U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

64–045 u 1999

HEARING ON: H.R. 2541, A BILL TO ADJUST

THE BOUNDARIES OF THE GULF ISLANDS NATIONAL SEASHORE TO INCLUDE CAT ISLAND,

MS; H.R. 1864, (HANSEN) A BILL TO STANDARDIZE THE PROCESS FOR CONDUCTING PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR FEDERAL AGENCIES WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; AND

H.R. 1866, A BILL TO PROVIDE A PROCESS

FOR THE PUBLIC TO APPEAL CERTAIN DECISIONS MADE BY THE NPS AND BY THE

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC

LANDS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 106–64

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

GEORGE MILLER, California

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA MC CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

JAY INSLEE, Washington

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

MARK UDALL, Colorado

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman

ELTON, GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

RICK HILL, Montana

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN, Virgin

Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

JAY INSLEE, Washington

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

MARK UDALL, Colorado

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey

ALLEN FREEMYER, Counsel

TODD HULL, Professional Staff

LIZ BIRNBAUM, Democratic Counsel

GARY GRIFFITH, Professional Staff

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held Thursday, September 30, 1999 ........................................................ 1

Statements of Members:

Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Utah ........................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3

Romero-Barcelo ́, Hon. Carlos A., a Resident Commissioner in Congress

from The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico .................................................... 14

Gene, Hon., Taylor, a Representative in Congress from the State of Mississippi ........................................................................................................... 15

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 17

Udall, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado ................................................................................................................ 15

Underwood, Hon. Robert, a Delegate in Congress from the Territory

of Guam ......................................................................................................... 18

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 20

Statements of witnesses:

Bieti, Fred, Isle Royale Boaters Association .................................................. 60

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 63

Boddie-Colbert, Cala, Cat Island, Mississippii ............................................... 31

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 73

Falkner, Juliette, Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of

Interior ........................................................................................................... 56

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 58

Matson, Jim, President, Vermillion Services ................................................. 89

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 91

Monahan, Bob, Chairman, Monahan Group .................................................. 93

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 97

Shaddox, William, Acting Associate Director for Professional Services,

National Park Service .................................................................................. 27

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 29

Additional material supplied:

Text of H.R. 2541 .............................................................................................. 5

Text of H.R. 1864 .............................................................................................. 7

Text of H.R. 1866 .............................................................................................. 11

(1)

HEARING ON: H.R. 2541, A BILL TO ADJUST THE BOUNDARIES

OF THE GULF ISLANDS NATIONAL SEASHORE TO INCLUDE

CAT ISLAND, MISSISSIPPI; H.R. 1864, (HANSEN) A BILL TO

STANDARDIZE THE PROCESS FOR CONDUCTING PUBLIC

HEARINGS FOR FEDERAL AGENCIES WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; AND H.R. 1866, A BILL TO PROVIDE

A PROCESS FOR THE PUBLIC TO APPEAL CERTAIN DECISIONS MADE BY THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AND BY THE

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL

PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS,

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m. in Room

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V. Hansen

[chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Mr. HANSEN. The meeting will come to order.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Mr. HANSEN. Good morning and welcome to the hearing.

The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands will hear

testimony on three bills, H.R. 2541, H.R. 1864, and H.R. 1866.

H.R. 2541 was introduced by Congressman Gene Taylor of Mississippi. This bill would adjust the boundaries of the Gulf Islands

National Seashore to include an area of land known as Cat Island,

Mississippi. Gulf Islands National Seashore is administered by the

National Park Service and consists of a number of coastal barrier

islands stretching along the coast of Mississippi and the panhandle

of Florida.

H.R. 2541 would modify the boundaries of the national seashore

to include Cat Island. The island is approximately 2,145 acres in

size and offers around 21 miles of shoreline. Most of Cat Island, apVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:55 Sep 27, 2001 Jkt 073105 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\64045 pfrm11 PsN: 64045
2

proximately 90 percent, is currently owned by one family. The

other 10 percent is owned by nearly 15 other individuals who retain smaller land holdings.

I understand there are a few problems with this bill that need

to be ironed out before the bill moves forward. These include excluding some of the private land area from the boundaries, agreements as to what will become of the land when it becomes part of

the seashore, and establishing clear language as to fishing rights

around the island.

The second bill is H.R. 1864, a bill that I introduced to address

the problem that citizens have conveyed to me over a number of

years concerning the Department of the Interior. This bill directs

the Secretary of the Interior to standardize a process for conducting

public hearings for Federal agencies within the Department to help

ensure that the public understands and can fully participate in

public hearings.

Presently, public hearings held by Federal agencies do not have

any standard way that they are conducted. As a result, these agencies hold hearings any way they see fit. This has led to numerous

complaints and confusion by the general public when appearing at

these public hearings.

For example, no established regulation requires Federal agencies

to respond to legitimate questions asked by the public. People walk

away from these hearings confused and many times irate that the

government did not attempt to address their concerns.

H.R. 1864 would help alleviate this problem by standardizing the

procedures used by Federal agencies for public hearings. This

would give the public an understanding as to what is expected from

Federal agencies, along with what is expected from them, when

they conduct a public hearing. Standardizing these procedures

would also provide a process for the public to ask relevant questions and receive informed and timely answers from the Federal

agencies.

I want to note that nothing in this bill limits or interferes with

other opportunities for the public to comment on or participate in

agency decisions pursuant to NEPA or the Administrative Procedures Act. Nor does H.R. 1864 replace any existing law or policy

which provides for public involvement in hearings held by Federal

agencies.

The third bill is H.R. 1866, another bill that I introduced. This

bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to establish a process for

the public to administratively appeal certain decisions made pursuant to NEPA by the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. These regulations would establish what types of

agency decisions are appealable, who may appeal such decisions,

the responsibilities and procedures of the appellant or other party,

and also establish a process the Federal agencies would follow for

notifying the public for their appeal process.

Obviously, decisions made by Federal officials are an important

function for Federal land management agencies. These decisions, of

course, have direct effects on the methods used and the result of

the land management activities. Frequently, however, members of

the public disagree with the decisions made by these Federal agencies. Two Federal land management agencies, the Forest Service

3

and the BLM, currently have an administrative process whereby

the public can appeal certain decisions in regard to the land management. However, at present, the only recourse the public has if

disagreeing with decisions made by the Park Service or the Fish

and Wildlife Service is to take the issue to court. I believe a similar

administrative appeal process for NEPA decisions made by the

Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service should be made

available to the public so that decisions made by these two agencies

could be reviewed and modified, if appropriate.

Before we begin the testimony, I would like to mention a few

things related to the two bills that I have introduced. I believe that

both of these bills are good ideas, and it is time we took a look at

what they are trying to accomplish. However, I realize that these

bills, especially H.R. 1866, only represents a starting point. I am

very open to ideas and discussion with interested parties and the

minority so that the bill can be crafted to meet the needs of the

public and the agencies while at the same time avoiding creating

a bureaucratic mess which bogs the system down rather than improves it.

All of that said, I want to thank our witnesses for being here

today and those that are going to testify on the bills.

[The prepard statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF UTAH

Good morning everyone and welcome to the hearing today. The Subcommittee on

National Parks and Public Lands will hear testimony on three bills, H.R. 2541,

1864, and 1866.

H.R. 2541 was introduced Congressman Gene Taylor of Mississippi. This bill

would adjust the boundaries of the Gulf Islands National Seashore to include an

area of land known as Cat Island, Mississippi. Gulf Islands National Seashore is

administered by the National Park Service and consists of a number of coastal barrier islands stretching along the coasts of Mississippi and the panhandle of Florida.

H.R. 2541 would modify the boundaries of the National Seashore to include Cat

Island. The island is approximately 2145 acres in size and offers around 21 miles

of shoreline. Most of Cat Island (approximately 90 percent) is currently owned by

one family. The other 10 percent is owned by nearly 15 other individuals who retain

smaller land holdings.

I understand there are a few problems with this bill that need to ironed out before

this bill moves forward. These include excluding some of the private land area from

the boundaries, agreements as to what will become of this land when it becomes

part of the seashore, and establishing clear language as to fishing rights around the

island.

The second bill is H.R. 1864, a bill that I introduced to address a problem that

citizens have conveyed to me over a number of years concerning the Department

of the Interior. This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to standardize a process

for conducting public hearings for Federal agencies within the Department to help

ensure that the public understands and can fully participate in public hearings.

Presently, public hearings held by Federal agencies do not have any standard way

they are conducted. As a result, these agencies hold hearings any way they see fit.

This has led to numerous complaints from and confusion by the general public when

appearing at these public hearings. For example, no established regulation requires

Federal agencies to respond to legitimate questions asked by the public. People walk

away from these hearings confused and many times irate that the government did

not even attempt to address their concerns. H.R. 1864 would help alleviate this

problem by standardizing the procedures used by Federal agencies for public hearings. This would give the public an understanding as to what is expected from Federal agencies, along with what is expected from them, when conducting public hearings. Standardizing these procedures would also provide a process for the public to

ask relevant questions and receive informed and timely answers from the Federal

agencies. I want to note that nothing in this bill limits or interferes with other opportunities for the public to comment on or participate in agency decisions pursuant

4

to NEPA or the Administrative Procedures Act. Nor does H.R. 1864 replace any existing law or policy which provides for public involvement in hearings held by Federal agencies.

The third bill is H.R. 1866, another bill that I introduced. This bill requires the

Secretary of the Interior to establish a process for the public to administratively appeal certain decisions made pursuant to NEPA by the National Park Service and

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These regulations would establish what types

of agency decisions are appealable, who may appeal such decisions, the responsibilities and procedures of the appellant or other party, and also establish a process

the Federal agencies would follow for notifying the public of their appeal procedures.

Obviously, decisions made by Federal officials are an important function for Federal land management agencies. These decisions, of course, have direct effects on

the methods used and the results of the land management activities. Frequently,

however, members of the public disagree with the decisions made these Federal

agencies. Two Federal land management agencies, the Forest Service and the BLM,

currently have an administrative process whereby the public can appeal certain decisions in regard to their land management. However, at present, the only recourse

the public has if disagreeing with decisions made by the Park Service or the Fish

and Wildlife Service is to take the issue to court. I believe a similar administrative

appeal process for NEPA decisions made by the Park Service and Fish & Wildlife

Service should be made available to the public so that decisions made by these two

agencies can be reviewed and modified, if appropriate.

Before we begin the testimony I’d like to like to mention a few things related to

the two bills I introduced. I believe that both these bills are good ideas and its time

we took a look at what they are trying to accomplish. However, I realize that these

bills, especially H.R. 1866 represent a starting point. I am very open to ideas and

discussion with interested parties and the Minority so that a bill can be crafted to

meet the needs of the public and the agencies, while at the same time, avoid creating a bureaucratic mess which bogs the system down rather than improve it.

With that said, I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today to testify

on all the bills and now turn the time over to the Ranking Member Mr. RomeoBarcelo ́.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Mr. HANSEN. Now I turn the time over to the Ranking Member,

the gentleman from Puerto Rico.

STATEMENT OF HON. CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , A RESIDENT COMMISSIONER IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I would like to welcome the two fellow members, one

of the fellow members from this Committee, from Guam, Mr.

Underwood, and Mr. Taylor, one of the sponsors of one of these

bills.

Today, the Subcommittee will hear testimony of the two bills relating to the hearing and the appeals process of the agencies within

the Department of the Interior as well as an unrelated measure

dealing with the Gulf Islands National Seashore.

H.R. 2541, which is the Gulf Islands National Seashore Bill, is

about the islands which stretch for 150 miles along the Gulf Coast

from Mississippi to Florida. The seashore is more than 135,000

acres in size and includes portions of both the mainland and a

chain of barrier islands.

Apparently, when the seashore was first conceived, it was hoped

that Cat Island, one of the islands in this chain, would be included.

However, the family which owned most of the island did not wish

to be included at that time. As a result, despite the fact that Cat

Island was thought to be the crown jewel of the area, the seashore

did not include this originally, and it is our understanding that the

family is now willing to have their land included in the seashore.

H.R. 2541, sponsored by my colleague, Representative Taylor,

would alter the boundary that encompasses this addition. We understand there are several issues which may need to be resolved

regarding this legislation, including the exemption of a portion of

the island from the legislation and a question regarding the ownership of the water surrounding the island. I look forward to hearing

from the family and the Park Service on this issue as well as our

colleague.

H.R. 1864 and H.R. 1866 would require the Secretary of the Interior to develop new regulations concerning the public hearing process of agencies within the Department of the Interior as well as the

appeals process for National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife

Service decisions. Both bills contain specific requirements that

would have to be part of any such regulations. We don’t know the

extent or exact nature of the problems these two bills seek to rectify nor do we know the consequences of the proposed solutions.

Hopefully, the testimony we will receive today will shed some light

on these issues. We would like to welcome each of our witnesses

here today, and we look forward to their testimony.

Mr. HANSEN. I thank the gentleman.

We are honored to have two of our colleagues with us, Mr. Gene

Taylor of Mississippi and Bob Underwood from Guam. We appreciate these gentlemen being with us.

Mr. Taylor, we will start with you, sir.

Hold just a minute, I apologize. The gentleman from Colorado. I

am sorry, I didn’t see you. Do you have an opening statement you

would like to make?

15

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

Mr. MARK UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to the echo the comments of both the Ranking Member and the chairman, and I look forward working with you, particularly on this issue of public input that is heard and that leads

us to the kind of outcomes that we all want. I am open to working

with the chairman and the Ranking Member and look forward to

the testimony.

Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate your comments.

STATEMENT OF HON. GENE TAYLOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Taylor, we will turn to you now; and the time

is yours, sir.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Hansen, Mr. Romero-Barcelo ́. It is

pretty ironic that we are now in a position where an island in the

other guy’s backyard is subject to each of our jurisdictions.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. You better hide it from the Navy. They

like the pretty islands.

Mr. TAYLOR. I am looking forward to traveling to Puerto Rico

once we adjourn to see if we can’t do a better job for the sake of

the people of Puerto Rico.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I

am pleased to be before the Committee today, testifying on behalf

of H.R. 2541. I introduced this bill to adjust the boundary of the

Gulf Islands National Seashore to include Cat Island, which is the

island you see in the photo taken from space by the NASA remote

sensing lab. I have submitted a copy of this testimony to the Committee and ask this document be part of the record.

I have been a life-long resident of the Mississippi Gulf Coast. As

many residents of the area, I have had the incredible good fortune

of enjoying the natural beauty, physical resources and wildlife of

this pristine island. I would add that the present owners of the island have been incredibly generous to allow people to go on their

private property which is how so many of us have had the opportunity to enjoy it.

I come here today to urge adoption and the inclusion of a portion

of Cat Island that the Boddie family offers, as willing sellers, to be

included in the Gulf Island National Seashore.

The Gulf Island National Seashore was established by Public

Law 91-660 on January 8, 1971, to preserve Petit Bois, Horn and

East and West Ship Islands for public use and enjoyment because

of their natural beauty and recreational values. At that time, Cat

Island was also considered for inclusion within this boundary. In

fact, in a hearing held in June of 1970 regarding establishment of

the seashore, the Assistant Secretary of Fish and Wildlife, Parks,

and Marine Resources testified before the Committee on Interior

and Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, that Cat Island offers an—now I am quoting—‘‘ecological

array of conditions which cannot be located anywhere else.’’

The total uniqueness Cat Island offers makes it a key addition

to the Gulf Island National Seashore. Cat Island is the last of the

16

Gulf Islands to be publicly protected. I would like to see a majority

of this island preserved for future generations to enjoy.

Therefore, I come before the Committee today, Mr. Chairman

and Ranking Member, to urge adoption of H.R. 2541 with two exceptions.

The first exception is to remove the Boddie family parcel and the

existing privately owned subdivided lots on Cat Island from the

proposed boundary of the Gulf Island National Seashore. In the

early 1970s or late 1960s, the family sold off several lots on the island. The family would also like to keep a small portion of the island, and the total of this adds up to about 160 acres. I insist on

leaving these parcels out of the seashore boundary simply because

this designated acreage is not being willingly offered for inclusion.

The rest of the island is. I value the importance of this and have

promised the owners that I would never do anything to forcibly

take their land from them with or without compensation.

Secondly, I would like to bring to the Committee’s attention that

in July of 1986, subsequent to the Gulf Island National Seashore

being established, the Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi

ruled on a case entitled Cinque Bambini Partnership versus the

State of Mississippi. In this case, the claimants brought action

against the State of Mississippi to clarify title resulting from oil

leases granted by the State. The Supreme Court held that fee simple title to all lands naturally subject to tidal influence inland to

the current mean high water mark is held by the State of Mississippi in trust; and lands bought within the ebb and flow of tide

by avulsion or by artificial or non-natural means are owned by the

record titleholders.

All of that being said, basically means that that land up to the

high water mark belongs to the State, since our laws are based on

English law and that was the English common law prior to the

United States becoming a separate entity. Since this case has happened, since the inclusion of the other islands clarified that as far

as we would recognize, the State of Mississippi owns everything up

to the high water mark, everything above the high water mark

would be included in the Gulf Island National Seashore.

With this said, I ask that the bill include clarifying language that

ensures that the State boundary of this island is determined by the

current mean high tide line of the Mississippi Sound and the Gulf

of Mexico and any tidally affected streams emptying into those bodies of water. Again, this is Mississippi State law. Everything below

this line is to remain under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of

State. Furthermore, it is intended that the agency currently referred to as the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources retain

responsibility for determining fishing regulations around Cat Island.

In conclusion, I wish to remind you of the opportunity before us

today to preserve a major portion of this island in its natural state

for public enjoyment and use. I respectfully request the Committee

to do all it can do to expedite this legislation.

I will go on in my remaining time to say that the major impetus

for this is just the phenomenal growth of not just coastal America

but coastal Mississippi. About 10 years ago, I was one of three

sponsors of a bill that legalized gaming in Mississippi. We were in

17

the throes of a recession. We thought that we could create 8,000

jobs by doing it. To date, that has led to the creation of about

50,000 jobs. It is now a $2 billion business. People that we never

dreamed would come to Mississippi and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars are now coming to Mississippi and spending $2 billion a year.

When I was a high school teenager, about half of my graduating

class had to move away in order to find jobs. That has changed.

Instead of people moving away, we have a job for anybody who

wants one. We have an incredible influx of people, incredible demands on our resources and, quite frankly, I would like to see this

resource preserved in its natural state so that future generations

could have the great benefit that I have had and my kids have had.

To take it a step further, we are often asked—our constituents

throw us a ringer in our town meetings, which you and I have been

around for a while. We have had every tough question we could

think of thrown at us. But one of the tougher questions I have had

recently is what have you done to bring your folks closer to God.

And I have got to admit that I was taken aback. I tried to come

back with the lame excuse that I voted for the 10 Commandments

being posted in public buildings, which tried to set a good example.

