ended up going back to California and giving my notice at work
and moved there, got involved in the community, and one thing
led to another. But I am a slow learner.
Ms. Hanabusa. So I guess the question is, what caused the
movement before you got there, then? Does somebody want to
answer that? I mean, you have this gap from 1980 to 2005-2006.
So what happened that triggered 2005-2006?
Anyone?
Mr. Moran. Well, I think we need to go back to 1979,
Vietnam. We had just got out from Vietnam. And a lot of the men
came home, and they saw that we were living on the side of
Harris Neck Road on one acre of land per family, and they
wanted to go and try to get this 2,687 acres of land.
And Reverend Timmons put it like this. He said, ``Well, we
fought for freedom for the Vietnamese. We need to fight for
freedom for us.'' And that is how it started.
Ms. Hanabusa. I see.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Oh, I am sorry. Please.
Mrs. Greer. I would just like--I am Evelyn Greer.
Ms. Hanabusa. Right.
Mrs. Greer. I would like to clear up some things on the
first movement. I was the Secretary of the first movement. And
we were going very good, that first movement, but we ran into
financial problems. And we had went to Washington, we went to
Atlanta several times. Bo Ginn was in then. But we just
couldn't get no financial help. And that is why, at that point,
it kind of went away. You know, it didn't completely die, but
we just didn't have the finances, you know, to do what we
wanted and desired to do. So it died down for a while. And that
is when Wilson and them came along and picked it back up. But
there are so many catches in it.
Now, we was fighting, too, because we felt like it wasn't
right for the government to take the money that they have
written out to pay us and give it to individuals to give to us
when we were corresponding back and forth with them. This is
me; I am telling what I know.
Ms. Hanabusa. OK.
Mrs. Greer. And that is one reason we were fighting, too,
because they didn't, you know, recognize us. They took it from
us, but they gave the money to other individuals to pay us,
and, matter of fact, called E.M. Thorpe.
Dr. Fleming. OK.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Ms. Greer.
Dr. Fleming. Your time is up.
And I will recognize Mr. Kingston, the gentleman from
Georgia, if you have any further questions.
Mr. Kingston. No. Mr. Chairman, let me just thank you for
having this hearing and for your commitment to try to sort
through this.
And as you can tell, this is a class of two enormously
important values: justice being number one, and then you have
the Gullah-Geechee corridor. And we will teach you a little--I
know we can swap some Cajun for Gullah-Geechee. But, you know,
this is something that Mr. Clyburn and I actually did a bill on
about 3 years ago, recognizing the Gullah-Geechee corridor and
the historical importance of it. And, certainly, at the same
time, we understand the environmental significance of this
area. So we have a lot of our, you know, top values clashing.
And it is my hope that we can stay engaged and try to come
up with, well, what really did happen in the 1940s and then
where do we go from there. And so I appreciate the panelists
and what they have said today, and, again, the Committee. So
let's stay engaged, and let's get to the bottom of this.
Thank you.
Dr. Fleming. Yes. Well, I thank the gentleman.
And I thank the panel today. We learned a tremendous amount
of information about what is really a very complex issue and
one that is, as my good friend points out, it is a clash of
values. We always want to do the right thing, but that is not
always as easy as it may seem. And I think everyone here is
very earnest and sincere in their feelings and beliefs and
understandings.
So, with that, I am going to excuse the panel and then ask
the last panel to come forward so we can finish up our hearing.
Well, I want to thank our third panel for the day for what
has been a very interesting hearing on various subjects.
And so I want to welcome Dr. Holly Bamford, Deputy
Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone
Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
and Dr. Paul Gilman, Senior Vice President and Chief
Sustainability Officer, Covanta Energy Corporation.
Like all witnesses, your written testimony will appear in
full in the hearing record. So I ask that you keep your oral
statements to 5 minutes, as outlined in the invitation letter
and Committee Rule 4(a).
Our microphones are not automatic, so try to remember to
punch the button. I forget half the time myself. Also, the
timing lights, I think you have probably seen that by now. Four
minutes green, 1 minute yellow, and then when it turns red, we
want you to wrap up.
Dr. Bamford, I believe you are up first, and I will
recognize you for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF HOLLY BAMFORD, PH.D., DEPUTY ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR OCEAN SERVICES AND COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT,
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

Dr. Bamford. Thank you very much.
Chairman Fleming, members of the Subcommittee, thank you
for the opportunity to testify on the Marine Debris
Reauthorization Act and S. 363. I am the Deputy Assistant
Administrator for the National Ocean Service, but previous to
that position, I was the Director of the NOAA Marine Debris
Program. So I am very happy to provide you some of my
experiences as well as how this reauthorization can help NOAA
do its job better.
The Reauthorization Amendment of 2011 provides a clear
guidance to NOAA to comprehensively address the impacts of
various types of debris on a national, regional, and
international scale. The amendment gives NOAA the ability to
improve and better coordinate our current efforts, as well as
advance our ability to understand and address many of the
impacts marine debris has on our environment.
Let me give you some examples from around the country. I
would like to first start in the Pacific Northwest, where
fishing and crabbing industries are the lifeblood of the
region.
Fishermen in Washington and Oregon catch millions of pounds
of Dungeness crab, salmon, and other commercial fisheries every
year, boosting the local economy with jobs and commerce. But
this robust industry does not come without costs. Lost fishing
nets observed in coastal waters in Puget Sound indiscriminately
tangle and kill countless marine mammals, seabirds, fish, and
invertebrates. Crab pots can sometimes weigh more than 100
pounds, scouring some other sensitive fisheries habitat.
Dr. Bamford. These abandoned nets and pots must be removed
in order to protect the resources.
NOAA's regional marine debris coordinators are instrumental
in overseeing removal and assessment projects of derelict
fishing gear and nets. Just recently, NOAA's West Coast
coordinator oversaw a NOAA-supported project with the Oregon
fishing industry which resulted in nearly 3,000 derelict pots
removed from Oregon waters.
Similar efforts are taking place across the country, here
in the Chesapeake Bay, where nearly 20 percent of the deployed
pots are actually lost annually. There, NOAA and the Virginia
Institute of Marine Science partnered to study the impacts of
lost traps. Of the 28,000 derelict blue crab traps that were
removed during the study, 27,000 contained targeted species,
including blue crabs, that could have been harvested for
profit.
The reauthorization amendment specifically calls out for
NOAA to undertake national and regional coordination to assist
States, tribes, and organizations in addressing marine debris
issues that are important to these areas. This will allow the
NOAA coordinators to serve as an expert resource in support of
local efforts more efficiently and effectively to address
marine debris issues on a national scale. In short, the
reauthorization helps us do our job better in support of the
States.
