COLLEGE PARK, GA. Hon. Roy A. TAYLOR, Chairman, House Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, Washington, D.C. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COMMITTEE: An analysis of the total provisions of the Cumberland Island National Seashore House Bill, as introduced by Representative Stuckey, as applied to the facts of property ownerships on Cumberland reveal an indirect and, I am sure, inadvertent, gross discrimination against my clients. The provisions of the Bill also add up to a pretty fair job of discrimination in so far as my own personal property rights and privileges are concerned. I have title or control of a fraction less than one acre of land on the Island; together with easements rights to a docking and service area facility; together with easements in certain roads on the Island and the easement use of 780 feet on seashore. Basically this discrimination is accomplished by modifying the "Eminent Domain" provision of the Bill as it is applied to some folks but not modifying this provision as it is applied to other folks-more particularly me and my clients and a few other property owners similarly situated. A lot of these other folks who are being favored have not had rights to their property any longer than we have had rights to ours and in many other instances only a year or two longer. Let's take the application of "Eminent Domain" on the Little Cumberland area of the Island. That's where record title to fifty (50) and more two (2) acre tracts are in individual ownerships. These fine people get to build homes in the future and get to use their property for resident non-commercial purposes under the protection of a "Trust Agreement" provision of the Bill which, when effectuated, precludes the use of "Eminent Domain" to take their property. There is no such similar provision protecting my clients-or me or others similarly situated. Let's take the "Special Contracts of Purchase" that the Natonal Parks Foundation has been entering into and may enter into when purchasing property from some of the large landowners. These "special contracts" protect the sellers use of present and future improvements on portions of properties sold and provisions of these "special contracts" became law and preclude the use of "Eminent Domain" to take away these use rights. Let me also call your attention to a cut-off date of February 1, 1970 for improvements to have to have been erected or else through "Eminent Domain" this Bill allows the Secretary to take our property without reservation. My clients acquired their rights as a matter of public record on July 7, 1970. At this time we had never heard of any National Seashore concept. Even a year ago there was talk about part of the Island for Park purposes, part of the Island for National Seashore purposes, and part of the Island for private development including commercial operations. I'm simply stating that if anybody is going to be allowed to maintain a home or to build any residential improvements on the Island, I want the Legislation that's passed by Congress to give my clients and myself the same rights given anybody else and I don't want the use of Foundations, Trusts, or Special Agreements modifying law that says it's o.k. for you-but not o.k. for me. I think you gentlemen will agree and I so make the request of you to see that the rights and privileges of my clients and myself are protected in this respect. Thank you. Very truly yours, HENRY G. CRAWFORD, Attorney. WOODBINE, GA. Hon. Roy A. TAYLOR, Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN TAYLOR: A quote from Mr. Franklin Foster to the Subcommittee on page three of his statement: The National Park Foundation has made agreements with other landowners where they permitted them to keep their homes, have the privilege of building new homes, and retain substantial acreage until the death of their children presently living. I strongly feel that my family should have the same equal right to our land. The size of the lot or when we purchased it should have no bearing. We want this for our own pleasure and nothing more. Your consideration to this request is deeply appreciated. GEORGE L. HANNAFORD. Hon. Roy A. TAYLOR, THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA, INC. Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, Longworth Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you kindly include in the Hearings Record on H.R. 9859, the Cumberland Island National Seashore, the enclosed statement by Mr. William Voigt of Blackshear, Georgia. The requisite three copies are enclosed. The Izaak Walton League of America wholeheartedly supports placing Cumberland Island in the public domain, and is pleased to identify with Mr. Voigt's observations and recommendations. Cumberland Island has long enjoyed a priority position within the League as one of those barrier islands which should be placed in the public domain. We are most pleased that the Committee is giving this important acquisition attention at this time. Cumberland Island represents outstanding ecological, scienific, biological and recreational values which are becoming ever more treasured in our society. In our judgment, the Committee has an outstanding opportunity in this legislation to solve some of the vexing management problems which have in the past plagued other public lands, particularly the National parks and seashores. We urge your favored consideration of H.R. 9859, particularly with the amendments suggested in Mr. Voigt's letter. Sincerely, Enclosure. RAYMOND C. HUBLEY, Jr., STATEMENT OF WILLIAM VOIGT, JR., BLACKSHEAR, Ga. I am William Voigt, Jr., R.F.D. 1, Blackshear, Georgia, 31516. At the outset I would like the record to show that I am heartily in favor of having the environmental values of Cumberland Island, Georgia, safely put in Government hands. My statement is that of a private citizen, but I speak with some background in environmental matters, and with personal knowledge of Cumberland Island. I am a former executive director of the Izaak Walton League of America; of the Pennsylvania Fish Commission; and of the quasi-official agency of New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland that produced and advocated the enactment of Public Law 91-575, the Federal-Interstate Susquehanna River Basin Compact. I have visited Cumberland Island twice in the last sixty days, both times at my own expense, to observe its present condition and to inquire about historical and cultural factors that have a bearing on its use and future. From April 13 to 15, 1972, as the