But the bottom line is, if you look at what happened in Colorado

and in most of those places, this happened in fairly urban areas.

I think that a lot of this has to do with the fact that, in the urbanized areas, folks have gotten so far away from nature that they

have lost the ability to see the hand of God. When I look at Cat

Island, I see the hand of God. Whether it is a porpoise and her

child or an osprey or something as strange looking as a horseshoe

crab or an alligator, they are all out there.

And I really think we could do the people of this Nation, in particular the people of Mississippi, a tremendous favor by taking one

of the last remaining parcels in its true natural state and preserving it for perpetuity. This would include about 21,000 acres

and leave the remaining 160 acres for the private property owners.

I would certainly appreciate your assistance on this.

Mr. HANSEN. We thank our colleague from Mississippi for his

testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Taylor follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. GENE TAYLOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FRO THE STATE

OF MISSIPPII

Good morning, Mr. Chaitrman and Members of the Committee. I am pleased to

be before the Committee today, testifying on behalf of H.R. 254. I introduced this

bill to adjust the boundary of the Gulf Islands National Seashore to include Cat Island. I have submitted a copy of this testimony to the Committee. I ask this document to be made part of the hearing record.

I have been a life-long resident of the Gulf Coast, and as many residents of this

area, I have had the good fortune of enjoying the natural beauty, physical resources

and wildlife of this pristine island. I come here today to urge adoption of the portion

of Cat Island the Boddie family offers, as willing sellers, to be included in the Gulf

Islands National Seashore.

The Gulf Island National Seashore was established by Public Law 91–660 on January 8, 1971 to preserve Petit Bois, Horn and East and West Ship Islands for public

use and enjoyment because of their natural and recreational values. At that time,

Cat Island was also considered for inclusion within this boundary. In fact, during

a hearing held in June of 1970 regarding the establishment of this seashore, the

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife, Parks, and Marine Resources testified before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on National

18

Parks and Recreation that Cat Island offers an ‘‘ecological array of conditions which

cannot be located anywhere else.’’ The total uniqueness Cat Island offers makes it

a key addition to the Gulf Island National Seashore. Cat Island is the last of the

Gulf Islands to be publicly protected. I would like to see the majority of this island

preserved for future generations to enjoy.

Therefore, I come before the Committee today, Mr. Chairman, to urge adoption

of H.R. 2541, with two exceptions. The first exception is to remove the Boddie family

parcel and the existing privately owned subdivided lots on Cat Island from the proposed boundary of the Gulf Islands National Seashore. I insist on leaving these parcels out of the seashore boundary simply because this designated acreage is not

being willingly offered for inclusion. I value the importance of this land to these

owners. Secondly, I would like to bring to the Committee’s attention that in July 1986,

subsequent to the Gulf Islands National Seashore being established, the Supreme

Court of Mississippi ruled on a case entitled Cinque Barmbini Partnership versus

the State. In this case, the claimants brought action against the State of Mississippi

to clarify title resulting from oil leases granted by the state. ‘‘The supreme court

held that (1) fee slimle title to all lands naturally subject to tidal influence inland

to the current mean high water-mark is held by the State of Mississippi in trust,

and (2) lands brought within the ebb and flow of tide by avulsion or by artificial

or nonnatural means are owned by the record titleholders.’’ With this said, I ask

that this bill include clarifying language which ensures that the state boundary of

this island is determined by the current mean high tide line of the Mississippi

Sound and the Gulf of Mexico and any tidally affected streams emptying into those

water bodies. Everything below this line is to remain under the jurisdiction of the

Secretary of State. Furthermore, it is intended that the agency currently referred

to as the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources retain responsibility for determining fishing regulations around Cat Island.

In conclusion, I wish to remind you of the opportunity we have before us to preserve the major portion of this island in its natural state for public use and enjoyment. I respectfully request of this Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

Committee to do all it can to expedite this legislation through the Committee. I wish

to thank the chairman and the Committee for the opportunity of appearing before

you. This concludes my statement. I am prepared to respond to any questions you

may have.

Mr. HANSEN. We will turn to our colleague from Guam, Mr. Robert Underwood, who is also a member of the full Resources Committee.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, if I may, one last request is we have

a number of letters of support for this, including an editorial from

the Mississippi Gulf Coast’s largest newspaper just yesterday, in

favor of the proposal that I would like to include for the record.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Without objection, it will be entered

into the record.

[The information follows:]

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Underwood.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT UNDERWOOD, A DELEGATE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on H.R. 1866, which encourages and allows for public participation to appeal of land management decisions made by the National Park Service and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

As you are well aware, Mr. Chairman and other members of the

Committee, the government of Guam, like other State and local

governments and private citizens, are subject to land acquisition

methods employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In March,

1994, the Fish and Wildlife Service declared more than 20 percent

of Guam a national wildlife refuge overlay or approximately 24,500

acres island-wide. Eighty-three percent of the refuge had been in

19

the possession of the U.S. military, 14 percent owned by the government of Guam, and by the remaining 3 percent by private landowners. The majority of the acreage is located in the northern end

of the island. The refuge was established under the guise of protecting Guam’s endangered bird populations from extinction.

Since the establishment of that refuge, Guam has received a considerable amount of attention and publicity about the decline of the

island’s bird populations. Books, documentaries, magazine articles,

academic papers and even websites have been published or produced to inform the American public about the decimation of

Guam’s bird population and its effects on the wildlife ecosystem. I

believe that it has been accepted by not only the scientific community but by the American public in general that the extinction of

many of Guam’s indigenous bird species is a direct result of the introduction of the brown tree snake which is an invasive species introduced to Guam in the 1950s along with military cargo.

The designation of a wildlife refuge which ‘‘roped off’’ land for the

Fish and Wildlife Service essentially preempted many opportunities for Guam to regain title to these properties which the military

had been considering as declaring as excess property. The land was

originally taken in the immediate post-World War II era to ensure

national security.

The island of Guam would have been better served if the Fish

and Wildlife Service did everything necessary to eradicate the

brown tree snake rather than acquiring precious lands that are

needed by the people of Guam. It doesn’t take a scientific community and, in fact, many biologists working for the Department of

the Interior acknowledge that it is the abundance of the brown tree

snake and not land preservation efforts which were needed to reverse the decline of Guam’s native birds. So, in short, this was a

problem of an invasive species rather than a lack of critical habitat.

Mr. Chairman, I believe Fish and Wildlife Service has too much

land acquisition authority and, in particular, there are very few opportunities to challenge the manner in which they establish the refuge in Guam. Indeed, I am working on legislation to find a way to

balance the approach to this wildlife refuge.

I am not adverse to more extreme measures if they are necessary. However, I believe that your approach, Mr. Chairman, H.R.

1866, is a reasonable and fair beginning to ensure that all interested parties are taken into account before private or public land

is taken in the name of preservation. This legislation asks no more

than what is required by the U.S. Forest Service or the Bureau of

Land Management. This legislation is a fair proposal, and I give

it my full support. I promise that I will work with the chairman

and other members of the Subcommittee to make the legislation

workable.

Had this process been in place for Guam rather than a couple of

perfunctory public hearings on it, we would have had—the local

community would have had a fair chance at explaining its perspective on this manner.

So, with that, I appreciate the opportunity to share this particular story. I wish that this legislation would be retroactive, but

it has fallen on my watch to attempt to deal with this very tragic

situation regarding public lands in Guam. Thank you.

20

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman’s support

and his comments.

[The prepard statement of Mr. Underwood follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

TERRITORY OF GUAM

Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on H.R. 1866, which encourages and allows for public participation to appeal land management decisions made

by the National Park Service and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

As you are well aware Mr, Chairman, the Government of Guam like other state

and local governments and private citizens are subject to land acquisition methods

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In March 1994, The Fish and Wildlife Service

declared more than 20 percent of Guam a national wildlife refuge overlay or approximately 24,562 acres island wide, 83 percent of the refuge had been in the possession of the U.S. Military, 14 percent ovined by the Government of Guam and the

remaining 3 percent by private landowners The majoriry of the acreage is located

in, the northern end of the island. The refuge was established under the guise of

protecting Guam’s endangered bird populations from extinction.

Since the establishment of the refuge, Guam has received a considerable amount

of attention from the decline of the island’s bird populations. Books, documentaries,

magazine articles, academic papers, and even websites have been published or produced to inform the American public of the decimation of Guam’s wildlife eco-system. I believe it has been accepted by not only the scientific community but the

American public that the extinction of many of Guam’s indigenous bird species is

a result of the introduction of the brown tree snake which is an invasive species

introduced to Guam in the 1950’s. The designation of a Wildlife Refuge which ‘‘roped

off’’ land for the Fish and Wildlife Service, essentially preempting any opportunity

for Guam to regain title to these properties wbich had been taken to ensure national

security in the post war era, was unnecessary.

The island of Guam would be better served if the Fish and Wildlife Service did

everything necessary to eradicate the brown tree snake rather than acquiring precious lands which are needed by the people of Guam. It doesn’ttake a scientific community to figure out it’s the abundance of the brown tree snakes and not only land

preservation efforts which are needed to reverse the decline of Guam’s native birds.

Mr. Chairman, I believe Fish and Wildlife Service has too much land acquisition

authority and the manner in which they established the refuge in Guam was wrong.

Indeed I am working on legislation to find an equitable solution to this problem but

I am not averse to more extreme measures—if necessary. However, I believe that

H.R. 1866 is a reasonable and fair approach to ensure that all interested parties

are taken into account before private or public land is taken in the name of preservation. This legislation asks no more than what is required by the U.S. Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management. This legislation is a fair proposal and I give

it my full support.

Mr. HANSEN. Questions for our colleagues?

The gentleman from Puerto Rico.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. I have one for my colleague from Guam.

Are there any objections that you know of from the Department of

the Interior to this legislation, and, if so, what are their objections?

Do you know?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I can’t speak for what their objections would

be, but I would assume that anything that reduces their authority

or extends the time line for appeals would certainly be objected to.

In this particular instance, I think they were fully aware of the

level of objection to this particular effort in Guam. As a consequence, they did it in a very rapid manner with as little public

input as possible.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. We have had the same experience at

home. I think once in a while we look at this very, very carefully,

and we appreciate your testimony and your support of this.

21

Mr. UNDERWOOD. If I could just add to that, the frustrating part

of it for us was the science behind it was clearly on the side of dealing with the invasive species which is the brown tree snake, which

is almost legendary now in light of—I think when you do an article

search on Guam, some 30 or 40 percent of the articles are on the

brown tree snake. That was clearly the problem.

Fish and Wildlife took control of some 300 acres for a headquarters, declared this wildlife refuge, and then refuses to spend

money on eliminating the brown tree snake, leaves it to special appropriations to fight the brown tree snake but continues to spend

money on its own to work on perfecting this refuge. So the net result is we see many more Fish and Wildlife personnel than we see

birds now, not as many as snakes.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Do local authorities have free access to

these lands to deal with the problem of the brown tree snake or

not?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. There are other Federal programs to deal with

the brown tree snake, but they were done by special appropriations

as add-ons. I have consistently argued that those funds that are

used to fight the brown tree snake should come from Fish and

Wildlife because their objective was to deal with the issue of the

endangered species.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Thank you.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate

your leadership in having this hearing today, and I appreciate our

colleagues and their testimony this morning.

I would ask the gentleman from Guam and our friend, Mr.

Underwood, whether he thinks the territory of Guam could better

handle the decision-making with regard to the control of the brown

tree snake versus the Federal Government’s intervention in this

issue.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I think a collaborative effort is necessary because it involves Customs. It involves moving—the potential of the

brown tree snake moving on to Hawaii and other places.

But in this particular instance it has been most frustrating that

the agency designed to deal with the endangered species has not

come to the table with the resources to confront it. What we are

left with is we are now left to advocate on our own through other—

including some Department of Defense money—to help fight the

brown tree snake.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Udall.

Mr. MARK UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no questions

at this time.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Washington, Mr. Inslee.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Taylor, I am reading a comment from George

Shloegel in our file. He is extolling the virtues of Cat Island. It

says here, quote, Just last month our own Congressman, Gene Taylor, and his daughter Emily landed a monster red fish and played

a hand-over-hand line much like the Old Man and the Sea and presented a delicious meal to their entire family, close quote.

22

Now, I realize that you are not under oath, but how big was that

fish? Could you just show us?

Mr. TAYLOR. It was indeed the biggest fish I ever caught. It was

my daughter Sarah.

Mr. INSLEE. I don’t have a question. I just have a comment for

Mr. Taylor.

Your comments about the importance of seeing the hand of God

in nature—I have been in Congress for 3 years, off and on. That

is was the most eloquent statement I have heard on environmental

issues since I have been here. I appreciate your comments. I think

that we should share it with other Members.

Mr. TAYLOR. I am rarely accused of being eloquent.

Mr. INSLEE. That is why I noted it. I appreciate what you had

to say.

Mr. Underwood, you are getting some help because last night on

the Learning Channel they had a story on the brown tree snake

on your island, so you are getting a little help. Thank you.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I am not sure that I like that kind of help.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Taylor, what is it that you envision for Cat Island?

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned before, and I really

don’t know who was behind it back then, my hunch would be then

Congressman Colmer, who was a very influential member of the

Rules Committee, Senator Eastland and Senator Stennis, I don’t

know who was smart enough to do it. I guess all of them. But they

took several approaches to the islands that were purchased in the

Gulf Island Seashore.

One of them has a Civil War fort that was used as a prison during the Civil War. That island is Ship Island. It has a regular passenger service to it, and I would presume probably over 100,000

people a year go out there and swim on the beaches, tour the fort.

They have some beautiful boardwalks out among the marshes so

people can see the alligators, the egrets, get an idea of what nature

was like.

Another island, Horn Island, was kept primarily in a primitive

state. They allow for primitive camping out there. They allow folks

to sail out there, anchor off and swim off the beaches, basically do

everything short of hunting out there, if I am not mistaken. I

would leave that up to the Park Service as to what they think the

market is for the best use of this island. Either one would be wonderful, as far as I am concerned. It is not very far from Ship Island

where the vast majority of tours go by way of the regular passenger

service.

But I think with the incredible growth of the Mississippi Gulf

Coast—and again, no one anticipated it. I was one of the sponsors

of the bill, and it is 50 times bigger than anyone guessed it could

have been. I think we should leave it to the Park Service, the flexibility to do one or the other depending on what they think the market is. If they find that Ship Island has gotten so crowded that people are tripping over each other, much like the Jersey Shore, I am

sure they would want the option of doing with Cat Island what

they did with Ship Island.

23

Mr. HANSEN. Do people go over there in their private boats on

those islands that are close to the mainland for recreation purposes?

Mr. TAYLOR. I was out at Ship Island in July when they have

an annual get-together as a fund raiser for the island. I would estimate that at least 50,000 people were out there. Most of them got

out there in their private boats.

We have a really great thing about the Mississippi Gulf Coast,

is that we have these barrier islands that range anywhere from

about 7 to 10 miles off shore that protect us from the big waves

of the Gulf of Mexico. So even people with fairly small boats, 14-

, 15-, 16-foot boats, can access them knowing they are not going to

encounter too great a sea.

We have a very good presence of the United States Coast Guard.

We have an excellent National Weather Service. It is something

that truly the average Joes of south Mississippi can use.

Again, to the compliment of the Boddie family—I have only recently gotten to meet them—I have been going out there since I

was a kid. They have been very good about saying if you stay on

the beach and don’t come in where our things are, they kind of just

let people do it.

Mr. HANSEN. You say 7 to 10 miles from the mainland?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir. But, again, it is in a place where the seas

rarely get as high as this desk top.

Mr. HANSEN. So small boats can go through there unless inclement weather? They can make it all right?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes. And the beauty of it is it is accessible so that

almost anyone who can afford a boat or has a friend who has a

boat can get to Ship Island. Again, in the case of Ship Island,

which I am going to guess is 5 miles to the east, there is a regular

passenger service available through a charter to the—— Mr. HANSEN. Your bill does not dictate to the Park Service or

any other entity what they should do with it. You are leaving it up

to them. So if they decided that the Marriott Corporation should

put three hotels you would go along with that?

Mr. TAYLOR. That is prohibited, if I am not mistaken, from the

1970s law.

Mr. HANSEN. If they decided to put it in wilderness, would you

feel okay with that?

Mr. TAYLOR. Again, that is they have done with Horn Island and

allowed for primitive camping. I would think that, as far as the

Park Service is concerned, that would be the low-cost option for

them, the easiest for them to maintain. I would love to give them

that option.

Again, since our tourism industry has just exploded, they may

find that they need additional beaches made available to the public. They may want to establish a passenger service to that island

they way they have at Ship Island. That is their call. I would like

to see it included. I would like to make those opportunities available to them.

Mr. HANSEN. From the map it appears that it has quite a nice

beach along that one side; is that correct?

Mr. TAYLOR. It is a phenomenal beach. I have seen everything

from manta rays, dolphins. I really did catch the largest red drum

24

of my life just a couple of weeks ago. It is where most of the crabs

from the Mississippi Sound go there during the summer to lay

their eggs. You literally will go out there on a day where you can

hardly take a step for fear of stepping on crabs. The only horseshoe

crabs that you see anymore in the Gulf Coast are out there. The

white albino crabs that you see on the sand, you normally think

of as down in the Bahamas, you see out there. Whitetail deer, osprey—the Boddies have been incredible stewards of this resource.

Mr. HANSEN. What is your estimation of cost? Do you have one

yet?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes. The rough estimate—the Gulf Island National

Seashore is in the process of having a survey done. If I am not mistaken, they are going to have two surveys done, just to comply with

the law. The estimate is somewhere in the $28 million range. But

if I may say, that is not out of line.

Mr. Gibbons is here. A lot of the folks that have casinos, some

of those casinos are paying in rents from people $5 million a year

for the equivalent of half a city block on the waterfront. So $28 billion dollar compared to that, those are the folks who really can afford to buy this island.

The Boddie family contacted me this summer and said, we have

heard some of their proposals, and we have decided that the best

long-term use for this island is to preserve it, and we would like

to sell it. They could sell it either way. They can get a lot of money

for it either way. It is their wishes that it be preserved as it is. I

would—I think it is a great opportunity for the people of this country, and I would like to honor their wishes.

Mr. HANSEN. Where does it get the name Cat Island?

Mr. TAYLOR. I am told that when Bienville and D’Iberville, the

French explorers that first explored the Mississippi Gulf Coast

around 1699, were working their way from Florida to what they

hoped would be the mouth of the Mississippi River—it is fairly

shallow around here, so a lot of it had to be done kind of touchyfeely to keep from running aground. When they passed the island,

from a distance they saw a large number of raccoons which are still

on the island. From a distance, they mistook them for cats. Hence

the name Cat Island.

Mr. HANSEN. Always a story on those names, isn’t there?