Now let's go to the Pacific Islands, which are home to some
of the Nation's most prestigious natural resources. Hawaii has
world-class beaches, incredibly unique ecosystems, and marine
animals found nowhere else on Earth. Marine debris is also a
consistent problem for Hawaii. Garbage of all shapes and sizes
and materials wash up on Hawaii's beaches and reefs every day.
This is due to the local high-concentration debris zone where
Hawaii sits in the Pacific.
Marine mammals, including the endangered monk seal, often
eat debris like plastic or get entangled in it, which can lead
to death. Countless birds and marine mammals have been found
with plastic in their stomachs or wrapped around their bodies.
While it is not always conclusive that the plastic was the
primary cause of death, it certainly didn't help them survive.
In addition to derelict fishing gear, the reauthorization
allows NOAA to prioritize research on plastics and other types
of debris, including storm-generated debris. This is most
timely, as the debris that has swept into the ocean by the
tsunami in Japan last March could reach the United States over
the next few years. NOAA is currently working with our other
agencies, as well as the States, to assess the probability and
plan for the best- and worst-case scenarios due to this event.
The amendment calls on NOAA to undertake these types of
assessments, with a focus on marine debris that poses a threat
to marine environment, navigational safety, and the economy.
Next, let's head to the Gulf, a region that has been
gravely impacted by natural disasters.
When Hurricane Katrina swept through in 2005, it destroyed
marine infrastructure on a wide scale, depositing enormous
amounts of debris in the water both on- and offshore. Following
the storm, NOAA worked with the Coast Guard and the Army Corps
of Engineers to survey and clear debris from major national
waterways, as mandated by existing laws. But near-shore areas
outside the navigational waterways were not mandated to be
cleared, yet these areas contain large amounts of debris, which
cause a threat to boaters and the fishing industry.
To help restore the area's fishing grounds and mitigate
risks to public safety, Congress authorized supplemental
funding to NOAA to address these areas and survey the near-
shore waters along Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. The
reauthorization bill directs the Department to develop
products, like the Katrina debris mapping tool we developed
from those authorization funds, to help the public better use
best practices and technology to address this impact.
The NOAA Marine Debris Program is working extensively on
these marine debris issues in the Pacific Islands, Alaska, U.S.
territories, Great Lakes, East/West Coast, and the Gulf Coast.
Reauthorization will allow NOAA to comprehensively address the
issues associated with marine debris on a local, regional, and
national scale.
Before I end, I would like to also take a moment to discuss
S. 363, a bill that will allow the Secretary to convey property
of NOAA to the City of Pascagoula, Mississippi.
Many years ago, for security purposes NOAA fenced off three
small sections of land adjacent to Pascagoula Laboratory.
However, that land is owned by the City of Pascagoula. In
recent years, the city has begun to develop the local
waterfronts in their plan for a small park on a separate piece
of land currently owned by NOAA. The city is willing to swap
the parcels and other contiguous space around in use by NOAA
for the adjacent piece of government land.
The proposed exchange would allow for the government to----
Dr. Fleming. I am sorry, your 5 minutes is well up, and
your testimony will appear in full in the record.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Bamford follows:]

Statement of Dr. Holly Bamford, Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

Introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to testify on H.R. 1171, the Marine Debris Act
Reauthorization Amendments of 2011. My name is Holly Bamford, Deputy
Assistant Administrator for the National Ocean Service at the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of
Commerce. Previous to my current position, I served as the Division
Chief and Director of the NOAA Marine Debris Program and was involved
in its inception in 2005 and formal codification in 2006. I look
forward to contributing my experience on the marine debris issue to
today's hearing.
NOAA supports undertaking the activities detailed in the
reauthorization language, which will codify efforts already underway
within the NOAA Marine Debris Program and allow continued growth and
progress in addressing the impacts of marine debris. Marine Debris is
currently defined for the purpose of the Marine Debris Research,
Prevention, and Reduction Act as, ``any persistent solid material that
is manufactured or processed and directly or indirectly, intentionally
or unintentionally, disposed of or abandoned into the marine
environment or the Great Lakes.'' NOAA wrote this definition
cooperatively with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) as directed by the
original Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act.
As the lead federal agency addressing marine debris and Chair of
the Interagency Marine Debris Coordinating Committee, NOAA continually
works in partnership across federal agencies to ensure coordination in
its national and international marine debris efforts, within existing
bodies such as the Interagency Committee, and through the National
Ocean Policy.
Marine Debris Impacts
Marine debris, which can be anything from lost or abandoned fishing
gear and vessels, to plastics of any size, to glass, metal, and rubber,
is an on-going international problem that impacts our natural
resources. In addition to being an eyesore, it can threaten oceans,
coasts, wildlife, human health, safety, and navigation. Every year,
unknown numbers of marine animals are injured or die because of
entanglement in or ingestion of marine debris. It can scour, break,
smother, or otherwise damage important marine habitat, such as coral
reefs. Many of these habitats serve as the basis of marine ecosystems
and are critical to the survival of many important species. Derelict
fishing gear can also cost fishermen untold economic losses. For
example, crab pots and nets can continue to capture fish--something we
refer to as ``ghost fishing''--for years after they're lost or
abandoned, depleting fisheries and reducing abundance and reproductive
capacity of the stock. In addition to the ecosystem impacts, coastal
communities spend millions of dollars annually trying to prevent debris
from washing up on their shorelines and trying to remove it once it
does wash up. It not only degrades our coasts' natural beauty, but it
threatens the safety of those who work and play there.
Marine debris can also present a navigation hazard to vessels of
any type. Ropes, plastics, derelict fishing gear, and other objects can
get entangled in boat propellers and cause operational problems and
large items such as lost containers can actually be collision dangers.
Plastic bags can clog and block water intakes and are a common cause of
burned-out water pumps in recreational crafts. Such incidents involve
costly engine repairs and disablement. These dangerous and costly
impacts are problems for both the recreational and commercial boating
and shipping communities, and NOAA's Marine Debris Program is actively
seeking partnerships within these communities to expand our area of
knowledge and begin to proactively address the dangers.
These impacts to navigation and the economy are being investigated
in a study conducted by the Marine Debris Program and the Hawaii
longline fishing community since 2007. The study, utilizing the NOAA
National Marine Fisheries Service Observer Program in Hawaii to gain
better understanding of the overall impacts of derelict fishing gear to
the Hawaii-based longline fishing industry, has produced some
interesting results. During 125 separate vessel trips, observer vessels
encountered over 34,000 pounds of marine debris, with an average of 287
pounds per encounter.
Abandoned and derelict vessels are another type of marine debris
posing a threat to marine resources and navigational safety in U.S.
waters. Because older or inoperable vessels are expensive to remove and
become even more costly the longer they are left in place, owners
sometimes leave such vessels on the shoreline or sunk close to shore
after removing identifying numbers. With the economic downturn, many
states are finding abandoned vessels to be a serious marine debris
problem.