representative of the Public Lands Committee of the Izaak Walton League, I took part in the Conference held at Yosemite on the future management and administration of our National Park System. So far the public has to a considerable extent been excluded from Cumberland. since it has remained almost entirely untouched by commercial exploitation or development over most of the last half century. A small resort hotel was built at the north end of the island in the 1890s, and went out of business as such early in this century. Greyfield, a residence of the formerly extensive Thomas Carnegie Estate, has been operated as an overnight lodge for paying guests for the last six years by its owner, Mr. O. R. Ferguson, a Carnegie descendant; the guests come to Cumberland by boat or light private plane. I understand the National Park Foundation has acquired approximately twothirds of the land on Cumberland since late in 1970. It obtained about 3,000 acres from one Charles Fraser, and the remainder from several Carnegie heirs who were willing to sell; courthouse records indicate one heir donated his holdings to the Foundation. Under the terms of this bill, if the remaining owners of private land do not willingly come to terms with the Foundation, their property may be secured "by whatever legal method" is available to the National Park Service. It appears from records I have seen that the Foundation already has spent in excess of $4 million for presently owned acreage on Cumberland to be held in trust for eventual conveyance to the Park Service. This is a sizable investment and, though I cannot, of course, speak for the Foundation, I am sure it will make defendable effort to gain title to the entire 25,000 acres of Cumberland Island. I think it is obvious by now that I support the creation on Cumberland of a federal reservation to be administered by the National Park Service. I would recommend, however, that H.R. 9859 be considered an imperfect draft, and in the following I suggest specific amendment. As to Section 3, Page 2, I propose that in the event any or all of Kings Bay Ocean Miitary Terminal, which lies on the Georgia mainland across Cumberland River from the island, should be declared surplus by the Department of Defense, the Department of the Interior should be required to use such portions as are adaptable to its own mainland activities and to those of its concessioners based on the mainland. In Section 4(d) (3), certain language in Line 3 seems inappropriate. I ask that you strike out the words "during the two-year period" in that line. As the sentence now reads it charges the present private owners of Little Cumberland Island with meeting specific requirements concerning development or inconsistent uses for only that two-year period. Thereafter, the present language would appear to allow any kind of development or exploitation on Little Cumberland. This is an important factor, as Little Cumberland is almost an integral part of Great Cumberland, being separated from its northern end by only the width of a tidal stream known as Christmas Creek. After the two years had passed the Federal Government would seem to have no resource if Little Cumberland was exploited or developed in a manner that could be considered a threat to Great Cumberland's status or incompatible with uses allowed on it. In Section 5, Page 6, present language would allow public hunting and trapping on Cumberland. Public hunting and trapping are inconsistent with the dominant values and opportunities Cumberland will bring to the public. Therefore, references to hunting and trapping should be deleted from Lines 11, 12, 16, 17, and 22 on Page 6 of H.R. 9859. Under the no-hunting rule an overpopulation of certain species of birds and animals, probably wild turkeys and whitetail deer, could come about. A Chief Ecologist should determine when such overpopulation threatens, and should supervise trapping and transplanting the surpluses to mainland areas chosen in consultation with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. With respect to Section 7, I suggest that the member of the Advisory Commission indicated on Page 7, Lines 20 to 22, be changed from a person recommended by the Coastal Area Planning and Development Commission to a person "from that branch of the University of Georgia most closely identified with ecological conditions and problems of the South Atlantic coastal region." Please note that the planning and development agency referred to in the present form of the bill is devoted largely to promotional activities connected with industry and tourism. I have no antipathy to the commission and its activities, but contend that exploitation and development have little to commend them where the management of Cumberland Island in the public interest is concerned. Instead, conservation of existing values and recuperation of sickened values is the paramount consideration. At Cumberland, at least in certain extensive areas, human use should be restrained, held in check, not promoted or developed, so the island's environmental wounds may be healed, and so its remaining superlative qualities, which are many, may be maintained at their present high level. Consistent with that viewpoint, I propose that on Page 8, in Line 10, you strike the word "development" as being improper in relation to the island's future. Instead, "protection and restoration as needed of the ecological systems" would be far more appropriate language where the word "development" now is found. Then, I suggest that you delete "(1)" in Line 11 on that page and end the sentence after the word "service" in Line 12. The purpose here is to remove from consideration now or in the foreseeable future the construction of any bridge or causeway from the mainland to Cumberland. Ferries there would operate in sheltered waters and should be safe in all respects with the possible exception of an instance involving the passing of a hurricane, but at such a time ferry service should of course be halted until the storm had diminished. The destructive impacts of a causeway in salt marsh and brackish water areas are great, and the cost of a bridge at least three miles long would be tremendous. I say to you, Sir, that we should let Cumberland prove it can absorb more people than ferries can haul before we start thinking of a bridge. This brings me to a fundamental problem I hope the Committee will consider in connection with H.R. 9859. The term "National Seashore", as now understood and administered, does not seem to consider adequately the diversity of natural resources, ecological conditions, and public values found on this island. Problems of broadly similar nature exist at Assateague National Seashore and at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, where the emphasis on mass recreation goes counter to the need for a more gentle treatment of sensitive environments This being so, the question rises of what approach should be used to solve the dilemma involving Cumberland. I recognize that, because of past and present situations and activities, not all of Cumberland at this time meets the high standards properly required of a National Park. Yet, unless precautions are taken now, giving Cumberland the designation of a National Seashore could result in environmental devastation fully as severe as any that could eventuate under private ownership. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I earnestly recommend that in the language of the bill and in the Committee report the National Park Service be directed to plan the uses of this island and so manage it that its predominant ecological, scientific, educational, and inspirational qualities should be enhanced. To insure this, the Committee may wish to consider the following: First, that the National Park Service be required to prepare a plan for such use of the island that in years to come, when presently damaged values shall have been restored through technology and the restorative ministrations of time, this nation may have the option of giving Cumberland a designation equivalent to what we now hold a National Park ought to be. Next, the scientific staff of the National Park Service must, I believe, be given a greater voice in determining from an ecoolgical standpoint what uses to be made of Cumberland are sound. One of the conclusions reached at the recent conference on the future of the National Park System was that the Service does not now have adequate knowledge of values that exist in the properties it now administers. Nor does it have the funds and technological manpower to accumulate that kind of understanding. As this relates to Cumberland, I suggest that it is important that the Committee find ways to assure that the Cumberland Island staff shall include a Chief Ecologist who is schooled, trained, and experienced in the realities of the often sensitive ecological systems of our South Atlantic coastal islands. The Chief Ecologist should have the capability to judge what areas of Cumberland may be given heavy, medium, light, or even no human use at all at a given time, so his advice may carry proper weight with his superiors. It is my opinion, Mr. Chairman, based on what I have seen and learned, that only in this general way can we achieve restoration of areas that already have been harmed, and prevent an irreversible downward trend elsewhere on Cumberland Island. My proposal appears to be consistent with present thinking in high places in the Park Service, which has in recent weeks begun a pilot program intended to lessen somewhat the adverse impact on environmntal and social values of heavy seasonal use at certain existing units of the National Park System. In essence, what I propose for Cumberland is that here we initiate a forward looking program of preservation of existing superlative natural values, coupled with one of restoring areas that have been dealt with somewhat harshly, to the end that this distinctive and historical "Golden Isle" may fully live up to its name. Respectfully submitted. WILLIAM VOIGT, Jr. ROGERS, TOWERS, BAILEY, JONES & GAY, COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, GENTLEMEN: It has come to my attention that Congressman Stuckey of the 8th Congressional District of Georgia has sponsored a bill to condemn Cumberland Island, which is off the coast of St. Mary's, Georgia. Hearings were held in Washington last week and none of the property owners were advised of that fact. The island is currently owned in the main by the heirs of Andrew Carnegie, the heirs of Asa Candler, and the State of Georgia. Mr. Robert Davis also owns a 30-acre tract on this island of approximately 12,000 acres of high land. My mother, Mrs. G. C. Henderson, owns a lot on the marsh side of the island on which I plan to construct a residence. I visited the island Sunday last and discovered a beach, 18 miles in length, which is completely unspoiled, and an equally virgin marshland and interior with an abundance of wildlife. I was told by Mr. Davis that the Government intends to ferry approximately ten thousand people a day to the island, and this influx of people would completely destroy the last remaining island off the coast of Georgia. Furthermore, if the Government condemned this island, the condemnation costs would be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and I don't believe that expense can be currently justified. For the reasons aforesaid, I am totally against Congressman Stuckey's bill and I would greatly appreciate a negative vote on your behalf. In the event passage of this bill is inevitable. I would propose that it be amended to allow existing property owners to build private residences and retain homestead rights therein for their lifetime, and, in addition, that the island be retained in its primitve state and not allow large numbers of people to come onto the island, even on a daily basis. Again, I would urge that this bill be defeated in its entirety and allow Cumberland to remain unspoiled. Please make this letter a part of the record of hearings held on H.R. 9859. Very truly yours, J. GROVER HENDERSON. FALLIGANT, DOREMUS & KARSMAN, Hon. WILLIAM STUCKEY, DEAR CONGRESSMAN STUCKEY: Enclosed herewith is copy of a modification in the Cumberland Island National Park Bill. The suggested provisions in this Bill are designed to eliminate problems similiar to those recently encountered at the Assateague Island National Seashore where consent to build a 2,000 foot pier was granted by the Park Service. It contains provisions that I think should be considered during the hearings and after. These suggestions are formulated by persons with great experience and standing in this field. I have been asked to present them personally and am happy to do so. Cordially yours, OGDEN DOREMUS. A CUMBERLAND ISLAND NATIONAL PARK BILL-TO ESTABLISH THE CUMBERLAND ISLAND NATIONAL PARK IN THE STATE OF GEORGIA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in order to provide for the preservation and public outdoor recreation use and enjoyment of certain significant natural shoreline lands and waters of the United States that remain un |