Mr. Underwood, you are of the opinion that the Fish and Wildlife

is spending the money that they should have been using to take

care of the birds and for the brown tree snake, and the people of

Hawaii are really kind of ticked off for you folks for transporting

the tree snake in the undercarriage of the airplanes. Your comment

regarding where the money is going.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Actually, let me clarify that. The Fish and

Wildlife Service doesn’t really put any funding into fighting the

brown tree snake. It is done by special appropriations. The leader

on that has been Senator Inouye who has appropriated some

money from the Department of Defense to help in controlling the

brown tree snake.

My—I think the people of Guam could be ticked off for a lot of

things. One, they could be ticked for the military planes that

brought in the brown tree snakes to begin with. That is the first

issue. But secondly is the fact that, under the guise of trying to

25

help protect the endangered species, the birds, there has been more

effort given by Fish and Wildlife towards dealing with property

issues and land issues than the actual invasive species which have

led to the decline of the birds.

Obviously, one of the—I have always kidded both Senator Inouye

and Senator Akaka, the fastest way for us to get attention is to

take a dead snake and throw it on the tarmac over in Honolulu.

That gets everyone excited.

In reality, it is a serious problem, a serious public relations problem; and people of Guam are very much in favor of bringing back

the bird species.

I have recently gone to a little cleared-off area in the north of

Guam trying to bring back what is known as the koko or the Guam

rail. The Guam rail existed only in Guam. It is the only place in

the word that it existed, and this flightless bird had been wiped out

by the brown tree snake.

Mr. HANSEN. Always a problem.

The way the 1973 bill reads, if you are very successful in eliminating the brown tree snake down to a certain extent it will then

become endangered and we will have to appropriate millions of dollars to save it. I don’t know whether we ever get the balance

worked out, but someone around this place ought to be smart

enough to figure out how to change the Endangered Species Act.

In some people’s opinion, it came from Mount Sinai and the hand

of God wrote it, but it really has lot of flaws in it.

With that frustration out of my way, let me say this. We appreciate the testimony of our two colleagues. We would welcome you

to the dais if you would like to. And we will turn to the gentleman

from Puerto Rico.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. Mr. Taylor, what if the Navy decided that

one of the islands in the Gulf Coast of Mississippi was indispensable for national defense and they started using it for bombarding

and maneuvers? How would the people around Mississippi feel

about that?

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Romero-Barcelo ́, I am of the understanding that

during World War II portions of both this island and Horn Island

were used to train dogs for the military. There is actually some

chemical weapons testing out there, either on this island or Horn

Island.

I certainly understand where you are coming from. I have a very

large Army tank range that I help to make better in my district

where they do drop bombs in my district.

As I have said before, we value our bases as great neighbors. I

hope to go to Puerto Rico when we adjourn and see if I can’t do

a job of convincing the United States Navy to be better neighbors

on Vieques.

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. The difference there—we are getting into

another subject, but the difference there is the community is involved in the base, and they get jobs in the base different from the

situation in Vieques where the Navy is completely estranged from

the people in Vieques.

Mr. TAYLOR. I am going to do the very best I can, in my very

best mumble, to——

26

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO ́. I know that. You have been very helpful.

Thank you very much on that. You can be sure that we will also

be very helpful to you in this, whatever we can do.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Nevada.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just one question for Mr. Taylor.

I noticed that the owners of Cat Island have requested the retention of a retained right for an in-holding within the island itself.

Are you in support of their request for retention of an in-holding

that would be within the area of the island but not included within

the park boundaries?

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Gibbons, let’s remember, they have a number

of people who have a lot of money who have offered to buy this island. Those people can do, since it is privately owned, anything

they want with it all the way from razing it—they can do anything

they want with it right now.

They have offered to make about 2,100 acres available to the

public. They have asked that they can keep for their children, since

this has been in their family for almost a century, about 150 acres.

About another 8 or 10 acres are owned by other individuals in

smaller lots.

You and I, I think, are very much alike in that we don’t want

to take anyone’s land. They are willing sellers. They have told me

that they would like to retain that 150 acres for their children and

children’s children, but also with the knowledge and working with

the Gulf Island National Seashore to possibly one day construct a

small lodge, 8 to 15 rooms, where folks could come out and have

eco-tours. I see that as a great idea.

We both have districts where a lot of people come for the purposes of gambling. But they also come to do a lot of other things.

In the case of your district, to play golf, see the mountains, see the

desert. In the case of south Mississippi, we have the great resource

of the Gulf of Mexico. I think that the more assets that already

exist in south Mississippi that we can make available to the public

the better.

So if they want to give the opportunity to folks that don’t have

a boat to go out to Cat Island and spend a few days and see the

deer and the alligators, the ospreys and the horseshoe crabs, the

dolphins, I think it is a wonderful idea.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Chairman, I know that we have had discussions in this Committee in the past about in-holdings in the park and other areas

and some of the problems that has been raised by the park commission over such things. I would hope that we can make it clear

that the wishes of the owners in this regard to their property making this a public island more or less would be recognized down the

road. I am afraid what we will see is an erosion of that support

for private ownership within that island after a number of years.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Gibbons, to the point, if I may, only yesterday

I received a letter from someone who owns about 80 acres on one

of the islands previously purchased back in the late 1960s, early

1970s. Obviously, it has not been a problem for them, that they

have retained title to that for these many years.

27

We are—I would hope that you would ask the same question of

the Boddie family. They have asked for very specific language that

would allow them to do just what we talked about. I hope the bill

would spell that out so they don’t have to keep going to the expense

of coming back and forth to Washington, that we could get this

straight and have it as part of the proposal that your Committee

votes on.

Mr. HANSEN. Further questions for our colleagues? If not, we will

excuse you. Actually, if you would like to join us on the dais, we

will turn to the first panel.

Our first panel is William Shaddox, Acting Associate Director for

Professional Services, National Park Service; Cala Boddie-Colbert,

Cat Island, Mississippi; and George Schloegel, Friends of the Gulf

Island National Seashore.

If these three folk would like to come up, we would appreciate

it.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM SHADDOX, ACTING ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, NATIONAL PARK

SERVICE

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Shaddox, we appreciate you being with us, and

we will turn to you first.

You folks notice this little machine in front of you. It is a new

idea that they have come up with around here. It has on it: Talk,

sum up, and stop. There is the time just ticking away. We appreciate it if you would try to stay within your time. We realize that

maybe you have got to go over for a few minutes, and that is all

right. We now fine you for $10 a minute for every minute you go

over. Maybe we would waive that in this hearing.

The floor is yours, sir.

Mr. SHADDOX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

Committee, for allowing us to appear and testify on H.R. 2541

today to adjust boundaries of Gulf Island National Seashore to include Cat Island, Mississippi.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit my statement for the

record, if you please. Then I could summarize.

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection, your entire testimony will be in

the record, as it will for all of our witnesses today. If you would

like to summarize, that is perfectly all right. We understand.

Mr. SHADDOX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Congressman Taylor

for all of his hard work to bring this bill to the attention of the

Congress. I would like to thank Trust Republic Lands for all of the

hard work that they have done in this measure. I would certainly

love to thank the Boddie family for their willingness to step forward to help preserve this wonderful resource, this beautiful island.

The Department supports this legislation, Mr. Chairman, with

the amendments described later in this testimony. The significant

natural resources of the island and its great potential for visitor

use make this island a highly desirable addition to the national

seashore.

28

The landowners prefer to have the island added to the national

seashore, and to that end we have been discussing terms of conveyance with the Trust for Public Lands and the National Park Service. Meanwhile, because development pressures along the coast of

Mississippi are intensifying, the owner is likely to get very attractive competing offers from land developers. We hope that Congress

would seize what could turn out to be a short-lived opportunity to

obtain this magnificent resource for the benefit of the public by

passing this legislation enabling the National Park Service to acquire the island. Land acquisitions, however, would be subject to

National Park Service priorities and the availability of appropriations.

While we agree with the intent of H.R. 2541, we recommend two

changes to the legislation as follows. If you will bear with me, Mr.

Chairman, this is somewhat lengthy, but I will get through it as

quickly as possible.

First, section 1, subsection 3, would add to Gulf Islands and the

water area adjacent to the shoreline that is not owned by the State

of Mississippi. Because the State actually has title to all submerged

lands below the mean high tide line, the boundary would end at

the high tide line. The beach area below the high tide line and the

submerged lands, which are owned by the State, would be excluded.

This proposed boundary is different from the boundaries around

the other islands within the seashore, which include the adjacent

submerged lands for one mile from the shoreline or to the south

edge of the Intercoastal Waterway, whichever is closer.

We recommend that section 1, subsection 3, be amended to establish a seaward boundary for Cat Island that is consistent with

those of the other national seashore islands. We are concerned that

if the boundary stops at the high tide line, it may pose management problems. For example, the Park Service would not be able

to establish and enforce rules for recreational watercraft immediately offshore, as it does for other national seashore islands.

We understand that State officials oppose including State submerged lands in the boundary. However, including this area in the

boundary would not change the ownership of the submerged lands.

The State would retain ownership. Section 2(a)(6) of Public Law

91–660, the original Gulf islands legislation, makes clear that the

National Park Service may acquire only with the consent of the

State. The State did in fact convey to the Park Service ownership

of the submerged land surrounding the other Gulf Islands nearly

30 years ago.

If Mississippi wishes to retain title to the submerged lands adjacent to the island, establishing a boundary one mile out to see

would make it possible for the State to enter into an agreement for

concurrent jurisdiction of the area with the National Park Service.

That could be a real advantage to both the State and the Park

Service. Under such an agreement, it would be possible for the

State to be relieved of the burden it would otherwise continue to

bear for management of the water surrounding the island, while

the Park Service would have a greater ability to protect the island’s

resources and the visiting public. But unless the boundary is exVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:55 Sep 27, 2001 Jkt 073105 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\64045 pfrm11 PsN: 64045
29

tended beyond the high tide line, the option of entering into such

a management agreement would not be available.

Furthermore, should the State ever decide that it wanted to

transfer ownership of the water within the one mile boundary to

the Park Service, there would be no need for new legislation to adjust the boundary.

Two alternative maps depicting the island as part of Gulf Islands

National Seashore are being prepared by the Park Service’s Regional Office. One depicts the island with a boundary one mile seaward, as we are recommending, the other with a boundary at the

high tide line, as described in H.R. 2541 as introduced, and we will

submit both to the Subcommittee.

Secondly, H.R. 2541 anticipates the purchase of the island but

does not include an increase in the authorization of appropriations

for land acquisition. The last authorization for the acquisition at

Gulf Islands, enacted in 1976, raised the ceiling to $22,162,000.

Over the years, Congress has actually appropriated more than that

amount for land purchases in the islands. Because we do not yet

have a cost estimate for the approximately 2,200 acres that would

be purchased if this legislation is approved, we recommend that the

legislation authorize the appropriation of such sums as necessary

for land acquisition. Furthermore, the language should be clear

that the submerged land, as well as land and water, are eligible

for acquisition, as that would help avoid confusion over the status

of submerged lands.

In summary, we believe that Cat Island would be a very valuable

addition to the Gulf Island National Seashore, and we urge the

Subcommittee to act on this legislation as quickly as possible before we lose the opportunity to add this wonderful property to the

National Park Service.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks; and I would like to

answer any questions that you or the Subcommittee may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shaddox follows:]

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM SHADDOX, ACTING ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR PROFESSIONAL

SERVICES, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 2541, to adjust

the boundaries of the Gulf Islands National Seashore to include Cat Island, Mississippi.

The Department supports this legislation, with the amendments described later

in the testimony.

H.R. 2541 would revise the boundary of Gulf Islands National Seashore established in 1971, by Public Law 91–660, to add Cat Island to the series of barrier islands and onshore units in Mississippi and Florida that comprise the national seashore. Cat Island, which lies about eight miles south of Gulfport, is the westernmost barrier island of the group of five islands off the eastern half of the Mississippi

coast. This almost entirely undeveloped, 2,350-acre, T-shaped island has more than

21 miles of shoreline varying from sea-level beaches to 40-foot high sand ridges.

Cat Island contains a greater diversity of vegetation and wildlife than any of the

islands currently within the national seashore. Habitats include saltwater marsh,

ephemeral saltwater marsh, freshwater marsh, palmetto-slash pine forest, and live

oak stands. The only development on the entire island consists of three frame dwellings, some man-made canals, and relics of military use during World War II. The

significant natural resources of the island, and its great potential for visitor use,

make this island a highly desirable addition to the national seashore.

When plans were under way to establish Gulf Islands National Seashore three

decades ago, the Administration proposed to include Cat Island in the boundary.

However, due to opposition to its inclusion by the owner, Congress omitted the isVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:55 Sep 27, 2001 Jkt 073105 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\64045 pfrm11 PsN: 64045
30

land from the final legislation. The island’s principal owner now wishes to sell all

but 150 acres of the island.

The owner prefers to have the land added to the national seashore and, to that

end, has been discussing terms of conveyance with the Trust for Public Land and

the National Park Service. Meanwhile, because development pressures along the

coast of Mississippi are intensifying, the owner is likely to get very attractive competing offers from land developers. We hope that Congress will seize what could

turn out to be a short-lived opportunity to obtain this magnificent resource for the

benefit of the public by passing this legislation, enabling the National Park Service

to acquire the island. Land acquisitions, however, would be subject to National Park

Service priorities and the availability of appropriations.

While we agree with the intent of H.R. 2541, we recommend two changes to the

legislation, as follows:

First, Section 1(3) would add to Gulf-Islands National Seashore Cat Island and

the water area adjacent to the shoreline that is not owned by the State of Mississippi. Because the State actually has title to all submerged lands below the mean

high-tide line, the boundary would end at the high-tide line. The beach area below

the high-tide line and the submerged lands, which are owned by the state, would

be excluded.

This proposed boundary is different from the boundaries around the other islands

within Gulf Islands National Seashore, which include the adjacent submerged lands

for one mile from the shoreline or to the south edge of the Intercoastal Waterway,

whichever is closer.

We recommend that Section 1(3) be amended to establish a seaward boundary for

Cat Island that is consistent with those of the other national seashore islands. We

are concerned that if the boundary stops at the high-tide line, it may pose management problems. For example, the National Park Service would not be able to establish and enforce rules for recreational watercraft immediately off shore, as it does

for the other national seashore islands.

We understand that State officials oppose including State submerged lands in the

boundary. However, including this area in the boundary would not change the ownership of the submerged lands. Section 2(a) of Public Law 91–660, the original Gulf

Islands legislation, makes clear that the National Park Service may acquire State

property only with the consent of the State. The State did in fact convey to the Park

Service ownership of the submerged lands surrounding the other gulf islands nearly

30 years ago.

If Mississippi wishes to retain title to the submerged lands adjacent to Cat Island,

establishing a boundary one mile out to sea would make it possible for the State

to enter into an agreement for concurrent jurisdiction of the area with the National

Park Service. That could be a real advantage both to the State and the National

Park Service. Under such an agreement, it is possible that the State could be relieved of the burden it would otherwise continue to bear for management of the

water surrounding the island, while the Park Service would have a greater ability

to protect the island’s resources and the visiting public. But unless the boundary

is extended beyond the high-tide line, the option of entering such a management

agreement will not be available.

Furthermore, should the State ever decide it wanted to transfer ownership of the

water within the one-mile boundary to the National Park Service, there would be

no need for new legislation adjusting the boundary.

Two alternative maps depicting Cat Island as part of Gulf Islands National Seashore are being prepared by the Park Service’s Southeast Regional Office. One depicts Cat Island with a boundary one-mile seaward, as we are recommending, the

other with a boundary at the high-tide line, as described in H.R. 2541 as introduced.

We shall submit both to the Subcommittee.

Second, H.R. 2541 anticipates the purchase of Cat Island, but does not include

an increase in the authorization of appropriations for land acquisition. The last authorization for land acquisition at Gulf Islands, enacted in 1976, raised the ceiling

to $22,162,000. Over the years, Congress has actually appropriated more than that

amount for land purchases there. Because we do not yet have a cost estimate for

the approximately 2,200 acres that could be purchased if this legislation is approved, we recommend that the legislation authorize the appropriation of ‘‘such

sums as necessary’’ for land acquisition. Furthermore, the language should be clear

that submerged lands, as well as land and water, are eligible for acquisition, as that

will help avoid confusion over the status of submerged lands.

In summary, we believe that Cat Island would be a very valuable addition to Gulf

Islands National Seashore, and we urge the Subcommittee to act on this legislation

as quickly as possible before we lose the opportunity to add this wonderful property

to the National Park System.

31

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I would be pleased to answer any

questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.

Mr. HANSEN. We have, apparently, a couple of votes on right

now. We will have to see what they are and determine whether we

would want this kind of recess for just a moment.

There is just one on the rule and just a general vote. Possibly

it would be better if we recessed for just a few minutes. We will

run over and come right back. I would urge the members of the

Committee to come right back, and we will get right back to the

next testimony.

We will stand in recess.

[Recess.]

Mr. HANSEN. The meeting will come to order.

We have no control over things such as votes going on. We just

have to go. That vote ended. I am sure the members will be coming

back.

We will now turn to Cala Boddie-Colbert as our next witness.

STATEMENT OF CALA BODDIE-COLBERT, CAT ISLAND,

MISSIPPII

Ms. BODDIE-COLBERT. I am Cala Boddie-Colbert. I am here together with my brother and sister. Together with our cousin and

our nine children, we own all but six acres of Cat Island.

As you can see from the map over there, it is a T-shaped island

approximately 7 miles south of Gulfport, Mississippi. The island

has been in my family for almost 90 years. It has 21 miles of shoreline and it has pristine views and over three miles of totally undeveloped white gulf sand beach.

The incredible economic growth on the Gulf Coast in recent years

has put us under intense pressure to decide between preserving the

island and developing it. We have come to the conclusion that, if

we are compensated fairly, we would greatly prefer to see the majority of the island preserved in its natural state. We think that the

National Park Service has done an excellent job of managing the

Mississippi barrier islands that are currently in the Gulf Islands

National Seashore. For that reason, we believe that the seashore

is the logical entity to preserve and manage the majority of Cat Island.

But our children are the fifth generation of our family to love Cat

Island, and it is very important to us that this relationship should

continue. Therefore, since we were first approached by the National

Park Service in May, 1998, about the possibility of including Cat

Island in the seashore, our discussions with the Park Service and

with the Trust for Public Lands concerning an option which it

could exercise on behalf of the Park Service, it has always been

based on the premise that our family would retain approximately

6 percent of Cat Island in fee simple ownership. We have voluntarily agreed that we will place substantial government restrictions

on this family land once the remainder of the island has been

transferred to the Park Service. However, we did not contemplate

and we have not agreed to the inclusion of this family land within

the boundaries of the Gulf Island National Seashore.

We completely support the intent of H.R. 2541, but we ask that

the Subcommittee modify the bill, as Congressman Taylor asked, to

32

remove our family land and to remove the existing privately owned

subdivided lots from the proposed boundary amendment to the Gulf

Island National Seashore. If the bill is amended to that effect, my

family will wholeheartedly support it.