In addition to improving navigation safety, removal of marine
debris eliminates the risks of entanglement and trapping of marine
species, reduces risks to human health, and promotes vital marine
habitat recovery.
Marine Debris and Natural Disasters
Coastal storms and natural disasters are another source of marine
debris creating hazards on our inland and coastal waters.
For example, there is a chance that debris swept into the ocean by
the tragic tsunami that struck Japan last March could reach the United
States over the next few years. In addition to the incredible human
tragedy of the earthquake and tsunami, part of its aftermath has become
a marine debris issue that could directly impact our coasts.
NOAA has been working with partners to coordinate efforts to
understand the nature and amount of items that may reach the United
States. Our activities have included working with vessels in the North
Pacific to report significant debris sightings, collecting scientific
data, and predicting debris movement at sea with computer models. At
this point there is not an accurate estimate of the number and type of
items that will reach the United States given the uncertainty and
unprecedented scale of this situation.
We have also been hard at work preparing an assessment and response
framework that will facilitate holistic and cooperative action planning
for potential threats posed by the debris. Moving forward, the
activities outlined in the framework will be executed and coordinated
by the Interagency Marine Debris Coordinating Committee, so that NOAA
can leverage resources and expertise from across the federal
government.
In another example, during the 2005 hurricane season, Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita inflicted severe damage on the Gulf of Mexico coastal
region, and deposited extensive amounts of debris over various areas of
the Gulf coast. Immediately following the storms, NOAA's Navigation
Response Teams worked with the USCG, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
and other state and private sector partners to quickly survey and clear
marine debris from shipping channels vital to the response and recovery
effort. In addition, the amount of storm-generated marine debris
outside the navigation channels was huge, posing a threat to safe
vessel movement throughout Gulf coastal waters. Recognizing this,
Congress provided Fiscal Year 2006 and 2007 supplemental funds to NOAA
and USCG to survey and remove debris that posed a hazard to safe
navigation and commerce in the coastal areas of Alabama, Louisiana, and
Mississippi.
NOAA responded by surveying and mapping over 1,570 square nautical
miles along all state waters of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana.
Over 7,000 marine debris hazards were identified and plotted on marine
debris maps. This information was provided to USCG, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, and the States in order to assist with
cleanup and outreach efforts.
NOAA Marine Debris Program in 2011
I would like to also highlight some of the recent accomplishments
of the NOAA Marine Debris Program and how these efforts relate to the
new program components in the Marine Debris Act Reauthorization
Amendments of 2011.
NOAA leads international collaboration
In March 2011, the NOAA Marine Debris Program hosted the Fifth
International Marine Debris Conference in Hawaii, the first
international marine debris conference held in over 10 years in Hawaii.
Over 450 people from more than 30 countries attended, generating a new
excitement to work together, combine knowledge and resources, and
collaborate to comprehensively address marine debris. The major outcome
of this conference was the Honolulu Strategy. This Strategy will be a
major step forward for the international marine debris community,
providing common terminology, outlining consistent ways of referring to
goals and objectives, and establishing a mechanism for cooperative
efforts. It also provides a comprehensive overview of the marine debris
issue, sources, potential impacts, and prevention and reduction
methods, so that any new efforts build on existing efforts to further
evaluate the overall problem. This Strategy has been drafted under the
guidance of NOAA and the United Nations Environment Programme, with
input from the conference participants and other interested parties.
Partnerships to Address Marine Debris
Working with non-governmental organizations, academia, regional
organizations, local, state and federal governments, and international
organizations is a priority for the NOAA Marine Debris Program. NOAA's
marine debris regional coordinators extensively cover marine debris
issues in the Pacific Islands, West Coast, Alaska, Great Lakes, East
Coast, and Gulf of Mexico. While these coordinators focus on the local,
state, and regional issues as a part of the national program, they are
also able to bring in lessons learned and make connections across the
country and the world. NOAA has held lead roles in developing marine
debris plans for Hawaii and the West Coast Governors Agreement, planned
multiple workshops for New England, the Great Lakes, Alaska, and
Hawaii, and worked on specific projects throughout all regions. NOAA
continues to work with partners throughout the country to develop and
test innovative and cost-effective methods of detection and removal of
marine debris, and to engage the public and industry, including
shippers and fishermen, and the recreational community on marine
debris.
One shining example of such a strategic partnership is the Fishing
for Energy program. Launched in 2008 through a partnership among
Covanta Energy Corporation, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation,
NOAA, and Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc., the partnership works
closely with state and local agencies, community and fishing groups,
and local ports to install bins at convenient and strategic locations
into which fishermen can deposit fishing gear. When these bins fill up,
the gear is collected and transported to a nearby Schnitzer Steel
facility where the metal (e.g., crab pots, gear rigging) is pulled for
recycling, and rope or nets are sheared for easier disposal. Then the
waste is brought to the nearest Covanta Energy-from-Waste facility,
where the gear is converted into clean, renewable electricity for local
communities. This partnership is designed to give fishermen a place to
dispose of derelict gear they come across while on the water, and ease
the burden of high costs associated with disposing of old fishing gear
into landfills. The program also began providing grant awards for
community groups to proactively remove derelict fishing gear in 2009.
These investments, which are estimated to remove over 92 tons in the
first year, provide the fishing community with a means to become more
actively involved in addressing marine debris issues. Since 2008, 500
tons of gear has been collected through the Fishing for Energy program
at 24 ports across the country.
Another example of a highly successful partnership is the NOAA
Marine Debris Program's ongoing work with the University of Georgia.
Under this partnership, NOAA has partnered with the Southeast Marine
Debris Initiative (SEA-MDI), a consortium of marine debris stakeholders
and decision makers from across Georgia, North Carolina, and South
Carolina, to develop tools for the public and share best practices and
resources to address the impacts of marine debris off the Atlantic
coast. The SEA-MDI partnership launched the first tool developed for a
wide audience, the Marine Debris Tracker, in March 2011. This tool is a
smartphone application that allows anyone to track marine debris
worldwide and then post the locations to an online map and database.
In addition to new partners, NOAA continues to collaborate with
long-time NOAA partners in new ways. For example, the Ocean Conservancy
and NOAA are in the early phases of developing online resources to
educate a larger audience on marine debris and its impacts.
Additionally, NOAA has supported the Alice Ferguson Foundation's (AFF)
annual Trash Summit, which brings together local components that are
needed to prevent marine debris, including local lawmakers, enforcement
officers, non-governmental organizations, and companies.
Regional marine debris efforts
Since its inception in 2005, the NOAA Marine Debris Program has
been actively involved in marine debris abatement projects on the East
and West Coasts, Hawaii, Alaska, and the Gulf Coast and Great Lakes
regions.