The reserved rights that we have negotiated with the Park Service will allow us to build houses for ourselves and our children and

construct a small ecologically-oriented lodge on the acreage we will

retain. The Park Service has agreed that this type of responsible

and limited development is consistent with its management plans

for Cat Island. A copy of the proposed reserved rights and restrictions that we have negotiated with the Park Service, a map showing the location of our family parcel, and a plat of the existing subdivided lots on the island are included with our written statement.

A legal description of the family parcel is being submitted for the

record.

We think that the preservation of 94 percent of Cat Island in its

natural state for public use by future generations is in everyone’s

best interests. But because we want to keep a small part of Cat Island for ourselves, our children, and we hope for their children, and

we also want to ensure the rights of the existing lot owners, I do

ask you to amend H.R. 2541 to exclude our family’s retained land

and the existing other privately owned property on the island from

the proposed boundary of the Gulf Island National Seashore.

Thank you.

Mr. HANSEN. We thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Boddie-Colbert follows:]

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. George Schloegel, I hope.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE SCHLOEGEL, FRIENDS OF THE GULF

ISLANDS NATIONAL SEASHORE

Mr. SCHLOEGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is George

Schloegel. I am 43 year employee of the Hancock Bank,

headquartered in Gulfport. I represent the Friends of the Gulf Islands National Seashore, a broad-based volunteer nonprofit organization dedicated to the preservation and enhancement and operation of the barrier islands that are owned by the Federal Government located in the Mississippi Sound and the Gulf of Mexico and

visited by approximately 41⁄2 million people annually.

By way of background, my experience with the Gulf Islands goes

back several generations. My father, Joseph A. Schloegel, Sr., personally led the effort to keep Fort Massachusetts from being destroyed by the encroaching sea in the early 1930s. I was a part of

the effort from 1965 to 1971 to have the islands transferred from

private to public ownership. I am cofounder and chairman emeritus

of the Friends of the Gulf Island National Seashore. I serve as

chairman of the reconstruction of Ship Island lighthouse which was

originally built in 1853, destroyed in 1861 during the Civil War,

and rebuilt in 1886 and accidentally burned in 1972. We rebuilt the

lighthouse on October 9, 1998. A model that I have in front of me

is of that lighthouse. It is nearing completion as we speak.

Now, to the island itself. The beauty and history of Cat Island

is augmented by the inexpensive accessibility to sports fishing by

fishermen who do not need costly boats to enjoy these waters. Families have access to gigging flounders at night or wade fishing along

the sandy beaches with only a pole and a line. My grandsons fish

off of Cat Island as did their great, great, great grandfather. Cat

Island is a profound part of our lives, the lives of many people who

live along the Gulf Coast of Mississippi. Just last month, as we

read in the record a while ago, our own Congressmen Gene Taylor

and his daughter Emily landed a monster redfish employing a

hand-over-hand line, much like the Old Man and the Sea, and he

presented to his family a delicious meal. That is common among

the people who live on the Gulf Coast.

Today’s appearance is ‘‘deja vous’’ for me. Under the able leadership of M. James Stevens, a New Jersey native who migrated to

the Mississippi Gulf Coast and became our most beloved historian

and civil leader, H.R. 10874 was introduced May 5, 1969. Sponsors

of that bill included Congressman Sikes of Florida, Congressman

Dickinson of Alabama, Congressman Hebert of Louisiana and Congressman William Colmer of Mississippi. Congressman Colmer at

the time was chairman of the House Rules Committee.

H.R. 10874 created the Gulf Islands National Seashore to preserve one of America’s most historic and scenic chain of barrier islands.

Included in the original bill was Mississippi’s Petit Bois Island,

Ship Island, Horn Island, and Cat Island. My good friend and the

owner of Cat Island, the late Nathan Boddie, and his family did not

want to sell Cat Island at that time. Mr. Bill Colmer in his infinite

wisdom did not want to invoke eminent domain. I remember the

46

stately chairman putting his hand on my shoulders here in Washington and saying, ‘‘George, Nathan does not want to sell Cat Island and I feel we should accommodate him and take Cat Island

out of the bill. At a later date perhaps we can purchase Cat Island,

but condemnation simply is not an alternative I can live with.’’

Naturally, I agreed with Mr. Colmer, and H.R. 10874 passed the

91st Congress on January 8, 1971. Mr. Calmer’s prophesy that one

day Cat Island could be purchased is the subject of today’s hearing.

The Friends of the Gulf Islands National Seashore are grateful to

Mr. George Boddie, to his sisters, and to all members of the Boddie

family for their concurrence of the preservation of this national

landmark.

By way of a little additional history, in 1513 Spanish explorer

claimed the area of Cat Island 94 years before Jamestown and 110

years before the Mayflower landed at Plymouth Rock.

Three hundred years ago this year, on February 10, 1699, the

French established a beachhead on the island and sailed through

the pass between Cat Island and Ship Island and built Fort

Maurepas on the mainland in Ocean Springs.

President Thomas Jefferson declared the control of New Orleans

the focal point to the western expansion of our young Nation in

1801. New Orleans controlled the Mississippi River which drains

41 percent of the continental United States, including all or part

of 31 States from New York to North Carolina and Idaho to New

Mexico. This territory located just west of Cat Island prompted the

Louisiana Purchase, America’s greatest real estate transaction at 4

cents an acre, tripling the size of the United States in 1803.

The islands in question at today’s hearing were pivotal in the

Battle of New Orleans won by Andrew Jackson in 1815. The Treaty

of Ghent on Christmas Eve, December 24, 1814, ended the war of

1812, but the terms of the armistice claimed the British did not

recognize the Louisiana Purchase and therefore the coastal land

and islands from Pensacola to Baton Rouge remained British. Andy

Jackson’s decisive defeat of the British at Mobile, Pensacola and finally at New Orleans on January 8, 1815, 2 weeks after the war

was officially over, drove the British out of America once and for

all.

Admiral David G. Farragut used the Gulf Islands as his launch

spot for the siege of New Orleans, Baton Rouge and Natchez. The

USS Constitution, among other transport vessels, deposited 18,000

troops on the islands in the midst of the Civil War. Those were the

troops that General Benjamin Butler of Massachusetts used to occupy the City of New Orleans.

Admiral Farragut again used the islands to stage the Battle of

Mobile against Admiral Franklin Buchanan, First Superintendent

of the U.S. Naval Academy and former Commander of the C.S.A.

Merimac-Virginia. In that battle, Farragut climbed the mainsail to

view the fight and coined the phrase, ‘‘Damn the torpedoes, full

speed ahead.’’

Others before you in these hallowed halls have preserved pieces

of American history dating back to Francis Scott Key, Betsy Ross,

Patrick Henry, and Nathan Hale. Today you have the opportunity

to do the same by preserving another vital piece of American hisVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:55 Sep 27, 2001 Jkt 073105 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\64045 pfrm11 PsN: 64045
47

tory where Andrew Jackson, David Farragut, and Zachary Taylor

made their marks.

Today’s testimony is not only about buying an island, it is also

about preserving a piece of American history.

Thank you.

Mr. HANSEN. I thank the gentleman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schloegel follows:]

STATEMENT OF GEORGE A. SCHLOEGEL, GULFPORT, MISSISSIPPI

My name is George Schloegel. I am a 43 year employee of Hancock Bank located

at 2510 14th Street, Gulfport, Mississippi 39501. My telephone number is (228) 868-

4706. My degree is from Louisiana State University in New Orleans in Business Administration with a minor in History. I represent the Friends of the Guf Islands National Seashore, a broad based, volunteer non-profit organization dedicated to the

preservation, enhancement and operation of the barrier islands owned by the Federal Government located in the Mississippi Sound and Gulf of Mexico and visited

by 4 1/2 million people annually.

My experience with the Islands goes back several generations. My father, Joseph

A. Schloegel, Sr., personally led the effort to keep Fort Massachusetts from being

destroyed by the encroaching sea in the early 1930’s. I was a part of the effort, from

1965 to 1971, to have the Islands transferred from private to public ownership. I

am a co-founder and Chairman Emeritus of the Friends of the Gulf Island National

Seashore. I serve as Chairman of the reconstruction of the Ship Island Lighthouse

originally built in 1853, destroyed in 1861 during the Civil War, rebuilt in 1886,

accidently burned in 1972 and rebuilt beginning on October 9, 1998.

The beauty of Cat Island is also augmented by inexpensive accessibility to sports

fishing. Fishermen do not need costly boats to enjoy these waters. Families have access to gigging flounders at night or wade fishing along the sandy beaches with only

a pole and line. My grandsons fish off of Cat Island as did their great, great, great

grandfather. Cat Island is a profound part of our lives. Just last month our own

Congressman, Gene Taylor, and his daughter, Emily, landed a monster redfish employing a hand-over-hand line, much like The Old Man and the Sea, AND PRESENTED

A DELICIOUS MEAL TO THEIR ENTIRE FAMILY.

Today’s appearance is ‘‘deja vous’’ for me. Under the able leadership of M. James

Stevens, a New Jersey native who migrated to the Mississippi Gulf Coast and became our most beloved historian and civic leader, H.R. 10874 was introduced May

5, 1969. Sponsors of that bill included Congressman Sikes of Florida, Congressman

Dickinson of Alabama, Congressman Hebert of Louisiana and Congressman William

Colmer of Mississippi, Chairman of the House Rules Committee.

H.R. 10874 created the Gulf Islands National Seashore to preserve one of America’s most historic and scenic chains of barrier islands.

Included in the original bill was Mississippi’s Petit Bois Island, Ship Island, Horn

Island, and Cat Island. My good friend and owner of Cat Island, the late Nathan

Boddie and his family, did not want to sell Cat Island at the time and Mr. Bill

Colmer in his infinite wisdom did not want to invoke eminent domain. I remember

the stately chairman putting his hand on my shoulder and saying, ‘‘George, Nathan

does not want to sell Cat Island and I feel we should accommodate him and take

Cat Island out of the bill. At a later date perhaps we can purchase Cat Island but

condemnation is simply not an alternative I can live with.’’

Naturally, I agreed with Mr. Colmer and H.R. 10874 passed the 91st Congress

on January 8, 1971. Mr. Colmer’s prophecy that one day Cat Island could be purchased is the subject of today’s hearing, and the Friends of the Gulf Islands National Seashore are grateful to Mr. George Boddie and the members of the Boddie

family for their concurrence in the preservation of this national landmark.

In 1513, Spanish Explorers claimed the area 94 years before Jamestown and 107

years before the Mayflower landed at Plymouth Rock.

Three hundred years ago this year, on February 10, 1699, the French established

a beachhead on the islands when they sailed through the pass between Cat Island

and Ship Island and built Fort Maurepas on the mainland in Ocean Springs.

President Thomas Jefferson declared the control of New Orleans as the focal point

to the western expansion of our young nation in 1801. New Orleans controlled the

Mississippi River which drains 41 percent of the continental United States, including all or part of 31 states from New York to North Carolina and from Idaho to

New Mexico. This territory located just west of Cat Island prompted the Louisiana

48

Purchase, America’s greatest real estate transaction at 4 cents per acre, tripling the

size of the United States in 1803.

The islands in question at today’s meeting were pivotal in the Battle of New Orleans won by General Andrew Jackson in 1815. The treaty of Ghent on Christmas

Eve, December 24, 1814, ended the War of 1812 but the terms of the armistice

claimed the British did not recognize the Louisiana Purchase; therefore, the coastal

land and islands from Pensacola to Baton Rouge remained British. Andy Jackson’s

decisive defeat of the British at Mobile, Pensacola and finally at New Orleans on

January 8, 1815, two weeks after the war was over, drove the British out of America

once and for all.

Admiral David G. Farragut used the Gulf Islands as his launch spot for the Seige

of New Orleans, Baton Rouge and Natchez. The U.S.S. Constitution, among other

transport vessels, deposited 18,000 troops on the Islands in the midst of the Civil

War. These were the troops General Benjamin Butler of Massachusetts used to occupy the city of New Orleans.

Admiral Farragut again used Ship Island to stage the Battle of Mobile against

Admiral Franklin Buchanan, First Superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy and

former Commander of the C.S.A. Merrimac-Virginia. In that battle, Farragut

climbed the mainsail to view the fight and coined the phrase, ‘‘Damn the torpedoes,

full speed ahead.’’

Others before you in these hallowed halls have preserved pieces of American history dating back to Frances Scott Key, Betsy Ross, Patrick Henry and Nathan Hale.

Today you have the chance to do the same by preserving another vital piece of

American history where Andrew Jackson, David Farragut and Zachary Taylor made

their marks.

Today’s testimony is not only about buying an island, it is also about preserving

a piece of American history.

Thank you for allowing me to make this presentation.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Nevada, a question for our

witnesses?

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me address my first question to Ms. Colbert, if I may.

Welcome and thank you for your testimony. I know your family

is in support of this acquisition. What is the will, if you might say

that, of the other landholders on the island? What do they see with

all of this?

Ms. BODDIE-COLBERT. I don’t speak formally for them, but there

are approximately 27 quarter acre lots that my father sold in the

1960s and early 1970s. Those are probably owned by, I would

think, 10 to 12 different persons, because several people owned

more than one lot. We have not talked to each of them.

I think that the overwhelming sentiment is that they would like

to be outside the seashore, if for no other reason so they could

drink a Coors longneck on the porch of their house. The seashore,

for very good reasons, prevents any glass on the island’s seashore,

and that is obviously necessary. But I think these people would like

to have a little less regulation and be able to go into their camps

and continue life as usual.

Mr. GIBBONS. So they want to continue their private property

ownership on the island while still permitting the public ownership

of the majority of the island that you plan——

Ms. BODDIE-COLBERT. We own all but six acres of the island. I

don’t know that other landowners really have a say as to whether—into our decision to sell to the Park Service. But it is my understanding and it has been my understanding that the land that

we kept and also the existing privately owned lots would not be included within the boundaries of the seashore. They would simply

be outside the seashore, not in hold.

49

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Shaddox, what is the projected cost of the island?

Mr. SHADDOX. We have no estimates at this time. We are conducting an appraisal, but we don’t know what the costs are going

to be at this time.

Mr. GIBBONS. Would you be willing to submit for the record your

determination of the appraisal value prior to the acquisition?

Mr. SHADDOX. We would be willing to do that after we share it

with the landowner, yes.

Mr. GIBBONS. With an included boundary of your suggestion for

the barrier, the boundary around this island to be included as part

of the title, would there be any restrictions on the access to this

island generated by your service for these private property

inholders?

Mr. SHADDOX. If I may, Representative Gibbons, ask the chairman if I could please call Jerry Eubanks, the Superintendent of

Gulf Islands, to the table and Dan Brown, Deputy Regional Director of Atlanta, to help answer some of these questions. They are

infinitely more familiar with the island and its regulations than I

am.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Udall.

Mr. GIBBONS. I noticed that it was still green, Mr. Chairman.

When it turns red, I would stop. I have acceded to your wishes.

Mr. HANSEN. The floor is still yours.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Gibbons, I believe that I can help answer that

question.

Mr. HANSEN. You can answer from there.

Mr. TAYLOR. I want to show you. I think it is easier. It is my understanding that the track of lands the family and the other property owners would like to retain is right up around here.

Mr. GIBBONS. Yes, I have seen the map in the back. I have heard

testimony.

Mr. TAYLOR. So, as you can clearly see, that land would continue

to be accessible by water.

Mr. GIBBONS. But the land behind it, which is the other 10 or

12 property owners, would have also some restrictions, and that is

the reason why I went to the question.

Ms. BODDIE-COLBERT. Sir, do you want me to respond?

Mr. GIBBONS. Sure.

Ms. BODDIE-COLBERT. Those privately owned lots are on the

northern channels that are shown on the map. So they would

have—they should have waterfront access right to their lot.

Mr. GIBBONS. That would be my question back to the Park Service, Ms. Colbert. That is why I wanted to ask the Park Service that

question. Because if they include a greater boundary around the island as their territory, then they would end up controlling and

making the decisions about access over the property for you.

Ms. BODDIE-COLBERT. That is a subject of great concern to my

family.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, if one of the gentlemen that have

come to the table could provide an answer, I notice my questioning

time has lapsed.

50

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Nevada, I apologize for not

paying attention. Do you want additional time to pursue this line

of questioning?

Mr. GIBBONS. I would ask one of the gentlemen, if they understood my question, if they could respond to it.

Mr. EUBANKS. The private property is on the canal that comes

on there, so there would be access.

Mr. GIBBONS. I guess my question is, if you include the boundary

around there extending out into the submerged lands as included

as part of the acquisition description, then do you have the ability

to control access? Would that exclude access for these individuals

or the public?

Mr. EUBANKS. No, sir, not in my opinion, it would not.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Udall.

Mr. MARK UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy

to yield to my colleague from Nevada if he had additional

questions—— Mr. GIBBONS. I do, but you are certainly welcome to take up your

own time.

Mr. MARK UDALL. Let me ask one or two questions. I don’t think

they will take very long.

I am interested in clarifying the record as well. I am looking at

this plat here. It looks like there are 18 lots along a certain access

and the there is some more on this point here. Your family still

owns some of those lots. Some of them are owned privately. You

used the word ‘‘camp.’’ It also sounds like in large part, that these

are fairly primitive places where people come to spend the weekend

to fish.

Ms. BODDIE-COLBERT. There are three buildings currently on

these lots. The latest one, my brother’s, for use of a better word,

is certainly not primitive. It is modelled on the replica of the Horn

Island lighthouse, which was built in the early part of this century.

It is cypress. It is beautifully constructed. I would love for you to

come out and see it.

The other two buildings out there are probably more correctly described as fishing camps, but I can tell you that one of them was

built prior to Camille and went through the eye of Camille without

any major damage. So there has been a—it is possible to build out

there to withstand the forces of nature. It is a beautiful place.

Mr. MARK UDALL. If I could get permission, if your Congressman

would invite me out there, I would love to have a chance to visit.

You have to understand a lot of us on this Committee are from the

mountain West. We sometimes have to take a little adjustment to

the seashore. But it sounds like a phenomenal resource. He has invited me for the weekend.

So you feel confident that—I think my colleague from Nevada is

concerned about access regulation. I think I am concerned about

the private property owners who are there getting crosswise with

the management policies of the Park Service and the general public

perhaps having their experience impacted by private landowners

who have a different point of view. But I hear you saying you think

the two are compatible and you have examples of this and the

other islands in this seashore area.

51

Ms. BODDIE-COLBERT. Well, now, I can’t speak for the other lot

owners. There are only currently two houses on the island that are

not under my family’s control. The development that we have negotiated with the Park Service would allow the members of our family to build houses on the land that we retain and to put in the

small ecologically oriented lodge. We certainly expect to be good

neighbors with the Park Service. We don’t have any desire to, I

think, undertake any activities that would disturb the beauty of

the place. We want to enjoy it and keep it like it is, if possible.

Mr. MARK UDALL. That is clear from the way that you have managed it for 100 years, it sounds like. Do you expect other private

landowners would expand and develop their parcels over time or do

you think that it would probably only be a few more dwellings and

your ecolodge that you are talking about?

Ms. BODDIE-COLBERT. I think there could be only a few more

dwellings. The possibility of additional dwellings would be limited

to maybe four on those existing lots. I don’t think there could ever

be any significant development out there.

Mr. MARK UDALL. I would be happy to yield whatever time I

have left to my colleague from Nevada.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Mr. Udall. I appreciate that.

I would presume your purpose would be to have a commercial

ecotourism base on that island?

Ms. BODDIE-COLBERT. We think that it would be something that

we would enjoy doing.

Mr. GIBBONS. The purpose, is that commercial or it would be a

private, not-for-profit operation?

Ms. BODDIE-COLBERT. I don’t think that we could do it if it were

not for profit. It would be a commercial operation, but I think it

would be a very small-scale, limited operation.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Shaddox, is that within the park’s purview to

acquire public land for the use of commercial operations within it?

Mr. SHADDOX. Normally when we buy lands inside the parks or

if the park is established and has private lands inside the park, we

respect those private individuals’ rights to do with their land what

they will. In this case, it doesn’t appear that there is going to be

any inflection against the park. At this time, the Boddie’s plans are

very straightforward, and we wouldn’t have that much difficulty

with it. Our concern is more what happens in the future with lands

that are not in that ownership.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, may I just take an additional moment here to follow up that question? Because what I am hearing

from the owner of the property today is they want to establish a

permanent commercial ecotourism operation on the island. But

then again, if you are a private individual wanting to visit the island, I am not sure whether the park is going to provide public access to the island outside of this commercial operation that is proposed. I would wonder if that was the intent of the Park Service

and if they could answer that to provide access to the island that

would be private without having to go through the public commercial operation that Ms. Colbert is offering.

Mr. SHADDOX. If I could defer to the superintendent on that to

find out what his plans are.

52

Mr. EUBANKS. Mr. Chairman, if I understand the question correctly, the private owned property would be accessible without having to come through the park because of those canals. It would

through the other rough boundary——

Mr. GIBBONS. That would be true for those accessing private

property unless they made a private access easement across their

private property. So if there is that intent for the Park Service to

create a landing facility, public visitors center access to the land,

that would be my question to you. Because it seems to me it would

be very restrictive to have a commercial operation which said you

can only come to my island and tour it if you go to our commercial,

paid for for-profit tourism.

Mr. EUBANKS. No, sir. I would visualize this being just like the

others. People are free to go their in their private boats, and this

one is much closer to the other islands and is much more accessible

by privately owned boats. The only island that we have public access to by concession boat is West Ship Island that was referred to

earlier. At this point, I don’t know that we would have any plans

for that. That hasn’t been determined yet, but I would visualize it.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Gibbons, the cove that would be on the bottom

left-hand side is on the Spit Cove, as it is commonly referred to locally Smuggler’s Cove, because the rum runners used it during Prohibition as a stopping-off station as they were bringing liquor up

from Cuba and other places.

I have been there. This is a privately owned island, almost all

of which is owned by the Boddie family. I have been there when

over 100 boats were in that cove right now. If the question is somehow slanted that would this prohibit the public from using the island if the family retained a small portion, absolutely not. The family has been incredibly generous to allow on a regular basis folks

to just show up and dock off their island.

Mr. GIBBONS. That was not my intent, to say that the family has

not been generous with their current access. But the problem

comes is when the Park Service takes over control of the majority

of the island, they begin to have the ability to restrict use and activities. We see it all in the west a lot of times where day use or

day visitor use gets down to numbers. Where they say in a certain

area there is too many people coming here so we are going to restrict it to ‘‘X’’ thousand days of use per year and each individual

counts for one of those day use.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Gibbons, to that point, as I mentioned before

and it may have been before you entered the room, the Park Service presently has several islands over in the Gulf Coast. One of

them is called Horn Island where they allow primitive camping

right now. Anyone can go there for a day trip in unlimited numbers

and anyone can camp on the island in unlimited numbers.

They have another island called Ship Island, which has a commercial operation that you can pay to go out to the island or you

can take your own boat out to the island. In parts of Ship Island

there is unlimited camping. On parts of the island where the fort

that Mr. Schloegel described, in order to prevent vandalism to the

fort they limited camping on that portion of the island mostly to

prevent vandalism to the fort that has occurred in the past and the

53

lighthouse that Mr. Schloegel and his group have worked so hard

to restore.

Mr. GIBBONS. I am sure Mr. Taylor is quite aware of Stiltsville

in Florida where it was privately constructed residences in this

bay. When it was turned over to the Park Service for a protected

status it then became the objective of the Park Service to remove

the private ownership and the owners out there in that bay. What

worries me is when we do this, we are going to end up at some

point down the road developing restrictions on these private owners at that point.

Mr. TAYLOR. Again, Mr. Gibbons, on that point, I appreciate you

asking this question, and I can assure that the property owners appreciate you asking this question. One of the things that we hope

to make abundantly clear today, so they don’t have to keep coming

back to Washington and explaining their position, is that they

would like to retain fee simple title to what they retain, which

means they can do what they want and the Park Service cannot

interfere.

Mr. HANSEN. Let’s move along. If you need another round, we

would be happy to.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Sherwood.

The gentleman from Mississippi, do you have anything that you

would like to——

Mr. TAYLOR. Again, I would like to thank our panelists for coming. I know it is a fairly expensive trip up from Mississippi and

other parts of the country.

Mr. Schloegel very modestly did not mention that he is not only

the employee of Hancock Bank but he is the president of the Hancock Bank, which is the largest banking institution in the State of

Mississippi. Again, I am really pleased to see all of you here, but

in particular I think Mr. Schloegel not only brings, as he mentioned, the concern of his family over decades for the Gulf Islands,

but I think he also speaks for the business community of south

Mississippi when he says this would be a good thing for South Mississippi and for our Nation. That is all. I thank you all for being

here.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.

Ms. Colbert, let me get this in perspective, could I? Apparently

your family has owned it for many years; is that right?

Ms. BODDIE-COLBERT. Since 1911.

Mr. HANSEN. Your father was the titleholder with the family?

Ms. BODDIE-COLBERT. My father and his sister inherited it from

their grandmother, I think, in 1935. They each owned a half interest in it.

Mr. HANSEN. Now, they are the heirs to your father who I assume has passed away?

Ms. BODDIE-COLBERT. My father died in 1985. My aunt, who is

still alive, has given all of her interest in the island to my siblings

and our children and her daughter.

Mr. HANSEN. So you are all co-owners.

Ms. BODDIE-COLBERT. Yes.

Mr. HANSEN. Has it been divided up?

Ms. BODDIE-COLBERT. No.

54

Mr. HANSEN. Like you have a piece and your children have a

piece?

Ms. BODDIE-COLBERT. No, we own it indivisible.

Mr. HANSEN. You are the ones that would be negotiating with

the Park Service to determine if you want to sell this property to

the Park Service or some other entity; is that right?

Ms. BODDIE-COLBERT. The Park Service approached my brother

in May of 1998. I think he agreed to take Mr. Eubanks out to the

island, and they discussed the possibility that we would begin negotiations to consider the possibility of putting Cat Island into—a

portion of Cat Island into the Gulf Island National Seashore.

Mr. HANSEN. And your father divided up—I don’t know if we got

this straight, but there looks like a number of lots in here. I think

that you previously said quarter acre lots?

Ms. BODDIE-COLBERT. Yes, sir.

Mr. HANSEN. These are owned by private individuals that were

sold to these individuals from your family or your father or whoever?

Ms. BODDIE-COLBERT. Yes, sir. Basically my father did that in an

attempt to establish property values to keep Cat Island out of the

Gulf Island National Seashore.

Mr. HANSEN. Is there a family dwelling that your family has

owned somewhere in this area?

Ms. BODDIE-COLBERT. My brother has a house that is on that— well, on one of the canals.

Mr. HANSEN. But there hasn’t been a family dwelling where the

family live? You don’t consider this your residence?

Ms. BODDIE-COLBERT. No, we don’t live out there. My family had

a camp that was built on ground level that washed away when the

eye of Hurricane Camille passed over Cat Island. Until my brother

built the house a few years ago, we have not had a vacation home

out there.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Gibbons, following what he is saying correctly

here, there is always a question. I think Mr. Taylor raised a question. The Park Service would possibly have to evaluate it very carefully to determine what they want, if primitive camping or whatever. Do you envision commercial property there or retaining some

of the property to sell to a commercial entity?

Ms. BODDIE-COLBERT. No, sir. We are confident that we would

like to see this preserved for public ownership. It is a very beautiful place. It is a special place to my family. We would like to see

it preserved. We are confident if that can’t be done that it could

be developed in a low density residential development, somewhat

like Dewees Island in South Carolina. That is not the preferable alternative, but if we are not able to come to terms with the Park

Service, that would be our preferred second course. It is not our desire but I think a viable alternative.

What we have negotiated with the Park Service would allow us

to keep approximately 150 acres outside the boundaries of the seashore, is our understanding of the negotiations, so that family land

would not be subject to directed regulation by the Park Service because it would not be within the boundaries of the park. We have

agreed that we would put substantial development restrictions on

that parcel.

55

Basically what we asked them for was we wanted the right to

build houses. It is 11 dwelling units, one for each, my brother, sister, me, my cousin and our children. And we wanted the right— I don’t know that we would do this, but we would like to retain the

right, if we wished, to build an ecologically-oriented lodge or inn up

to 28 units that would simply be a very small-scale, environmentally sensitive development that could easily be contained on

the part of Cat Island that we would retain. We would hope that

our people could visit the seashore—— Mr. HANSEN. You have cleared it up for me. I was just curious

what part you were going to keep, what you were going to sell,

what the Park Service would do with it.

The one point that I am sure this Committee would like to know

and I don’t think they will for a while is what kind of money we

are looking at between these two entities. That is always a problem. We have to authorize it. If we authorize this, then after you

folks come up with agreement, which would be kind of nice to know

before we authorize it, then we have to turn it over to Ralph Regula who does the appropriating. Everything has to be authorized

because this is an authorizing Committee and they are an appropriating committee. They cannot legislate; we can’t appropriate. We

have each other between a rock and a hard spot, so we have to

work together.

So I guess the last thing in my mind that hasn’t been resolved

is the most important thing called money. Maybe, Mr. Taylor, we

will just kind of move ahead slowly and see if this is resolved some

way so that we now what we are looking at. Do you want to comment on that?

Mr. TAYLOR. If I may, sir. As you know, in Mississippi we have

the great distinction, great privilege of having not only the Senate

majority leader but also the second to senior most member of the

Senate Appropriations Committee—— Mr. HANSEN. That is very helpful.

Mr. TAYLOR. [continuing] Senator Cochran. He has either already

included language in an Interior appropriations asking that the Interior Department work with the Park Service to acquire this land

with existing funds or he has stated his intention to do so. That

is why I am a little fuzzy. That is a public statement coming from

the Senator’s office. And so I feel very good with the really acrossthe-board support on this all of the way from the environmental

groups, commercial fishermen and recreational fishermen, the business community with the across-the-board support for this project.

And with the help of those two incredibly influential Senators that

this would happen and I would hope this Committee would help us

expedite it on our side of the Capitol.

Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate your comment.

I am working with the appropriators now on what I am going to

strike a point of order on. As you know, if they legislate on appropriation bill, all we have to do is make a point of order and it goes

down the tubes. Both houses have to work this thing out, regardless of the clout that they have got which we, of course, appreciate.

I don’t want to be an obstacle. I would hope that it could come

to pass. But still, on the other hand, those of us from the West are

a little sensitive. We notice those from the South and the East have

56

a way of skipping over NEPA and EIS and EIA and all of those

things. Those of us in the West always get hammered. So we are

paranoid, if I may respectfully say so.

Mr. TAYLOR. Again, to the point, I think the real key here is trying to look at it from your shoes, if I may, is we are talking with

willing sellers.

The family approached me this summer. For years as I have visited this island I have dreamed that one day we would get this opportunity. Because I never would approach them because, quite

frankly, it is their island. It has been their island for almost a 100

years. I would never do anything to take it from them, whether we

compensated them or not.

It is the wishes of the Boddie family to try to preserve it. I hope

that I am not going to betray their trust, but it is worth saying

when I recount the conversation with one of the family members

and they had mentioned the different groups that had approached

them to purchase the island, and it really caught my attention. At

one point one of the family members said, you know, after looking

at some of the proposals of what they would do to the island, we

didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.

They are trying to preserve it. They are willing sellers, and I

would sure hope that this Committee would honor their wishes.

And I certainly understand where you are coming from, but I know

it to be in the best interests of Mississippi and our Nation.

Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate the gentleman’s comments. We sure

don’t want to be detrimental to what probably is a pretty good idea,

just certain hoops that we have to go through around here.

With that said, anybody have any further questions they want to

bring up? If not, we will excuse this panel and thank you for your

testimony.

Our remaining panel is Juliette Falkner, Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior; Fred Bieti, Isle Royale

Boaters Association; Jim Matson, President, Vermillion Services;

and Bob Monahan, Chairman of the Monahan Group.

As you can see by looking behind you, two more lights are on.

Let’s just find out what we have got.

We have one more vote to do, final passage on something. So if

you don’t mind, I apologize to all of you, we will be right back. We

will stand in recess.

[Recess.]

Mr. HANSEN. The Committee will come to order.

We hope that we have about an hour. We have a rule coming up;

and, hopefully, everyone will talk for the full hour so that we can

hear this testimony, which is very important, in my mind.

STATEMENT OF JULIETTE FALKNER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

REGULATORY AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

Mr. HANSEN. Juliette Falkner, Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior. You are on.

Ms. FALKNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have statements for

both H.R. 1864 and H.R. 1866, and I can read both of them at this

time if you would prefer.

The Department believes that it is unnecessary to establish

standard requirements for conducting public hearings on its varVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:55 Sep 27, 2001 Jkt 073105 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\64045 pfrm11 PsN: 64045
57

ious actions as provided for in H.R. 1864. The Department’s public

hearing procedures are guided by requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act, NEPA, the Federal Advisory Committee Act,

and other statutes.

In addition, all of the Department’s agencies must comply with

chapter 455 of the departmental manual which describes procedures for public hearings. This chapter includes guidelines and noticing the meeting in the Federal Register, methods for receiving

public comments, time frames and procedures for witness testimony.

A significant percentage of the Department’s public hearings

occur in the context of informal remaking under the APA and are

used as part of the process for obtaining public comment on proposed rules. Under the APA, the determination of how the final

rule will appear must be based on a rule-making record developed

over the course of an entire comment period. However, requirements in H.R. 1864 that would ensure that the public have a reasonable expectation of meaningful and timely answers to questions

posed at public hearings could conflict with the APA. It is not appropriate to answer questions which in any way appear to prejudge

the outcome of the rule-making process prior to consideration of all

timely submitted comments.

Requiring the Department to ensure that the public have a reasonable expectation of meaningful and timely answers to questions

posed at public hearings, there is a strong possibility that opponents to the action could use that requirement to make the bureau

spend time and money by asking questions that are irrelevant to

the subject being heard, require a great deal of research or for any

other reason could not be answered close to the time they were

asked.

In addition, H.R. 1864 provides no guidance on what, if any,

rights an individual has to litigate these issues. If H.R. 1864 permits such litigation, the Department’s ability to finalize its decision

in a timely manner would be compromised. As a general rule, our

bureau has tried to answer relevant questions asked by the public

at hearings. Our concern is about the potential unforeseen consequences of mandating that any questions asked at a public hearing be answered.

In closing, findings of H.R. 1864 suggests that a lack of standard

procedures for conducting public hearings by Federal agencies is a

government-wide problem, yet the requirements of the bill apply

only to the Department of the Interior. If the intent of this legislation is to establish a framework to standardize the procedures for

hearings throughout the executive branch, other Federal agencies

should be included in the bill’s requirements and have the opportunity to comment. If, however, this legislation was prompted by

specific concerns in the way the Interior bureaus are conducting

public hearings, we would welcome the opportunity to work with

you to identify and resolve such problems.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Falkner follows:]

58

STATEMENT OF JULIETTE FALKNER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT

AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 1864, to standardize the process for conducting public hearings for Federal bureaus within the Department of the Interior.

The Department does not support H.R. 1864. We believe that the bill is unnecessary to establish standard requirements for conducting public hearings on its bureau’s actions, as provided for in H.R. 1864. Although it is not clear what the bill

would require, the result under any interpretation would be increased bureaucracy

and costs to taxpayers, delays in decisions impacting the public, and probable increases in litigation. There is a very real risk of unintended consequences from such

broad legislation.

The findings of H.R. 1864 suggest that a lack of standard procedures for conducting public hearings by Federal agencies is a government-wide problem. Yet the

requirements of the bill apply only to the Department of the Interior. If the intent

of this legislation is to establish a framework to standardize the procedure for hearings throughout the executive branch, other Federal agencies should be included in

the bill’s requirements, and should have the opportunity to comment. If, however,

this legislation was prompted by specific concerns in the way Interior bureaus are

conducting public hearings, we would welcome the opportunity to work with you to

identify and resolve such problems.

H.R. 1864 would increase the costs to the taxpayers of making decisions on matters on which we hold public hearings. The additional costs would result largely

from the requirement in Section 3(b)(4) that the hearing process ‘‘ensure that the

public shall have a reasonable expectation of meaningful and timely answers to

questions posed at public hearings.’’ We think there is a strong possibility that opponents of an action could use that requirement to make bureaus spend time and

money by asking questions that are irrelevant to the subject being heard, or that

require a great deal of research, or that for any other reason cannot be answered

close to the time they are asked.

The Department holds numerous public hearings to solicit public comments. Most

of these hearings were held in the context of a rulemaking or National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) decision. In addition to public hearings, the Department

solicits public comments by utilizing the Internet, town hall meetings and surveys.

H.R. 1864 would duplicate many of these existing requirements and guidelines. We

believe that the processes we have at the present time for soliciting public comment

work well.

The Department’s public hearing processes are guided by requirements under the

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), NEPA, the Federal Advisory Committee Act,

and other statutes. In addition, all of the Department’s agencies must comply with

Chapter 455 of the Departmental Manual, which describes procedures for public

hearings. This Chapter includes guidelines on noticing the meeting in the Federal

Register at least 30 days prior to the meeting, methods for receiving public comments, timeframes and procedures for witness testimony.