For example, in the State of Alaska, the NOAA Marine Debris Program
has been working to remove debris accumulations, research the impact of
marine debris, and conduct outreach to prevent the introduction of new
debris. The vast and diverse nature of the Alaskan shoreline, combined
with the frequent high density of debris has led to the development and
adaptation of innovative and specialized approaches to these goals in
executing projects.
In Prince William Sound, NOAA has partnered with the Gulf of Alaska
Keeper Foundation to remove debris from remote shorelines both inside
the Sound and on the outer coast in order to prevent the re-
mobilization of debris that can threaten marine species through
entanglement and ingestion and help to restore valuable coastal
habitat. In many areas, this removal has been paired with annual
returns to the same beaches to monitor how much and how quickly debris
accumulates. At Gore Point, an outer coast beach where currents and
storms aggregate debris, over 20 tons of debris was cleaned from less
than a mile of shoreline during an initial cleanup in 2007. Since then,
high accumulation rates of debris have been observed, underscoring the
need for continued vigilance.
In Washington State, the NOAA Marine Debris Program has supported
the Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative in its effort to
survey for, assess the impact of, and remove derelict fishing gear in
Puget Sound, resulting in the removal of thousands of derelict fishing
nets and crab pots. Similarly, in 2007 NOAA supported the Stilaguamish
Tribe of Indians in surveying for crab pots using side scan sonar, and
removing derelict crab pots deeper than the reach of divers with a
remotely operated vehicle.
The NOAA Marine Debris Program is also partnering with the
University of Washington-Tacoma to investigate the sources, prevalence
and impacts of microplastics, an emerging marine debris challenge. Two
workshops held in Tacoma in 2008 and 2010 brought together leading
international scientists in diverse fields ranging from physical
oceanography and ecology to emergency response and chemistry in an
unprecedented international and coordinated focus on the microplastics
issue.
Derelict fishing gear
Derelict traps have the potential to move across the seafloor and
cause abrasion and breakage of structural habitat. The NOAA Marine
Debris Program is planning to publish research results from projects
funded over the past five years to study the impacts of derelict
fishing gear used for crab, lobster, and fish in different parts of the
country. These research results will provide statistics for fishery
managers to understand and address, if necessary, the impacts of lost
pots and traps to their resources. One such example comes from a joint
NOAA-Virginia Institute of Marine Science study to assess impacts on
the Virginia portion of the Chesapeake Bay, where the Governor of
Virginia created a marine debris removal program in the Virginia Blue
Crab Fishery Resource Disaster Relief Plan. Out-of-work fishermen were
hired to recover lost and abandoned crab pots. In the winters of 2008,
2009, and 2010, the fishermen removed over 28,000 derelict crab pots
which contained more than 27,000 crabs, fish, and other animals. It is
estimated that approximately 1.4 million market-sized crabs would have
been lost to these derelict pots, negatively impacting this coastal
economy.
Additional derelict fishing gear research across the U.S. includes
investigation of habitat recovery time after nets and crab pots are
removed (about a year), the time it takes for bird species caught in
nets to decay and be consumed (about 10 days), and the cost-benefit
analysis of removing derelict crab pots. The conclusion from this
research is that it makes economic sense to remove derelict pots.
Tools to Aid the Marine Debris Community
To be responsive to the needs of marine debris practitioners, NOAA
is developing tools to aid in the dissemination of information and best
practices on marine debris identification and removal. One such effort
is the development of standardized, scientifically rigorous monitoring
protocols for marine debris, which will be available for worldwide use.
With limited resources available in the international marine debris
community, the NOAA Marine Debris Program wants to reduce duplication
of effort to make sure that all resources can be used to move forward
to arrest and reverse the impacts of marine debris.
Finally, a new tool that the marine debris community has requested
is the NOAA Marine Debris Information Clearinghouse, as required by
both the original Marine Debris Act and included in the Reauthorization
Amendments Act of 2011. The Clearinghouse is the result of significant
scoping to ensure the best product and resource prioritization to
address current gaps in marine debris information as well as fill
future needs. NOAA gathered input through workshops and
interviews with stakeholders throughout the marine debris community,
including federal and state government partners and the many non-
governmental organizations active in the field. The Marine Debris
Program then organized and translated these inputs into a set of
specifications that synthesizes and prioritizes features in a cohesive
design. To evaluate the accuracy and utility of the design, staff
conducted follow-up interviews with representative users from each
sector of the marine debris community. In parallel, NOAA staff worked
to evaluate potential development partners, striving to balance the
forward looking approach the design required with the cost-
effectiveness and stability that spatial data projects demand. When unveiled, the Clearinghouse will be a one-stop shop for
marine debris practitioners to learn about current and ongoing
projects, tools, products, and related marine debris-related
publications. This site, targeted specifically to marine debris
practitioners, will augment the existing NOAA Marine Debris Program
public website for general audiences, which currently receives
approximately 300,000 visits annually.
H.R. 1171
NOAA supports undertaking the activities detailed in the Marine
Debris Act Reauthorization Amendments of 2011. The bill will codify
efforts already underway within the NOAA Marine Debris Program and
allow continued growth and progress in addressing the impacts of marine
debris. The reauthorization lists program components which closely
parallel the primary effort areas of the Marine Debris Program,
including investigation and assessment; prevention, reduction, and
removal; interagency, regional, and national coordination; development
of tools and products; and international cooperation.
H.R. 1171 emphasizes the importance of education and outreach, two
critical components of the NOAA Marine Debris Program. Reducing marine
debris requires that boaters, fishermen, industry, academia, non-
governmental organizations, and the general public have the knowledge
and training to change their behaviors.
H.R. 1171 will also support priority objectives under the National
Ocean Policy, including, Water Quality and Sustainable Practices on
Land, to address marine debris and its impacts.
One recommendation NOAA would make on H.R. 1171 is to revise the
definition of marine debris to better align with the jointly developed
NOAA-USCG definition now in regulation, per direction from the original
Marine Debris Act.
S. 363
S. 363 would allow for the Secretary of Commerce to convey property
of NOAA to the City of Pascagoula, Mississippi. Many years ago, for
security purposes, and without objection from the County, which was the
owner of the land at the time, NOAA fenced off two small parcels of
land plus a portion of a street outside of the Pascagoula facility.
Over the years, NOAA's use of this property has evolved into storage
and parking. The City of Pascagoula now owns this land. In addition,
the City is interested in developing the local waterfront, and that
concept would include a park on a separate piece of land currently
owned by NOAA. The City is willing to ``swap'' the two small parcels
already in use by NOAA as well as other contiguous space in exchange
for the Government transferring a section of its land where the City
would like to build the park. The exchange would be mutually
beneficial. NOAA needs expansion space at or near its waterside
operations to construct a boat and research sampling gear storage
facility and could release the space desired by the City without
disruption to NOAA's operations.