A significant percentage of the Department’s public hearings occur in the context

of informal rulemaking under the APA, and are used as part of the process of obtaining public comment on proposed rules. Under the APA, the determination of

how the final rule will appear must be based on the rulemaking record developed

over the course of the entire comment period. The requirement to ensure that the

public shall have a reasonable expectation of meaningful and timely answers to

questions posed at public hearings could conflict with the APA, as it is not appropriate to answer questions posed at a public hearing that focus on decisions which

in any way appear to pre-judge the outcome of the rulemaking process prior to receipt and consideration of all timely submitted comments.

The requirement for timely and meaningful responses could also pose other problems, in addition to increased costs and the potential conflict with the APA. H.R.

1864 provides no guidance and is silent on an individual’s right to litigate these

issues. For example, does someone who thinks he is not receiving a ‘‘timely’’ or

‘‘meaningful’’ response have the right to sue a bureau? Could someone sue for lack

of a timely or meaningful response even if the question asked was irrelevant to the

subject of the hearing? If so, such litigation could cause significant delays in the Department’s ability to finalize its decisions—and, of course, result in greater costs to

the taxpayers.

As a general rule, our bureaus try to answer relevant questions asked by the public at hearings, if the question can be answered. Our concern is about the potential

unforeseen consequences of mandating that any questions asked at a public hearing

be answered.

59

For all of these reasons, the Department does not support H.R. 1864. However,

to repeat what I said at the beginning of my remarks, we would be pleased to work

with the Subcommittee to identify and resolve any specific concerns you have about

our existing hearing processes.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I will be pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.

Mr. HANSEN. Do you want to comment on the other bill?

Ms. FALKNER. Thank you.

The Department also does not support enactment of H.R. 1866.

The result of this bill would be increased bureaucracy, cost to the

taxpayers, delays in decisions impacting the public, and probable

increases in litigation. Section 3 of H.R. 1866 requires the Secretary to establish an administrative appeals process for decisions

by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service

made pursuant to NEPA. However, the only agency made pursuant

to NEPA are whether agency actions requiring environmental assessment or environmental impact statements are categorically excluded from the compliance.

The only other interpretation of section 3 is that it requires an

appeals process for decisions that the two agencies make involving

NEPA clients. This could then open the door to appeals of far more

than land use decisions and could, for example, include appeals regarding the migratory bird hunting regulation. Allowing such decisions to be appealed would essentially end migratory bird hunting.

There is virtually no chance that the appeals could be resolved between the time the data needed to set the season and bag limits

becomes available and the end of the hunting season.

Most importantly, there is a fundamental difference between the

lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and Forest

Service proprietary national parks and national wildlife refuges.

The BLM and Forest Service plans for multiple use lands provide

that a variety of valid but competing interests may exist. The extension of the appeal process for the decisions regarding the management and use of these lands impacts the situation.

In contrast, national parks and national wildlife refuges are established to protect the resources found in the parks and to conserve our Nation’s wildlife resources. No use of a national wildlife

refuge is permitted unless a written determination is made after

public comment that the use is compatible for the purposes for

which the refuge was established. Similarly, no activity or use may

occur on national park lands unless the Park Service determines

it is consistent with the National Park Service Organic Act which

requires that park resources be left unimpaired for enjoyment.

Existing decision-making procedures for land management by the

Fish and Wildlife Service and the Park Service appear to work well

and have general acceptance by the public. Both the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Park Service have appeals procedures. Requiring the duplication of the BLM or Forest Service appeals process

for the very different land use decisions of the Fish and Wildlife

Service and the Park Service would certainly lead to increased bureaucracy, costs and delays. In addition, there is a very real risk

of unintended consequences.

We accordingly urge this Subcommittee not to take further action

on the bill.

Mr. HANSEN. We thank you.

60

Mr. Bieti, you are recognized for five minutes.

STATEMENT OF FRED BIETI, ISLE ROYALE BOATERS

ASSOCIATION

Mr. BIETI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to come

here and discuss H.R. 1864, the hearings process.

There can be no doubt that you do need a formal hearings process. One of the pieces of background information that I received

was asking what areas this hearing process might cover. I would

suggest that you should have a hearing whenever there is a decision circulating in the agency that, number one, would alter or restrict traditional visitor use; two, any action that would result in

the removal or failure to maintain public facilities. You should

have a hearing if the removal of these existing facilities may adversely affect the ability of the disabled to access this park or wilderness.

The second item was a process where the public can be made informed in a timely fashion. There isn’t a lot that I can say about

that except that the public certainly should be informed, and there

are websites, there is newspapers, there is a number of ways to inform the public.

I would be concerned that the public have an increased amount

of time, for example, two season cycles, if the decision or a plan

like a general management plan would be removing facilities from

a park. I don’t think that you should allow the removal of facilities

for 2 years after a record of decision is made. I give thought to the

agency cooperating with groups like the Isle Royale Boaters Association who disseminate this information. A lot of us would be

happy to include this information on widely read websites. I am

sure concessionaires would like to pass out information relative to

a plan being considered. I don’t think getting the message out is

a problem.

A third area was the method by which these hearings should be

conducted. These hearings can be very beneficial to an agency or

I think they can be rather harmful. These hearings should be held

in a public forum where the speakers are addressing the entire assemblage of public listeners. They should not be held in small

group sessions where, one, the government officials speaking may

not necessarily be held up to task for his thoughts that might be

predisposed nor his comments. This divided session group seems to

result in small groups and the public doesn’t have a chance to really bring to bear its interest as a group.

A fourth item that you discussed was a process to ensure that

the public have a reasonable and timely answer to a question. I can

tell you that does not occur and without a formal hearing process

I can see no way for that to occur.

In addition, they have in this process—I question what it is the

hearing process is going to yield. If, in fact, the public opinion is

ignored, as it has been in cases I am familiar with, then why have

it? But I do think you should have the hearing process formalized.

Maybe the problems that we saw could be taken care of.

There were newsletters—if I may, let me talk about the process

to develop a general management plan for Isle Royale national

park. Your briefing paper said that people come away from some

61

of these public comment sessions, one, confused and, two, filled

with complaints. I would certainly agree. I am surprised to hear

that the Park Service isn’t aware that there is some problems going

on. I have books that agree.

Newsletter two came out relative to the Isle Royale plan and

summarized the public opinion this way. It said, generally speaking, we find that the public thinks things are fine just the way they

are. Questions come up and say why would we spend $6 million to

develop a new plan when we could stay with the plan that we

have?

Newsletter three came up. Another newsletter came out. They

changed the number of issues from 25 to 18. They had five alternative concepts. The response form gave us two issues to answer.

One was, did we eliminate enough areas or did we eliminate just

the right number of areas? I am paraphrasing, but that is how I

felt the answer to be. They didn’t give us the opportunity to speak

to the big picture. If I was doing a survey and said, do you like a

red Chevrolet or do you like a black Chevrolet and the person said,

yes, I would like a red Chevrolet, that doesn’t mean they don’t like

Fords.

Newsletter five came out. Incidentally, I would point out that

when we had discussions prior to newsletter five, the public was

not allowed to comment or ask questions. The crowd actually got

a little bit upset and said, we came here to learn, we came here

to interact. The Park Service said, I am sorry, we only booked this

room for 30 minutes. The public volunteered to get up and move

their chairs to adjacent areas so they could ask questions.

At the end of the session, this newsletter five pointed out that

the public generally preferred the plan that said keep the status

quo. I will summarize here. They said that in 350 written comments, alternatives A and B were the most popular. The March

meetings said, in summary, in the public meetings where 300 people attended the meetings, even more people expressed support for

alternative A.

So much for the public input. I came to Washington last November in what we tried as an appeals process. We met with the Deputy Secretary; and the comment was made to us, well, why would

we spend all of this money on a plan and then decide to keep the

direction we had before? We have got to change something. I kind

of feel if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Item number five, you are talking about making the hearings a

part of the official record. I guess I use some language in here that

was strange to my friend, the attorney sitting behind me. He assumed that these things are assumed to be a fact. I said, if you

have a hearings process or communications, one, do it in plain

English, and, two, make the people tell the truth. If you did those

two things, you would have far less confusion, far fewer complaints,

I would say.

If I might, I will go on to the appeals section. If you are going

to run these together, I certainly think that if you don’t have an

appeals process this is all going to stay within a black box and

none of these public comments have a chance to come out.

Mr. HANSEN. We will give you a couple of minutes on that, okay?

Mr. BIETI. On the appeal process?

62

Mr. HANSEN. These gentlemen are testifying on two bills, so we

gave them more time than normally.

Mr. BIETI. I thought it was 5 minutes each.

Mr. HANSEN. We have given you 10 so far. But we will give you

another two.

Mr. BIETI. Oh, you have? I’m sorry.

The type of decision that can be appealed, I would say anything

that applies to the traditional visitor use of an area like a park.

I am a little confused here. I am an engineer by trade and a

businessperson, but when you have a Committee meeting like this,

I am of the opinion that this meeting constitutes some degree of

import. Back in 1976, the wilderness legislation that was written

for Isle Royale, and I quote, ‘‘The Senate committee understands

that no significant expansion of boat docks will be made, but the

continued maintenance of these facilities is essential.’’ Where I come from in the business and engineering world, if it

is essential, it means that it is essential. That is plain English. Yet

today’s National Park Service interpretation of that is, well, it is

really an allowance to do whatever we really think we need to do

to maintain this. An allowance versus essential doesn’t seem to cut

in the area of truth in plain English.

If these bills are passed, I think that you should be able to appeal it if you find that these decisions do not even follow NPS management guidelines. I have a long list of examples of management

guidelines that are ignored daily.

Public use limits require scientific research. Ensure that recreational uses are consistent with the authorizing legislation. Well,

it seems to me that the decisions to authorize Isle Royale in 1931

have been redefined along the way so that the authorizing legislation is not recognizable.

I can see the red light. I will stop and answer any questions that

you might have.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Bieti. I appreciate your comments.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bieti follow:]

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Jim Matson, the floor is yours, sir.

STATEMENT OF JIM MATSON, PRESIDENT, VERMILLION

SERVICES

Mr. MATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee.

I am Jim Matson. I live in southern Utah. It is an area of immense expanse and beauty, large public areas.

If you look at Arizona and Utah, interestingly enough it would

be counterintuitive to say, boy, those are really some very great

places, but you would say those two States have some of the most

urbanized populations in the area—or in the country, for that matter. If you take a look at the Wasatch or what takes place in

Maripoca and Pima counties, they pretty well dictate and dominate

what takes place in the local political scene.

I am a local rural communities kind of an advocate. I live in an

area and a county that has fewer than 5,000 people. We are surrounded by Federal lands, Federal administrations that includes

Park Service, Forest Service, BLM, some 15,000 square miles including the Dixis National Forest, Kaibab National Forest, Glen

Canyon recreation area, Lake Meade recreation area, Grand Canyon National Park, Zion National Park, Bryce Canyon National

Park, and, of course, Pipe Springs Monument. I could name the

BLM portions of that as they are around us.

In looking at the processes that take place out there, our communities thrive or just barely exist based on what takes place with the

Federal administration. These communities were put in place historically from a pioneering effort that basically made their living

off of the resource, off of the land. They are still dependent on

those resources even today.

Today we have been limited pretty much to tourism. Tourism by

itself does not pay the bills. If anything, we end up with seasonal

employment, low-wage employment. As a result of closures of mills

and mining operations, we have family incomes that have dropped

from $24,000 a year to under $19,000 a year, and we have close

to four people in each one of those families trying to make a living

and exist in those islands as they are surrounded by Federal administration.

I am quite familiar with Forest Service and BLM appeals procedures and also public input procedures. I can say that, for the most

part, I support what they are doing. I just learned today that the

Forest Service is considering adopting the same system that the

BLM has in place for appeals, so it would appear there is some

standardization that is taking place.

I am here to talk about both the appeals and the public input

part as it relates to Park Service and Fish and Wildlife activities.

I support the two bills that you are considering and recommend

their passage. I think it would go a long way to helping represent

rural people in rural areas that need more than just a reliance

upon the population centers to represent their point of views.

In more recent years, my experience particularly with the listing

process for the Mexican spotted owl virtually took place in a vacuum as far as we are concerned on what took place on a local basis.

The process is driven out of the State, out of the area, by an enviVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:55 Sep 27, 2001 Jkt 073105 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\64045 pfrm11 PsN: 64045
90

ronmental movement that pretty much dictated the listing of the

owl in circumstances that were questionable at best. We would

have benefited by a more open public involvement process.

I can recall going to public meetings in Flagstaff and over in Williams wherein the Fishing and Wildlife Service panel, which had

a contract mediator to put these public meetings on, sat there basically and didn’t respond to questions. We had issues that we wanted to get addressed as best we could. Without the appeals process

that would go along with that, you are forced into litigation.

There is a large area north of the Grand Canyon in the Kaibab

National Forest, 250,000 acres. It ended up being designated as

critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl. They have yet to find

an owl up there. It is a travesty because the process is so far out

of line that you can’t get in and break through those lines unless

there is something that makes those people in the agencies more

accountable. It is an awesome amount of power that the Fish and

Wildlife Service is able to dictate based on a biological opinion.

Those are the kinds of things that severely limit us at a local

basis. We need to have a better way of getting input and to be

heard and be a part of the process and not just victims of special

interest processes.

In another event, the California condor has been released on two

sites in the Arizona strip. At first, the Fish and Wildlife Service

conducted some very limited and fully attended meetings in Page,

Flagstaff, and Kanab, Utah. When local elected officials and the

people got an idea of what this could mean as it would have the

reintroduction or relocation of condors as an endangered species, it

would be like having B-52s fly around the countryside. After having the experience of what we did on the Mexican spotted owl

issue, it is the kind of thing that really causes some concerns.

I would have to compliment the Fish and Wildlife Service for taking a look at and listening to the comments and coming back to the

table to sit down and negotiate and work some of these things out.

Happily, we ended up working out a process under the 10(j) section

of the Endangered Species Act in order to utilize an experimental

nonessential population approach, and the condors are up there

now. They are flying over the countryside. They go clear from

Northern Arizona to Green River, Wyoming. They have been seen

over in Grand Junction, and they are far outside that 10(j) area.

But, for the most part, locally our folks have adopted those birds

and have become quite friendly with them. It is interesting to

watch them following the crows around and the ravens around and

finding them at Lone Rock and at Lake Powell. You find them

along the Colorado River. They are not recluses. They are not hiding out. They seem to be going where people are at, and they have

good visibility.

I guess I would wrap up my comments and say that if we had

some owls around, we would like to adopt those, too.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Matson. I appreciate your comments.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Matson follows:]

91

STATEMENT OF JAMES L. MATSON, PRESIDENT, VERMILLION SERVICES

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the

opportunity to appear and testify in regard to the proposed legislation contained in

H. R. 1864 and H.R. 1866. I am Jim Matson, I live, work and enjoy Southern Utah

and Northern Arizona. Our home is in Kanab, Utah. We are completely surrounded

by Federal lands administered by the BLM, Forest Service and Park Service. There

is not a day that passes that the significance of the public lands and their impact

on my neighbors and me isn’t matter of daily discussion and concern. Local experiences due to cultural attachments and economic dependence on the land and associated resources are understandably necessary and generational. I have personally experienced both the joys and frustrations of public lands legislation, regulations and

management. On the whole I have benefited professionally and personally from the

availability of renewable resources from the National Forests and the grasslands of

the BLM.

Background and basis for support of H. R. 1864 and H. R. 1866:

Public laws, policies and regulations that apply to the administration of public

lands have always affected rural communities, in one way or another. During the

early part of this century and until the early 1980’s, the Congress and the administration concentrated its efforts on the occupation and development of the lands

under policies of conservation ethics for public lands west of the 100 meridian.

These conservation principles shaped management policies for public lands that are

under the administration of the Park Service, Forest Service and BLM. The U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service is a rather recent entity and has become a major regulatory and enforcement factor in public lands administration due to the enactment

of the Endangered and Threatened Species Act.

Roughly 3 percent to 5 percent of the lands in the 15,000 square miles of South

Central Utah and the Arizona Strip are in private ownership, the balance of the

area is controlled by Federal agencies. As a result the communities of Alton, Big

Water, Fredonia, Glendale, Lee’s Ferry, Marble Canyon, Mt. Carmel, Moccasin,

Skutumpah, and Vermillion Cliffs either just exist or prosper as the Federal agencies dictate access and utilization of natural resources. It is important to note that

as the population of the United States urbanizes itself and becomes further removed

from the land there are increasing major problems for rural communities and economies to cope with. The most formidable is community sustainability. We live and

work in an area of enormous and spectacular beauty, but that alone does not sustain us. Low wage and seasonal tourism is simply unable to provide enough economic fuel to run our rural communities. To date the areas biggest export is its

young people. Our population is gradually increasing in age, as our youth must go

elsewhere to find opportunities to raise their families.

The values of urban life are understandably distant from the values of deep rural

life. The majority of people residing in the nation’s urban population shape the policies of the day. For the most part special interest lobbying agendas on the environment are radically opposed to sustaining rural communities and peoples in isolated

island communities surrounded by public lands.

Prior to the closures of natural resource based businesses engaged in forestry and

mining in Southern Utah and Northern Arizona the average family incomes with

1.5 people in the workforce was about $24,000 per year prior to 1995. Today we

have 2.6 in the family working and making just under $19,000 per year. Constant

special interests pressures to under utilize economic renewable resources from public lands only burden rural public land dependent communities. Our communities

possess the means and the desire to be working partners in developing and sustaining resource stewardship programs that can benefit public lands ecosystems and

rural communities. However a willing Federal partner is either missing or unwilling

to risk criticism for participating in ecosystem restoration programs that enhance

landscapes and habitats.

A missing element in all this is a lack of due process by all of the Federal natural

resource managing and regulatory agencies. Environmental and cultural struggles

of the past two decades has brought two agencies, the Forest Service and the BLM

to a leadership role of responsible public involvement. Rural and public land dependent communities must have a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to compete with distant special interest agendas. At the very least, our communities require an affordable means of appealing Federal decisions and actions that threaten

community sustainability.

92

Appeals and adequate public hearings at the Department Interior for the

Fish and Wildlife Service and Park Service:

For years special interest groups have lobbied Congress, and Federal agencies to

open up the public input and processes for these interests to have a chance to shape

or appeal public land management policies and implementation decisions. In the

long run this has proven to be a wise undertaking for both the BLM and Forest

Service. The American people for the most part are quite capable of having an impact on policies and the politics of public resource management. There are however

two Federal agencies, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Park Service lacking

adequate administrative appeals procedures and requirements for public hearings.

This situation often mandates the resolution of issues to the Federal courts. Litigation is always long, drawn out and very expensive. Most solutions to land and resource management issues are readily at hand through the administrative appeals

processes including open and responsive public hearings. Lacking these process elements the Fish and Wildlife Service and Park Service operate in a manner with little regard for rural community values and knowledge about local people’s connectivity to the land. Agency preoccupation with their daily problems and programs regrettably take primacy over public involvement and input particularly at

a dependent community level. Much must be done about this, before we slide toward

total dissatisfaction with all Federal land management and regulatory agencies.