Conclusion
Marine debris is a problem we can prevent. The NOAA Marine Debris
Program will continue to pursue on-the-ground research, prevention, and
reduction of marine debris nationwide. While the problem of marine
debris has existed for decades, there is still much to learn as we work
to address the impacts of marine debris to the environment and marine
species. Additional research is needed to understand and assess the
impacts of marine debris on diverse species and habitats as well as the
economic impacts and the dangers to navigation posed by marine debris.
NOAA is committed to the goal of eradicating marine debris from our
oceans, and looks forward to working with the Committee to achieve this
outcome.
Thank you again for inviting me to discuss H.R. 1171 and the
benefits of reauthorizing this NOAA program. NOAA would welcome the
chance to work further with you to advance this legislation.
______

Dr. Fleming. So we now need to move on to Dr. Gilman. Sir,
you have 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF PAUL GILMAN, PH.D., SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND
CHIEF SUSTAINABILITY OFFICER, COVANTA ENERGY CORPORATION

Dr. Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee.
I am an employee of Covanta Energy Corporation, a renewable
energy company whose principal focus is converting municipal
solid waste to renewable electricity and steam. We operate 44
plants around the world that take a community's waste after it
has done its recycling and convert it to either electricity or
steam or, in some cases, both.
For example, a community like Honolulu has the opportunity
to either send its waste to a landfill or do recycling and
energy recovery. The facility we operate for the City of
Honolulu and its recycling program, combined, divert about 90
percent of the island's waste from that landfill.
We support the reauthorization bill of H.R. 1171. It
provides a framework for a partnership that we are currently
engaged in that I will describe in just a moment. But, more
importantly, it is a nonregulatory approach for helping coastal
communities, for improving navigational safety, and protecting
the environment that is effective and, certainly, timely.
Our partnership actually had its roots in a program we ran
with NOAA in the Hawaiian islands called Nets to Energy, where
fishermen and NOAA could dispose of those nets by recovering
the energy from them and recycling the metals involved. Our
partner in that effort was Schnitzer Steel. And when the
program went national, in the form of Fishing for Energy,
through a grant to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation,
our partnership with the Federal agency of NOAA, NFWF,
Schnitzer, and ourselves, and many local communities was born.
Since that time, we have expanded the partnership to 29 sites
in 9 different States and collected over a million pounds, 1.3
million pounds, of marine debris.
Now, what does that do for coastal communities? Well, it
does a number of important things. First of all, for many in
the community, the fishermen, the option of disposing of these
materials at landfills is too costly. They can't afford it. And
especially the materials that they might recover in the act of
fishing, they would have to pay for those disposal fees
associated with that equipment. And we have to excuse them, but
I think that equipment finds its way right back into the ocean
under those circumstances. So we provide free disposal.
Schnitzer and Covanta pay for the cost of transportation of
those materials, we recycle the metals, we recover the energy
from what is left over, all at no cost to the local fishermen.
Dr. Bamford has spoken about the increase in productivity
for the fisheries; the fact that the ghost fishing, as its
called, that takes place with nets and traps that are left in
the environment, has ended; the fact that environmental damage
from those nets and those lobster and fish traps is avoided by
removing them from the waters. And, last, we have begun in the
year 2009, both through our partnership and more broadly
through NOAA, to fund members of the fishing community to
actually be engaged in the removal of these materials from the
waters.
And let me just say in closing, Mr. Chairman, we don't do
this kind of program lightly. We are a publicly traded company.
We have obligations to our shareholders. We believe that the
program is well thought out, well run, and of significant
benefit to communities that we support and operate within along
the coasts of our country.
We hope that you will add your voice of support by passing
favorably on this reauthorization bill.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gilman follows:]

Statement of Paul Gilman, Ph.D., Senior Vice President and
Chief Sustainability Officer, Covanta Energy

Good morning Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan, and Members
of the Subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. My name
is Paul Gilman, and I am the Senior Vice President and Chief
Sustainability Officer of Covanta Energy, the world's largest producer
of electrical energy using waste as a fuel. Covanta Energy operates
and/or has ownership positions in 44 energy-from-waste facilities,
primarily located in North America. We also have additional energy
generation facilities in North America, including other renewable
energy production facilities. Covanta's energy-from-waste facilities
convert 20 million tons of trash annually into 9 million megawatt-hours
of clean, renewable energy. I am here today to express our support for
H.R. 1171 and the important efforts carried out by the NOAA Marine
Debris Program.
This process of recovering energy from wastes that would otherwise
be disposed of in landfills is recognized by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the European Union as a more sustainable use of
waste than landfilling. In 2008, Covanta was the recipient of the
Energy Innovator Award from the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy for providing communities with
an environmentally sound solution to their solid waste disposal needs.
In 2008, Covanta Energy expanded its waste to energy efforts to
address the growing problem of marine debris, and in particular,
derelict fishing gear. Derelict fishing gear (gear that is lost in the
marine environment) has been identified by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as a major source of debris impacting
the marine environment. It can damage ecosystems as nets and heavy
equipment settle upon the ocean floor or through `ghost fishing,' when
a net continues to catch fish after it is lost. Gear can also impact
navigational safety, damage fishing equipment and boats that are in
use, and have economic repercussions on fishing enterprises and coastal
communities. Estimates suggest that derelict fishing gear results in
over $250 million in lost lobster catches and over 1 million lost crabs
in the Chesapeake Bay region. Additionally, In the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary it was estimated that up to 25% of the reef
damage at certain times was due to abandoned trap movement, resulting
in decreased productivity of fishing grounds.
To help reduce the impact of derelict fishing gear in U.S. coastal
waters, the Fishing for Energy Partnership was launched in 2008. This
is a public-private partnership between Covanta Energy, the National
Oceanic Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Marine Debris Program, the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and Schnitzer Steel. This
partnership works closely with state and local agencies, community and
fishermen groups, and local ports to install bins at convenient and
strategic locations where fishermen can easily dispose of gear at no
cost. When these bins fill up, Covanta Energy and Schnitzer Steel
collect the gear and cover the costs of transporting it to a facility
where the gear is converted into clean, renewable energy.
The ``Fishing for Energy'' partnership first originated in the
Northwest Hawaiian Islands, where over 1.4 million pounds of derelict
gear have been recovered and recycled, producing enough electricity to
power 260 homes for an entire year. Since then, the Fishing for Energy
partnership has expanded to 25 ports across the country, in states
including New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, California,
Rhode Island, Virginia, Maine, and Florida. From these 25 sites, we
have recovered an additional 1.1 million pounds of old or derelict
gear, and we hope to expand these bins into new regions in the future.
The public-private Fishing for Energy partnership has considerable
tangible benefits. First, it reduces the financial burden imposed on
commercial fishermen when disposing of old gear in landfills. It also
encourages commercial and recreational fishermen to reel in any
derelict fishing equipment they might find and deposit of it for free
at designated drop-off sites near fishing ports. Next, the Fishing for
Energy Partnership has the added benefit of reducing the impact of
derelict gear on fishing habitat and target species, helping to reduce
the economic impact of derelict gear. Lastly, grants from the program
which we co-fund with our partners, have provided paychecks for
fishermen who have been actively recovering debris from fishing grounds
like Long Island Sound.
In 2010, the Fishing for Energy Partnership was awarded the
prestigious Coastal America Partnership Award, which is the highest
level award for partnership efforts from the President of the United
States. The award recognizes outstanding collaborative, multi-agency
and multi-stakeholder efforts that leverage and combine resources to
accomplish coastal restoration, preservation, protection and education
projects. This award demonstrates how successful our partnership has
become.
The Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act of 2006
provided a framework for the Fishing for Energy Partnership. Through
this partnership and the research the Act has driven, we have
established a foundation of knowledge and practice that will, if
continued, make a real difference for these communities. Because of our
successes, my private and public sector colleagues in Europe now wish
and plan to emulate our efforts. H.R. 1171 will calls for the
continuation of these public-private partnerships to address marine
debris, and Covanta Energy is fully supportive of the ideas and
language put forth in the Reauthorization.
The non-regulatory NOAA Marine Debris Program has and will continue
to make significant progress to reduce the impacts of marine debris on
coastal economies, navigation safety, and the environment. Another
important aspect of the work they carry out includes documenting the
significant costs of marine debris. This is important as the private
sector weighs the costs and benefits of engaging in efforts such as
ours. We have funded our own activities and subsidized those of the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and as a publicly traded
company, our obligation to our shareholders makes us think carefully
about programs like this. However, because this Partnership is well
organized, well run, and tangibly benefits many coastal communities
where we operate, we can easily justify the expense.
Covanta Energy is prepared to continue our work to address marine
debris and derelict fishing gear through the Fishing for Energy
Partnership. We hope to expand our efforts to new ports, so fishing
communities all over the country can participate. We hope that you will
add your voices of support for H.R. 1171 and the worthwhile efforts
carried out by the NOAA Marine Debris Program by moving this important
legislation forward.
______

Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Dr. Gilman.
We now are at a point when Members will have the
opportunity to question the witnesses. And I will recognize--
the Chair recognizes myself for 5 minutes.
I am intrigued by the concept of energy conversion, I think
is what you are saying. You are taking trash and making energy
out of it. But if I understand correctly, you select out items
such as metal and so forth that you can recycle? You do that,
as well?
Dr. Gilman. That is correct. After a community does its own
recycling program--and the communities where we operate
typically have a higher recycling rate than the national U.S.
average, some of those communities as high as 50 and 60 percent
recycling rates--after that is done, we then recover energy
from what is left over.
In the process of doing that, we further recover metals,
both iron-based metals and aluminum and the like. We, as a
company, recycle over 400,000 tons of metals a year in this
way.
Dr. Fleming. All right. And you do this by converting it to
steam and then electricity, is what I gather.
Dr. Gilman. That is correct.
Dr. Fleming. It is interesting, we have a plant that is
going to be opening in my home state, Louisiana, that is going
to be using wood products--wood chips, whatever. And we have
abundant natural gas, and the two together are going to
actually generate a synthetic gasoline fuel for jet fuel and
diesel.
So I really see--I have to tell you, I am a bit of a
skeptic, in many ways, about some of the recycling ideas and
some of the alternative energy things. But this, I think, has
tremendous promise in terms of taking trash, taking things that
we know if we break those chemical bonds we are going to
release tremendous energy.
And as I understand it, the people who--no one really pays
for this service except the end user that receives the energy.
That is how you basically generate your revenues.
Dr. Gilman. That is correct. The Energy Information
Administration did a report looking at the various subsidies
associated with all the different forms of producing
electricity, from nuclear power to coal, et cetera. Energy from
waste is the least subsidized of all the different sources of
creating power. It really is supported by the revenues coming
from the community.
Dr. Fleming. And, really, I can see where it could be the
most efficient. And in this case that I am referring to, if we
can synthetically produce gasoline, which can literally be
mixed with traditional gasoline, then that helps our energy
independence, lowers the cost of energy in general. So I see
that as very much a win-win. So I think we would--I really want
to follow this concept more, and certainly the work of your
company.
Dr. Gilman. Thank you.
Dr. Fleming. Dr. Bamford, in your testimony you reference
efforts already under way within the agency that will codify
what has already been in practice. If the agency is already
doing these activities, why are all these changes necessary
instead of just a straight reauthorization?
Dr. Bamford. The biggest thing--I think the three biggest
changes--one, the previous bill, the bill that is currently in
law, focuses mainly on fishing gear. And since 2005, 2006 to
today, we have learned through research, assessment, and
working in local communities that derelict fishing gear is not
the biggest problem in certain areas. You know, we have this
plastic problem, we have these microplastics. And so,
continuing to do research, we are looking at more resilient
communities caused by storms that generate debris.
So, as it stands now, when we are looking at limited
resources that the agency has and other agencies have, we have
to target our resources required based on our requirements and
our mandates. We don't want to miss these other important
problems that are causing our coast issues.
And so what the bill does is actually more clarify NOAA's
role in marine debris in the ocean and on our coasts. It points
out the research that needs to be done, the critical
partnerships that need to be made, and looking at debris that
really impacts the coastal communities--not necessarily the
types, but the impacts of those types of debris.
Dr. Fleming. All right. And I appreciate that, but one of
the concerns we have in this is creating a whole other layer of
bureaucracy. You know, one of the problems we have in the
Federal Government today, that we hear complaints by commerce,
by farmers, agriculture, is they have to go through and get
permits from multiple agencies to do one thing.
And we are worried that that is exactly what this may lead
to; that by enlarging the comprehensiveness and the involvement
and pushing back, you know, into the land, into the waterways
and so forth, that now we end up with, again, just another
agency, somebody else to go to, somebody else to get
permission, when we already have the EPA and others.
Dr. Bamford. That is a very good question. And, actually,
the Marine Debris Program in NOAA used to sit in Fisheries, the
regulatory arm of NOAA, back in the 1980s. Since the new bill
came into authorization in 2006, that was moved to the Ocean
Service, the nonregulatory arm of NOAA. And that has been a
tremendous success over the years.
We had a lot of resistance from the fishing community to
work with us. We would put out research traps in the
Chesapeake. We would come back, half of them would be gone. And
so, you know, people didn't want us to do research because they
thought it was going to lead to regulation.
Two years ago, the dredge fisheries in the Chesapeake were
put out of--stopped, they were required to stop, because the
dredge fishery was no longer fishing for the winter. So there
were 90 fishermen put out of work in the State of Virginia. We
worked with them. Because of granting and programs that we gave
to them, in terms of understanding what those trips were doing
and surveying where they were, we put 90 fishermen back to
work. And that was to remove those 28,000 traps in the
Chesapeake.