Mexican Spotted Owls

Allow me to share a case in point and one in which I have, regrettably, a great

deal of first hand involvement in and now more than just a passing interest. The

listing as threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife of the Mexican spotted owl in

the southwest, particularly the plateau areas of the Kaibab National Forest and

Grand Canyon National Park illustrates the difficulty of assuring credible and supportable decisions. I have known from the onset that Mexican Spotted Owls simply

are not found on the North Kaibab. Recent work and surveys indicate that these

owls may be present in the slick rock canyon habitats below the rim of the canyons.

After years of survey and management for suitable habitat for Mexican Spotted

there has been a profound lack of confirmed sighting of any these owls in the forested areas of the North Kaibab Plateau. The Fish and Wildlife Service was assured

of this countless times before they arbitrarily mandated critical habitat designations

for the Kaibab for what now appears to have been a bio-politically driven agenda.

A properly structured public input and hearings process would have, I am certain

would have resulted in a more deliberate and responsive listing and regulatory process. The Fish and Wildlife Service under its current regulations failed to properly

assess and deal with the physical realities because they simply were not required

to. A resultant lawsuit and injunction eventually curbed unnecessary critical habitat

restrictions. But not before the closure of two lumber mills and the loss of over 900

critical and valuable jobs to Northern Arizona and Southern Utah. A timely appeals

process would have been of great value in sorting most of this stuff out.

Regulations promulgated under the Threatened and Endangered Species Act are

very one sided and quite subjective. Individual bias of Fish and Wildlife employees

often becomes the rule and not the exception. Unsupervised Fish and Wildlife biologists have become awesome brokers of unabated power and impact. These people

must be accountable for their evaluations and decisions. Over worked and under

funded biologists often error in favor overly restrictive and unnecessary requirements. The far ranging and in most cases irreversible decisions of the Fish and

Wildlife Service calls for a more measured and deliberate listing and findings process. Properly formatted administrative appeals requirements and open public meeting rules would go a long way to assuring an adequate and open program of protecting our plant and wildlife species.

California Condor Relocation to the Arizona Strip

On a different note and on one in which the outcome and results were of real

value locally was the relocation of California Condors to the Vermilion and Hurricane Cliffs on the Arizona Strip. The Fish and Wildlife Service attempted a few public meetings in Page, Arizona and Kanab, Utah prior to the release of California

Condors by the Peregrine Fund. The meeting were poorly noticed and sparsely attended. As local people became aware that endangered condors were to be sprinkled

out over the landscapes of Northern Arizona and Southern Utah. Local county and

community officials declared a high state of emergency. The Fish and Wildlife Service responded by saying that public meetings were held and that no one had objected. The response by local officials was one of complete surprise and amazement.

Just one poorly noticed meeting for each community was justification for releasing

an endangered condor with a flight range of an airplane? After the experience of

93

Mexican Spotted Owls and Amber Snails we were not having any more of this. The

Fish and Wildlife Service eventually followed up with improved and coordinated

community and public involvement process for the release of California Condors. A

Key element of this involvement resulted in the use of the 100(j) rule of the Threatened and Endangered Species Act, which allowed for the introduction to be carried

out as experimental nonessential population of California Condors. We’re finding

that these new birds now think that their mentors, the common raven are pretty

cool and are to be found hanging around campgrounds and the Colorado River. If

these great birds had been released in the Arizona Strip as originally planned there

would have been chaos and hell to pay for a process lacking in sensitivity and reasonableness. We have adopted these new California Condors and would probably

feel the same about Mexican Spotted Owls if there were any around to get to know.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Monahan.

STATEMENT OF BOB MONAHAN, CHAIRMAN, MONAHAN

GROUP

Mr. MONAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On behalf of Gettysburg, local, State and national officials, historians, preservationists and historical and preservation groups, I

want to thank you for this opportunity to speak to H.R. 1864 and

1866.

Gettysburg is where I grew up and now where I raise my family.

Gettysburg is a community of great importance to the American

history because of its role in preservation of these United States.

Gettysburg is a town that is tied to a co-existence with the National Park Service. Gettysburg a town that I call home with pride.

It is in this spirit that I first approached the NPS with a new

public-private partnership, one that could be used as a model of

National Parks across the country, one that stressed cooperation

between the NPS and the local community.

During my involvement in the 1994 development concept plan

with Gettysburg, it became very clear to me how bureaucrats could

manipulate the process and the outcome. I withdrew my offer and

proposal from the National Park Service because of concerns by the

local community, national historians and preservationists, and affiliated groups. Their fears of viewshed impact, congestion, disturbing hallowed ground, commercialization and distrust in the National Park Service were all major factors in my decision. To this

day, many of these areas of concern have not been properly addressed.

The history of what is happening in Gettysburg over the past 5

years is known to some extent. However, because of a lack of Federal guidelines and requirements on public meetings and hearings

regarding procedure, documentation, public notification, agency responsibility, follow-up and response, not all is known. The true

story of Gettysburg has been left to the conscious Americans, those

who have demanded responsibility and accountability, to fight the

National Park Service, a bureaucracy out of control.

Hearings are not defined to the public for greater understanding.

Citizens come to hearings thinking that if they ask questions, they

will be given answers. Two hearings were conducted in a manner

where citizens asked questions, but the NPS stood silent. No information or little was provided. The public was outraged at these

hearings. In fact, at one of the two hearings when the NPS solicitor

and superintendent gathered the hearings to a close before the allotted time period, the public rose from their seats in anger and

94

protest and refused to leave the room until the NPS solicitor and

superintendent reponed the hearing.

Although the two official hearings were transcribed by audio

tape, the other public meetings and workshops held at the NPS

were not transcribed. There were constant requests and protests by

the public that recordation be done, but the NPS ignored the suggestions from the public. This is important because it allowed the

National Park Service to say whatever it wanted to, to answer or

not answer the questions without any record of it.

Another case in point, an instance when two staff members of

this committee attending a meeting in Gettysburg were exposed to

this firsthand and publicly brought this to the attention of the superintendent during the meeting, their concerns were ignored.

The NPS held a meeting concerning the Visitor Center/Cyclorama with historians, architects, and preservationists. During that

meeting a question was asked as to why, at such an important

meeting, which was to determine the fate of an important, historic

Federal building, the meeting was not being transcribed or recorded. Afterwards, some random hand notes were taken by the

NPS.

By not transcribing these meetings and hearings, the NPS can

hide and not be held accountable. The NPS can state how many

meetings they had, but they do not have to state what actually

happened or what was said during those meeting. In fact, they can

simply deny or not remember what happened.

The conduct of the NPS at Gettysburg has been and continues

to be one of pure arrogance and disregard for local, State and national elected officials, Congress, national historians, preservationists and their organizations. This behavior has created a national

scandal.

Superintendent John Latschar was quoted in the York Sunday

News on March 23, 1997, as saying ′′I’m bold enough and arrogant

enough to believe that I have the training and education and the

ability to cure a lot of Gettysburg and Eisenhower’s problems.′′ .

On September 26, 1997, USA Today stated, ′′As for his local critics he, Superintendent Latschar, professes not to pay much attention.′′ on July 15, 1998, the Gettysburg Times quoted Superintendent Latschar as saying, ′′Even members of Congress, bless

their hearts, don’t understand all of the legal ramifications of the

laws they pass.′′ .

The NPS, through its handling and general management plan

and proposed public-private venture, has ignored responsibility to

its constituents to conduct its affairs and public meetings in open,

accountable, and forthright fashion. The GMP can be described in

two expressions: ′′done deal′′ and a ′′cart before the horse′′ approach

to planning.

The community was not allowed to see the particulars of the preferred proposal until 8 months after the winning bidder was selected. That proposal was selected in November, 1997; and the public was given a first look at the general nature of the proposal on

July 4, 1998, a done deal. The NPS Director’s Order No. 2 says

that the GMP should be the first tier of a long-range planning process. The proposed GMP puts the cart before the horse by inserting

95

a very specific alternative before laying the basic general groundwork normally presented in GMP.

The National Environmental Protection Act mandates that NPS

planners provide a full range of alternatives for any development.

The GMP provided two—no action or the selected proposal. There

was no middle ground such as rehabilitation or improvement of the

current facility or possible placing of some non core essential features such as curatorial or archival in separate facilities nearby in

the borough.

The NPS is pushing their plan for Gettysburg because they see

it as a way of opening the door to entering into a public- private

partnership at a host of other national parks around the country.

They are hoping they have found a way to gain for themselves millions of dollars of capital and relieve themselves of congressional

oversight. They believe that it is such an attractive prospect that

they have been willing to play fast and loose with their fundamental responsibilities and the facts in order to make the Gettysburg plan a reality. There is just too much money at stake.

The NPS should say what they mean and mean what they say.

They are doing neither. In the process, they diminish their own authority as conservators of the hallowed ground entrusted to their

care. With hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, Gettysburg may

only be the beginning.

Gettysburg also proves an interesting situation for the NPS in its

potential impact on parks around the country. The often pathetic

way it conducted meetings and hearings left many individuals

upset, frustrated, angry, and with a feeling of misrepresentation,

misleading statements and betrayal.

Of national consequence is Gettysburg’s GMP and public- private

partnership in that it will, one, be used as a national model; two,

circumvent Federal concession law; and, three, put the NPS and

the Federal government into for-profit businesses through a nonprofit foundation competing against every mom and pop and corporate business, and it would have devastating impact with communities who partner and depend on the relationship with the

NPS.

At Gettysburg, the NPS has never asked Congress for any funds

to rehabilitate or build new facilities, yet through these public

meetings and hearings the NPS has devised a scheme that ignored

the direction of Congress when it was told that the plan should,

quote, stop and be redone because it was quote, fatally flawed. Individuals who have spoken out against these plans have had the

NPS make attempts to discredit and dismiss their comments to the

point of ruining the reputations.

If hearings and meetings are not run properly, then how do we

raise concerns that are meaningful? Senators and Congressmen

wrote and asked for an extension of the 60-day review period and

were refused by the NPS. Why? Simply because they could without

any ramifications.

More importantly, what about traffic, parking, community impact, and survival of a living and working community? What about

the NPS’s many concerns, those of viewshed impact, disturbing hallowed ground, et cetera? Should they be allowed to ignore the conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:55 Sep 27, 2001 Jkt 073105 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\64045 pfrm11 PsN: 64045
96

cerns and issues they raise with everyone else? More importantly,

can they break their own and Federal procedures and laws?

Should they be allowed to hold hearings and refuse to answer

questions? Do you really believe the Superintendent at Gettysburg

when he was asked why a meeting was not being recorded and he

responded it was too expensive to tape record it?

This is bad government that has turned into bad politics because

of extensive lobbying of Hill & Knolton and others who don’t understand and don’t care about what is really at stake. This is about

a bureaucrat and bureaucracy out of control. It is about the worst

of the government, a Federal agency that refuses the recognize the

will of the people and ignore Congress. They have essentially told

you, the elected members representing us, to go to hell.

Senator Craig Thomas, Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Park, Historic Preservation and Recreation, said on February 24, 1998, ′′Any general management plan formulated in the

future would be perceived by many as predetermined.′′ .

Mr. Hansen, you said on July 14 of this year, ′′This proposal has

soured the general public’s perception of the National Park Service

and infuriated the public with this project.′′ .

Congressman Goodling of the 19th Congressional district, where

I live, on July 14 on the floor of the House of Representatives said,

′′I am outraged over the Park Service out of control and its attitude

towards the citizens of Gettysburg. I have never seen such a display of arrogance and disregard for the well being and opinion of

those who will be impacted most.′′ .

The NPS knows full well that the only appeal to a bureaucrat

and bureaucracy out of control and in violation of Federal mandates and law is to use the judicial system. This is a very expensive

and timely remedy to individuals, groups or to local governing bodies.

I appear to you today as a direct result of this superintendent

and the NPS’s misrepresentation, misleading information and

botched handling of meetings and hearings. As I speak to you

today, there is an ongoing GAO investigation, a Federal lawsuit, a

deposition of the superintendent, as well as a pending Inspector

General investigation. We cannot allow the NPS to push headlong

into a project casting all questions aside without an appeal process.

In closing, I urge to you adopt H.R. 1864 as a means to standardize the procedures used by Federal agencies for public hearings

so that the public understands what is to be expected from Federal

agencies. I urge you to adopt H.R. 1866 in order to establish regulations which would address what types of agency decisions are appealable and who may appeal such decisions and establish a process that Federal agencies would follow for notifying the public of

their appeal procedures.

Thank you.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Monahan. I appreciate your comments.

[The statement of Mr. Monahan follows:]

97

Statement of Robert J. Monahan Jr., Chairman, Monahan Group

On behalf of Gettysburg, local, state and national elected officials, historians,

preservationist, and historical and preservation groups, I thank you for this opportunity to speak to H.R. 1864 and H.R. 1866.

Gettysburg is where I grew up, and where I now raise my own family. Gettysburg

is a community of great importance in America’s history, because of its role in the

preservation of these United States. Gettysburg is a town that is tied to a coexistence with the NPS. Gettysburg is a town I call home with pride.

It was in this spirit that I first approached the NPS with a new public-private

partnership, one that could be used as a model in national parks across the country,

one that stressed cooperation between the NPS and the local community.

During my involvement with the 1994 Development Concept Plan at Gettysburg,

it became very clear to me how bureaucrats could manipulate the process and the

outcome. I withdrew my offer and proposal to the National Park Service because of

concerns by the local community, national historians and preservationists, and affiliated groups. Their fears of viewshed impact, congestion, disturbing hallowed

ground, commercialization and distrust of the NPS were all major factors in my decision. To this day, many of these areas of concern have not been properly addressed.

The history of what has happened in Gettysburg over the past five years is known

to some extent. However, because of a lack of Federal guidelines and requirements

on public meetings and hearings, regarding procedure, documentation, public notification, agency responsibility, follow up and response, not all is known.

The true story of Gettysburg has been left to the conscious Americans, those who

have demanded responsibility and accountability, to fight the NPS, a bureaucracy

out of control.

Hearings are not defined to the public for greater understanding. Citizens come

to hearings thinking that if they ask questions they will be given answers. Two

hearings were conducted in a manner where citizens asked questions but the NPS

stood silent. No information, or little information, was provided. The public was outraged at these hearings. In fact, at one of the two hearings, when the NPS solicitor

and Superintendent gaveled the hearing to a close before the allotted time period,

the public rose from their seats in anger and protest and refused to leave the room

until the NPS solicitor and Superintendent reopened the hearing.

Although the two official hearings were transcribed by audio tape the other public

meetings and workshops held by the NPS were not transcribed. There were constant

requests and protests by the public that recordation be done but the NPS ignored

the suggestions from the public. This is important because it allowed the NPS to

say whatever it wanted to, to answer or not to answer questions without any record

of it.

Another case in point—an instance when two staff members of this Committee,

attending a meeting in Gettysburg, were exposed to this first hand and publicly

brought this to the attention of the Superintendent at the meeting. Their concerns

were ignored.

The NPS held a meeting concerning the Visitor Center/Cyclorama with historians,

architects and preservationists. During that meeting a question was asked as to

why, at such an important meeting, which was to determine the fate of an important, historic Federal building, the meeting was not being transcribed or recorded.

Afterwards, some random, hand notes were taken by NPS.

By not transcribing these meetings/hearings, the NPS can hide and not be held

accountable. The NPS can state how many meetings they had but they do not have

to state what actually happened or what was said during those meetings. In fact,

they can simply deny or not remember what happened.

The conduct of the NPS at Gettysburg has been, and continues to be, one of pure

arrogance and disregard for local, state and national elected officials, Congress, national historians, preservationists, and their organizations. This behavior has created a national scandal.

Superintendent John Latschar was quoted in the York Sunday News of March 23,

1997 as saying ‘‘I’m bold enough and arrogant enough to believe I have the training,

the education, and the ability to cure a lot of Gettysburg’s and Eisenhower’s problems.’’ On September 26, 1997, the USA Today stated ‘‘As for his vocal critics, he

(Superintendent Latschar) professes not to pay much attention.’’ And on July 15,

1998 the Gettysburg Times quoted Superintendent Latschar as saying ‘‘Even members of Congress, bless their hearts, don’t understand all of the legal ramifications

of the laws that they pass.’’

The NPS, through its handling of its General Management Plan and proposed

public private venture, has ignored responsibility to its constituents to conduct its

98

affairs at public meetings in an open, accountable and forthright fashion. The GMP

can be described in two expressions: ‘‘Done deal’’ and a ‘‘cart before the horse’’ approach to planning. The community was not allowed to see the particulars of the

preferred proposal until eight months after the winning bidder had been selected.

That proposal was selected in November of 1997 and the public was given a first

look at the general nature of the proposal on July 24, 1998. A done deal. The NPS

Director’s Order No. 2 says that GMP should be the 2st tier of a long range planning

process. The proposed GMP puts the ‘‘cart before the horse’’ by inserting a very specific alternative before laying the basic, general groundwork normally presented in

a General Management Plan.

The National Environmental Protection Act mandates that the NPS planners provide a full range of alternatives for any development. The GNMP provided two—

no action or the selected proposal. There was no middle ground such as rehabilitation and improvement of the current facility or the possible placing of some non

‘‘core’’ essential features, such as curatorial and archival, in separate facilities nearby in the borough.

The NPS is pushing their plan for Gettysburg because they see it as a way of

opening the door to entering into a public-private partnership at a host of other National Parks around the country. They are hoping they have found a way to gain

for themselves hundreds of millions of dollars of capital and relieve themselves of

congressional oversight. They believe it is such an attractive prospect that they have

been willing to play fast and loose with their fundamental responsibilities, and the

facts, in order to make the Gettysburg Plan a reality. There is just too much money

at stake.

The NPS should say what they mean and should mean what they say. They are

doing neither. In the process, they diminish their own authority as the conservators

of the hallowed lands entrusted to their care. With hundreds of millions of dollars

at stake, Gettysburg may be only the beginning.

Gettysburg proves a very interesting situation for the NPS and its potential impact on parks around the country. The often pathetic way it conducted meetings and

hearings left many individuals upset, frustrated, angry, and with a feeling of misrepresentation, misleading statements and betrayal. Of national consequence is Gettysburgs’ GMP and public private partnership in that it will

• be used as a national model circumvent Federal concession law

•Put the NPS and Federal Government into for-profit businesses through a

non-profit organization competing against every Mom & Pop and corporate business, having devastating impact on communities who partner and depend on

their relationship with NPS

At Gettysburg, the NPS has never asked Congress for any funds to rehabilitate

or build new facilities. Yet, through these public meetings and hearings, the NPS

has devised a scheme that ignored the direction of Congress when it was told that

the Plan should be ‘‘stopped and redone’’ because it is ‘‘fatally flawe.’’ Individuals

who have publicly spoken out against these plans have had the NPS make attempts

to discredit and dismiss their comments to the point of ruining their reputations.