And those fishermen, when they were pulling them up, seeing
what was in them, female crabs, they were like--because they
usually think, oh, this is not a problem, these traps aren't
causing any problem, you know, debris is not an issue. When
they actually saw for their own eyes, it was a big eye-opener
and an education for the fishermen. And I think that
relationship has gotten better.
Dr. Fleming. All right. My time is running short, but I
will give Dr. Gilman a brief opportunity to respond.
Dr. Gilman. Mr. Chairman, I have been in these communities,
I have seen the programs at work. They truly are partnerships
with those local communities.
In the same town where there are not very complimentary
bumper stickers relating to the Marine Fisheries Service, you
will have fishermen coming to the collection sites, coming to
the different efforts that this program is doing, and thanking
Dr. Bamford and her people, as well as all the others who work
on the program from companies like myself on through to
nongovernmental organizations, for being there. I think they
are doing it the right way.
Dr. Fleming. OK. I thank you.
And I yield to Ms. Hanabusa.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, first I would like to request unanimous consent
to enter into the record several statements in support of H.R.
1171, the Marine Debris Act Reauthorization Amendments of 2011.
Dr. Fleming. Without objection, so ordered.
[NOTE: The information submitted for the record by Ms.
Hanabusa has been retained in the Committee's official files.]
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you very much.
My question for Dr. Bamford is this. In hearing your
testimony, you seem to say that the marine debris was basically
like two major categories. One is the abandoned fish gear and
traps, and the second, of course, seems to be the natural
disasters that we did not anticipate. Am I hearing you
correctly?
Dr. Bamford. Probably the two base would be the fishing
gear, which we call the ocean-based sources, and then you have
the land-based sources, which is the bottles and caps and
things you see coming.
I think the new category is the result of these storms. And
this is something that we--I mean, the intensity we just didn't
observe before, but now the program is really paying attention
to this and trying to find ways to make the communities more
resilient.
Ms. Hanabusa. And, as you can imagine, I represent Hawaii,
so the storm issue--I mean, we have all the other issues, but
the storm issue is something that we are kind of wondering how
we are going to deal with.
The natural disasters that we are, of course, really
concentrating on are the tsunami and earthquake that happened
in Japan. And we have heard reports that it is making its way
across the Pacific. Some is that it is going to bypass us and
it is going to hit the West Coast. Some is that it is going to
hit the West Coast and come back and hit us. And some is that
it is going to hit us.
So can you tell me what NOAA is doing to monitor that? And
is that monitoring effort part of this reauthorization act?
Dr. Bamford. The reauthorization would help us do that
better because it does expand us beyond the gear.
We are doing a number of different things. One, we are the
Chair of the Interagency Marine Debris Coordinating Committee,
so we are working with the other Feds. We put out, with the
Department of Transportation, a MARAD advisory to vessels in
the area to report any debris coming in. We are working with
our partners at the Fish and Wildlife Service at Midway to
start monitoring and observing any debris coming in. We are
working with our partners at the Papahanaumokuakea National
Marine Monument to also do observations.
We are enhancing our models by using satellite and trying
to get into overflights to update our models so we can project
and figure out where the debris is going to end up. But it is
in the water, and it is eventually going to go somewhere. So I
think the biggest thing we are doing right now is working with
the State of Hawaii, other partners, as well as the other Feds,
in developing an action plan, a response action plan.
Ms. Hanabusa. Part of the testimony was that it is
anticipated that it would hit this winter someplace in the
northern Hawaiian islands. Are you talking there about the
monument, the Papahanaumokuakea area? Or is it, like, Marianas?
Where are you referring to that?
Dr. Bamford. It depends on what model you are talking
about. There are a lot of different models that are out there.
The accuracy of those models have not been very well proven. We
have models that are showing it is going to be at the--that
would be at the monument, basically, or Midway, they said in 2
months. But now you will see those are changing and saying it
is going to get picked up into the gyre, just like what you
were saying.
So I think what we want to do is, one, improve the accuracy
of our models to help you understand what is happening, but, in
the end, really have a plan to prepare, if this ends up on our
shores, what do we do with that and how do we address it.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you.
Dr. Gilman, I am very familiar with Covanta on Hawaii, as
you know. And we call it HPower, which is your, I guess the way
you are calling it, waste-to-energy facility.
Dr. Gilman. Yes.
Ms. Hanabusa. One of the interesting components of--I guess
it is your Fishnets to Energy or whatever you want to call that
program, when you recover that, how much of that material goes
into, for example, HPower?
Dr. Gilman. In that case--and it depends on the particular
load that we get. If it appears to have lots of metals, it
might go to our partner, Schnitzer Steel, first for them to
recover as much of that as they can. Oftentimes, they will then
shear the nets up further so we can for the combustible
portions of it make steam, make power with it, and then return
what metal is left for recycling.
So it will depend on the particular load that we get in. If
there is very little metal in it, it will come exclusively,
really, to the energy recovery part of the system.
Ms. Hanabusa. And one of the issues that I have dealt with,
with your Covanta as well as our county representatives, is
whether the various kinds of--the regulations, whether it is
called Boiler MACT or Utility MACT, is affecting your
operation. Very quickly, do you anticipate that your operation
is going to be affected by any of those regulations?
Dr. Gilman. The Boiler MACT and the Utility MACT do not
apply to that facility. There is a Municipal Waste Combustor
MACT that is a little further down the queue that would affect
that facility. And we are watching that very closely to see how
the precedence, really, of the Boiler and Utility MACT will
affect the HPower facility.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Fleming. I thank the Ranking Member.
And next I will recognize the gentlelady from Guam.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I would like to welcome our witnesses here.
I would also like to thank my friend and colleague, Sam
Farr, for introducing H.R. 1171, which is very similar to
legislation that I sponsored in the 111th Congress. Addressing
marine debris is a very important issue to my constituents on
Guam, and I appreciate his leadership on this issue.
Dr. Bamford, I have a few questions for you. In your
prepared testimony, you stated today that NOAA has been working
with partners to assess the unprecedented amount of marine
debris created by the tragic tsunami and earthquake which hit
Japan. And I will point out that Guam is a very close neighbor
to Japan. And earlier this year, that the Interagency Marine
Debris Coordinating Committee would be executing an assessment
and response framework.
I want to just mention, Mr. Chairman, here that many years
ago on Guam we found debris around our southern and--mainly our
southern coast, which we have felt came from a medical ship
that had passed by. And it left onshore syringes and soiled
linen and that type of thing, which really alarmed Guam and my
constituents. And it all washed ashore, and, of course, we had
to send out a crew to look after all of that. So I certainly am
very, very interested in this particular bill.
Now, what sort of cooperation have you received from the
Department of Defense?
Dr. Bamford. We have received--in terms of this particular
incident, they are one of the partners on the Interagency
Marine Debris Coordinating Committee, so they are a member that
sits at the table and works with us.
But the Department of Defense actually has been a partner
in a number of removal programs--in particular, a vessel and
tires that have been thrown off the coast of Florida, as well
as nets out of Puget Sound. And this is through this Innovative
Readiness Training program. They have a program where they
train the military to do unique activities, and one of them is
using their divers. And we have used them for removal
operations----
Ms. Bordallo. Very good. So you are getting good
cooperation then.
Dr. Bamford. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Bordallo. Also, Doctor, as evident by the tsunami
debris which originated in Japan--it is expected to reach U.S.
waters and beaches in the coming years--there must be an
international aspect to effectively addressing marine debris.
So can you tell us what sort of international cooperation
the Marine Debris Program currently receives? And is there
anything that could be done legislatively that would improve
international cooperation?
Dr. Bamford. Yes, ma'am.
It was timely. We had an International Marine Debris
Conference in the State of Hawaii 2 weeks after the tsunami
hit, and that was timely because it brought the international
community together, particularly in the Pacific Rim, to address
this particular issue, start talking about models, start
talking about collaboration and how we are going to work
together in terms of modeling the debris and working together
and addressing it in terms of removal and impacts.
The reauthorization, this amendment actually has a clause
in there that talks about continuing to have those types of
organizations, that type of conference. We would probably do
that with or without that piece in the bill, but it does
strengthen our authorization to ensure that that conference
happens.
That is probably there because the conference used to
happen every 5 years. There was a 10-year timeframe between the
previous one and the one that happened last year.
Ms. Bordallo. Perhaps, then, we should amend the bill to
include this.
Dr. Bamford. Yes, ma'am--in the amendment it does say
that----
Ms. Bordallo. It does say?
Dr. Bamford. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Bordallo. Very good.
Also, a very important question. And I know a lot of
emphasis is on Hawaii, and they are a State. But can you
describe any efforts to address marine debris in the U.S.
territories?
Dr. Bamford. Yes, ma'am. We actually have a coordinator,
and she represents the Pacific Islands. And we have been
working with all the territories to address marine debris. When
we have conferences, we bring people together from the
territories. And we have funded projects in the territories, as
well, that address things from derelict vessels to all types of
debris, from plastic to fishing gear.
Ms. Bordallo. Good. Because we are surrounded by water.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
reinforce my strong support for H.R. 1171, and I urge the
Committee to continue to move this legislation forward.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentlelady.
That is all the questions I have on marine debris. Do any
other Members have any follow-up questions?
I would close out with the other issue, of course, that we
have not discussed much--it is certainly not as controversial
or as difficult as some of these others--but the conveyance of
Pascagoula.
I would give you the opportunity, Dr. Bamford, to let us
know what the status is of that, where we are, and how close we
are to a resolution.
Dr. Bamford. Yes, sir.
We are working with the city. This has been talked about
many, many times. The reason why this is in front of you is
NOAA doesn't have the authority to convey land. This will
provide the city and the Federal Government, NOAA, to work
together in terms of a mutual agreement that is beneficial to
both parties.
Dr. Fleming. OK. Thank you.
Well, that, then, concludes the hearing today. I want to
thank Members and staff for their contributions to this
hearing.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:29 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Background submitted for the record by Chairman Fleming on
the Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge follows:]

Office of Sheriff of McIntosh County
Darien, Georgia
June 23, 1975
Hon. Herman Talmadge
Washington, D.C.
Dear Herman:
I am writing you in reference to Harris Neck which the Interior
Department is now in charge of.
After the war this area was turned over to McIntosh County with
certain restrictions. I don't know just how thin transaction was
between the County and Army at that time. The Army released it to the
Interior Department.
At the time the government took the area there were somewhere
between forty or fifty families of black people who owned the area.
They were told that they could get their property back after the war.
I understand some of the people never got paid for their property.
This is what I'm told by the old colored people. These people (forty or
fifty families) are all living now in about a twenty acre area where
they settled about two miles from the old air base at Harris Neck.
I attended a meeting with the people of that community a few nights
ago and they had a letter from Congressman Ginn and a letter attached
from the Interior Department stating that it was an important base of
operations for Blackbeard Island which is a wildlife refuge.
Of my own knowledge for all the hunts on Blackbeard Island ninety
percent of the people leave from Shellman Bluff, and the other ten
percent leave from Pine Harbor. I doubt if there are more than four or
five people who leave from Harris Neck on the hunting trips,
The only thing that the Government needs is Goulds Landing, which
is outside the enclosed area of Harris Neck, for the use of moving fuel
and equipment to Blackbeard Island.
There is 2,600 acres including marsh and high land, of this
approximately 2,000 acres is high land. Since the war all that area is
mostly grass and sandspurs and is leased to a man who runs cattle in
the area.
In the May Term 1975 of Superior Court of McIntosh County the Grand
Jury made some recommendations, a copy of which you were supposed to
have received. In case you did not get same I will quote from their
recommendations, to-wit: ``We the Grand Jury recommend that our County
Commissioners and all elected officials of Georgia to pursue the
acquiring of Harris Neck Wildlife property back to McIntosh County. We
recommend that copies of this recommendation be sent to all elected
officials of Georgia and Commissioners of this County.''
As the State and Federal government has about one third of the
lands of McIntosh County, such as Blackbeard Island, Sapelo Island,
Wolfe Island, Butler Island, Champney Island, Camels Island, and Lewis
Island, and including all of the paper industry land which leaves very
little for our residents. Since the people of Harris Neck make their
living from the waters around there, they have to live close in a
crowded area and the situation is that many families and their sons and
daughters alt live together. They have to do this since there is no
other land available in that area to buy, beg, or steal. I think it is
a damn shame this land can't be used for the people who once owned
I know Congressman Ginn is a little familiar with this but don't
think he knows fully the situation of just how bad this is needed.
All of these people have stated to me they don't mind the
government having their land if needed but they see the idle area
wasting away and really need the land to raise crops to eat ana build
houses for their children and themselves and to help keep them off
welfare.
These people will make it on their own with a little land and the
use of the waters around it so they can fish, crab, and shrimp.
I believe if this property can be turned over to McIntosh County
through the proper governing authorities it would greatly benefit
McIntosh County and the people.
For further information concerning this matter perhaps it will be
necessary for an investigation from your office.
Anything you can do toward helping with this will be appreciated by
me as well as all the people involved.
Herman, sorry this had to be such a lengthy letter but wanted you
to know full particulars.
Thank you for everything in the past and if I can ever help you
please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely,

TOM H. POPPELL.
______

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2101.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2101.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2101.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2101.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2101.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2101.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2101.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2101.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2101.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2101.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2101.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2101.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2101.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2101.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2101.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2101.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2101.017