If hearings and meetings are not run properly, how then do we raise concerns

that are meaningful? Senators and Congressmen wrote and asked for an extension

of the 60-day review period and were refused by the NPS—why? Simply because

they could without any ramifications. More importantly, what about traffic, parking,

community impact, and survival as a living and working community? What about

NPS’s many concerns: those of viewshed impact, disturbing hallowed ground, etc?

Should they be allowed to ignore the concerns and issues they raise with everyone

else? And even more importantly, can they break their own, and Federal, procedures

and laws?

Should they be allowed to hold hearings and refuse to answer questions? Do you

really believe the Superintendent at Gettysburg when he was asked why a meeting

was not being recorded and he responded it was too expensive to tape record it?

This is bad government that has turned into bad politics because of extensive lobbying of Hill & Knolton and others, who don’t understand and don’t care about what

is really at stake. This is about a bureaucrat and bureaucracy out of control. It is

about the worst of government—a Federal agency that refuses to recognize the will

of the people and ignore Congress. They have essentially told you—the elected members representing us—to go to hell.

Senator Craig Thomas, Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Park, Historic

Preservation and Recreation said on February 24, 1998 ‘‘Any General Manaement

Plan formulated in the future will be perceived by many as ‘predetermined.’ ’’

Mr. Hansen, on July 14, 1999, said ‘‘. . . . this proposal has soured the general

public’s perception of the Park Service and infuriated the public with this project.’’

99

Congressman Goodling, on July 14, 1999, on the floor of the House of Representatives said, ‘‘I am outraged over the Park Service out of control and its attitude towards the citizens of Gettysburg. I have never seen such a display of arrogance and

disregard for the well being and opinions of those who will be most impacted....

The NPS knows full well that the only appeal to a bureaucrat and bureaucracy

out of control and in violation of Federal mandates and law is to use the judicial

system. This is a very expensive and timely remedy to individuals, groups or to local

government bodies.

I appear before you today, as a direct result of this superintendent and the NPS’s

misrepresentation, misleading information and botched handling of meetings and

hearing. As I speak to you today, there is an ongoing GAO investigation and Federal

lawsuit, and a deposition of the Superintendent, scheduled within days, as well as

a pending Inspector General investigation. We cannot allow the NPS to push headlong into a project casting all who question them aside without an appeal process.

In closing, I want to urge you to adopt H.R. 1864 as a means to standardize the

procedures used by Federal agencies for public hearings so that the public understands what is to be expected from Federal agencies. I urge you to adopt H.R. 1866

in order to establish regulations which would address what types of agency decisions

are appealable, who may appeal such decisions, and establish a process that Federal

agencies would follow for notifying the public of their appeal procedures.

Mr. HANSEN. Now, you may ask yourself the question of why do

we come up with legislation. Basically, it is because we are all

elected by the public. Probably three of us here have over 500,000

people that we represent. I have been here 10 terms now, 20 plus

years, and I have sat on six committees and chaired three committees. I would assume that the thing that I have had more comment

on is public hearings on the Park Service and Fish and Wildlife

than any others. We don’t just abstract and pull these out of the

hat.

When I read Ms. Falkner’s statement that everything is going

fine, why does the public respond that way? Why do they not think

that? Contrary to what some folks think in Washington, we are

here to represent the people. This is a people’s government. And if

the people don’t like something, that is how Congress gets involved.

We don’t abstractly pull this out.

I haven’t heard that much on the Forest Service, strangely

enough. Maybe Jim Matson has, because I know he has worked

with them a lot. I haven’t heard too much on BLM. I guess, of the

four, BLM would be the lowest. Those other two that we are specifically addressing here, we got into that.

With that little editorial, I will turn to my colleagues for questions. The gentleman from Nevada.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Indeed, I would echo your comments about public sentiments and

statements regarding public hearings by certain agencies, the Department of the Interior. I think Ms. Falkner can tell by the statements that were presented by these gentlemen that there is a great

deal of cynicism in the general public about your agency.

With that, I would ask, having read your statement here, I noticed that you indicated that you think it would be a better idea

if all Federal agencies were included in this bill, not just the Department of the Interior. Is that a correct presentation of your written statement?

Ms. FALKNER. I think a more accurate statement would be that

the findings of the bill suggested that this was a problem governmentwide. And so we are looking to you, if you believe that this

is a problem that is governmentwide, then we would ask that the

100

other agencies be put under this legislation as well and that they

be allowed to comment as well.

Mr. GIBBONS. So you would advocate that all agencies be put

under this same standard?

Ms. FALKNER. If the findings of this legislation are that this is

a governmentwide problem, yes.

Mr. GIBBONS. Ms. Falkner, whenever there is a public hearing

taken by your agency, what do you do with the records of that public hearing?

Ms. FALKNER. The records become part of the decision-making

record. If it is a rule, for example, it becomes part of the rule-making record. And those comments are then made part of the decision-making process for the final decision on the rule.

Mr. GIBBONS. Do you keep the records?

Ms. FALKNER. They are maintained.

Mr. GIBBONS. All comments from the public?

Ms. FALKNER. Comments that are received are maintained.

Mr. GIBBONS. Is there a standard format that you adhere to for

those public hearings that you do undertake?

Ms. FALKNER. Most of the rule-making hearings that we do are

informal in nature. Some of the processes vary depending on the

size of the public that is involved and the nature of the hearing

itself.

Mr. GIBBONS. Would you state that it is the policy of your Department that you respond to all legitimate questions that are proposed by the public?

Ms. FALKNER. In a rule-making context under the Administrative

Procedures Act we are required to respond to all significant comments within the final rule-making.

Mr. GIBBONS. What about at any of these other formal or informal hearings when the public asks questions? What is your policy?

What is the position of your agency with regard to responding to

public questions?

Ms. FALKNER. We believe it is important to respond to the public.

Mr. GIBBONS. Do you?

Ms. FALKNER. We attempt to do that. It is important to remember, though, that we may be limited in answering a particular type

of question because it would be inappropriate under another piece

of legislation such as the Administrative Procedure Act from making a final determination before all comments are received.

Mr. GIBBONS. Let me ask one of these other three gentlemen

their comments. You just heard from the agency about their policy

about answering public questions. Do you have a response to that,

Mr. Bieti?

Mr. BIETI. Yes. Bull.

Mr. GIBBONS. What was that again? You can say it.

Mr. BIETI. Bullshit. We went into this being turned down. We

wanted to read these public comments that were recorded. We were

forced through the Freedom of Information Act to pay for 4,300

pages of comment. The superintendent alleged for a year that there

was public support of this plan. Out of 616 comments, for example,

we went through, put into a spreadsheet and found four that said

we want nonmotorized areas. Four is, in the vernacular of the Park

101

Service, most or more or many. Four out of 616 where I come from

isn’t much.

Mr. GIBBONS. Let me interrupt you and make a real quick comment in the time I have. I want to go back to Ms. Falkner and ask,

if these public hearings that you conduct, are any of them done

where the public is not permitted to ask questions?

Ms. FALKNER. I am not familiar with that.

Mr. GIBBONS. Is anyone behind you who could testify to this matter and give us an answer to that question?

Ms. FALKNER. I think the nature of a public hearing is to get information.

Mr. GIBBONS. The question is, do you ever conduct a public hearing where the public is not permitted to ask a question?

Ms. FALKNER. What I am hearing is that we allow the questions

to be asked. In some cases, we cannot provide an answer at the

public hearing.

Mr. GIBBONS. In response to my earlier question, is it the policy

of your Department to answer questions, obviously that would then

correct that previous misstatement that it is not the policy of your

agency to answer the questions of the public because you are saying now that you don’t permit an answer to the question at these

hearings.

The other question that didn’t get answered is, at any of those

hearings are the public precluded from asking a question? That is

not a statement of saying, well, they can ask a question, but we

won’t answer it. Are they precluded from asking a question in any

of these hearings?

Ms. FALKNER. I am not familiar with that unless there is a question of timing. In some cases we have enormous attendance at

hearings and maybe not everybody may be allowed to speak.

Mr. HANSEN. Let’s have another round, shall we?

The gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. MARK UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As I begin, I just want to make the comment to the Chairman

and my colleagues that I stayed for the hearing because I have an

interest in this issue and bring an open mind and don’t bring a prescribed point of view on this. I think there are some important

issues that have been raised and this is an issue that ought to be

looked at in a bipartisan fashion. I look forward to doing that with

you.

In that spirit, I want to ask a question of Ms. Falkner. I think

you mentioned a concern that if H.R. 1864 were enacted it could

lead to some litigation over this issue of procedure. If we take the

bill to markup, is this something that we could address, some ideas

that you might have to speak to your concerns about litigation

based on procedures?

Ms. FALKNER. I think it is something that we would be willing

to work with the Committee on.

Mr. MARK UDALL. You would prefer to have additional time, to

provide us with some specifics? Is that what I hear you saying?

Ms. FALKNER. Yes.

Mr. MARK UDALL. I did—in response to my colleague from Nevada’s questions, the hearings that I have been to seem to me to

have two purposes, one to gather input from the public; the second

102

purpose is often to educate the public. I know there is a balancing

act that has to take place. In my own experience of holding town

meetings, it seems to me the best policy is to allow the public to

speak as much as possible, to hear from them. I hope the agencies

involved continue to keep that in mind.

Let me direct a couple more questions your way. Moving to H.R.

1866, I read it as saying, and I am curious if you read it similarly

that it would require the Fish and Wildlife Service to revise its appeals and procedures for decisions under the Endangered Species

Act. Would you comment on that?

Also, answer if you can what is the current procedure when you

go through an appeals process around the ESA?

Ms. FALKNER. I am going to ask somebody from the Fish and

Wildlife Service to respond to those questions directly. They would

be more familiar with that appeals process and the opportunity

that somebody may have to make a comment on that decision, if

you don’t mind.

Mr. MARK UDALL. Is there somebody here who could do that? Mr.

Chairman, is that——

Mr. HANSEN. If they would step forward and grab a mike and

identify themselves, we would appreciate it.

Mr. MILLER. My name is Martin Miller. I am with the Division

of Endangered Species in the Fish and Wildlife Service. There is

no formal appeal process for a listing decision under the Endangered Species Act.

Mr. MARK UDALL. There is no formal process that you are aware

of before or after the decision?

Mr. MILLER. That is correct.

Mr. MARK UDALL. Mr. Chairman, at some point you may have

a comment on this as well, given your experience.

Ms. Falkner, when I looked at Mr. Bieti’s testimony—and if I

might add an aside, Mr. Bieti, maybe we could clarify your earlier

statement that you expressed some doubt about whether the Fish

and Wildlife Service and other have taken your input. But it

seemed that one concern about the hearings is that sometimes the

open house format is seen as less satisfactory. How do you go about

deciding when to use that open house format?

Ms. FALKNER. The agencies make a decision based upon the community that they are going into, the issues that are involved. For

example, if it is an Endangered Species Act listing and there is a

request for a formal hearing, they must go through a formal hearing. Otherwise, the intent of the Fish and Wildlife Service is to get

as much information out as quickly and easily as possible. The informal hearing such as open houses, by and large, seem to work

best. We have a lot of people attending those. There is much more

of a dialogue exchanged at those meetings in the context of a formal hearing.

Mr. MARK UDALL. You mentioned the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Is that similar to the approaches by the other Interior agencies?

Can you comment?

Ms. FALKNER. They make decisions based upon the nature of the

issue involved, the community that they are going into, whether or

not there has been a request as well for a formal hearing.

103

Mr. MARK UDALL. Would you agree that it is a policy or at least

a mindset within the Department that a mix of hearings is often

appropriate, that that is considered at least in the process?

Ms. FALKNER. Yes. As you mentioned earlier, sometimes the purpose of a hearing can be two-fold. One is to actually exchange information and the second is to receive information from the public.

The agencies need the flexibility to determine how best to conduct

hearings for those particular purposes. Some people are intimidated by a more formal process and prefer to enter their comments

in a less formal setting such as an open house.

Mr. MARK UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my time is

up.

If I could make one brief comment which I think would speak to

your concern. It has to do with the Federal Highway Administration, which is not covered by part of this legislation, but there is

a proposal in my district to pave a particular rugged high alpine

road. The Federal Highway Administration continues to just hold

open house type meetings for public input. The communities all

around that area kept calling for more formal hearings, and the

Federal Highway Administration refused to call those kinds of

hearings. It speaks exactly to the situation that you brought attention to with this legislation.

Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate the gentleman’s comments.

We will have another round of questioning.

We don’t want to beat up on you folks. Please don’t take it that

way. We realize that you are very strong public servants, but our

job is to pass legislation when we see a problem.

Frankly, as I think back to all of the complaints that we have

had about public hearings, the main one goes this way. It says, the

agency, whoever it may be, in many cases the Fish and Wildlife especially, comes in with preconceived plans that are already determined and then work to that. Honestly, I have heard employees of

different organizations say, we just got to go through these hoops

before we can implement what we want to do anyway. I will ask

you three gentlemen, have you had that experience or am I just

getting the wrong complaints or are these just a bunch of people

who are perennial naggers?

Mr. MONAHAN. I would say your assessment is correct. There

were decisions made, and it goes back to the general management

plan and the Director’s Order No. 2 which states that that is first

tier in the planning process. Unfortunately, this is a done deal, as

has been said, and predetermined.

You talked about the hearings earlier. They had an open period

of 60 days for review, and then it was left not to the National Park

Service, here to Congress or to the regional administrator, but to

the local superintendent to determine whether he wanted to extend

the opportunity that people had to address concerns that they had.

He denied that.

A lot of what we have seen in Gettysburg and continue to see basically about the National Park Service made the decision and was

going to move ahead regardless—that was very clear when they ignored your wishes when you called the plan fatally flawed, this

Committee, and asked to have it stopped and be redone and then

proceeded to put it through the 30-day, no action period. So as is

104

very clear in my mind and minds of many other people, when they

make a decision, they just, as you say, jump through the hoops.

Mr. HANSEN. Before I came here, I was in the State legislature,

and I was speaker of the house. We had a public hearing with the

Federal folks in the State capital. And Scott Mathieson, who was

governor at the time, really fine gentleman, different political persuasion than I am, we sat and listened to that. Almost every legislator there testified a certain way, as did the public at two other

meetings. It came out exactly the way they presented, and it didn’t

change one iota.

Scott was really ticked off. I remember him flying back and beating up on Secretary Cecil Anders at the time, saying what the hell

are these meetings for? They didn’t pay attention to us.

That is when one of the guys that conducted the meeting said,

I don’t care you guys said, we had to go through these hoops.

I found it very distressing. I hope that isn’t the case. If I hold—

back to Ms. Falkner, why would it be? This is an unfair question

because I am using knowledge that you don’t have, and I apologize

to you. Why would it be we get so many complaints about you

folks?

Ms. FALKNER. I am sorry?

Mr. HANSEN. Why do we get more complaints about the Park

Service and Fish and Wildlife on hearings than we do on any other

agency in government?

Ms. FALKNER. As I said, Mr. Chairman, I am unfamiliar with the

complaints that you are receiving.

Mr. HANSEN. I will get you some. That is only fair. That is not

fair to ask you that kind of question. I realize that.

But you say, why are we getting complaints on all of these folks?

That is why we have hearings like this. We have some hang-ups.

We know that you operate under different laws. Some of us are of

the opinion that maybe we should have had a hearing on the

Grand Staircase Escalante, but we fully realize that was done

under the 1906 antiquities law and did not require that as some

of these others do.

Mr. Monahan, do you want to make a comment?

Mr. MONAHAN. I consider myself a friend of the parks, and I

have worked over the years as I grew up in Gettysburg to support

the National Park Service in many ways. The unfortunate part is

that many people that live in and around a National Park have an

attitude, and the attitude is the Park Service will do what the Park

Service is going to do. Unfortunately, they did it one too many

times in Gettysburg, and that is why all of the controversy has

erupted.

I want to be clear with these folks that are here today. I think

the National Park Service is an institution that we need to give our

support to, but the other side of the coin is that I don’t think in

many instances it goes both ways. I just want to be on the record

speaking as a friend of the park even though I have testified on

serious conditions that have been occurring in Gettysburg.

Mr. HANSEN. We have 370 something units in the Park Service

now. The majority of them do a darn good job. Secondly, a lot of

these folks can only operate under the laws that come out of this

105

group. We give them a law, a lot of latitude. They have to interpret

it and go from there. Tough job. Pleasing everybody is very hard.

Mr. Matson, your comments.

Mr. MATSON. I would like to comment in terms of a responsive

process that we can deal with that might be standardized between

the agencies that are involved in land management or resource

management issues. The only avenue that is left open to us if we

don’t have an adequate public response process and questions and

answers and appeals is litigation. Then you are talking about expense and cost and frustration and time. Those are the kinds of

things that local communities and small county governments cannot afford to do. We think this would be a real nice process to help

deal with some of that stuff and get issues dealt with in a more

responsive manner.

Mr. HANSEN. I agree with you. Especially the little guy when he

gets into this and he has no appeal but the court. He is pretty well

had.

As you mention in your testimony, look at all of the little guys

that have gone under, especially down in your area. I use

Escalante sawmills as a classic example. And the company I think

you used to be associated with, Kaibab Industries, they finally

threw their hands in the air and that type of thing.

The gentleman from Nevada.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I only have one brief final question, because I think it deals exactly with the subject that we are talking about here in the whole

process in an effort to get to some public confidence in the decision

process. I would go back to Ms. Falkner and ask her if there has

ever been a discussion within the agency with regard to establishing an appeals process for these various Park Services and Fish

and Wildlife Service so there is an available recourse for some of

these decisions? Have you ever had a such a discussion within your

Department of Interior?

Ms. FALKNER. I am unfamiliar with that type of discussion. I can

find out whether that kind of discussion has ever occurred, but I

am unfamiliar with that.

Mr. GIBBONS. Would you ask that question and submit it for the

record for this Committee, whether there has been a discussion and

when and get the details and the record of that decision?

Ms. FALKNER. Yes.

[The information follows:]

Mr. GIBBONS. With that, Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.

Mr. HANSEN. I would just like to end it on this.

Ms. Falkner, you may be of the opinion in your testimony that

the Interior Department opposes these two pieces of legislation. I

don’t know if that is in cement, we oppose it regardless of what you

say in it, or is there a place you would like to give us some opportunity or some input that you feel would make it better legislation

of if you just feel it is unnecessary, like you say in your statement,

let us know that. But if you feel there is something in there that

would improve it or possibly make the whole process better, we

would like to hear from you. If not, we are going to continue ahead

with this legislation. If you would like to write us a letter saying

106

the President is going to suggest a veto, I would like to have that

because that will tell me what to pocket it with before I send it to

the White House.

With that, thank you very much. We will consider this adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